It's got holes like swiss cheese, man!

>>59889391
Windows XP SP3. /thread

>>59889446
>Anon thinks that this is proof

>>59889470
Well, it's used for victim machines in pentesting labs for a reason.

>>59889524
And what is that reason?

Look here for a list of how many vulnerabilities were discovered for each OS in 2015. Windows XP isn't even in the top 2015, and it was (and still is) the most popular old OS.

https://techtalk.gfi.com/2015s-mvps-the-most-vulnerable-players/

>>59889582
*top 15

>>59889565
It's old and unpatched. You didn't specify any conditions in your post, so I took the liberty of posting proof. You can't define the circumstances after the fact, just because you don't want to see the results.

I wonder if the guys that cause these errors are ever fired or have their careers halted

>>59889391
To quote from >>59889582
"It’s critical to note that Microsoft Windows 2003, which had 36 new vulnerabilities discovered in 2015, is no longer supported by Microsoft. Unless you have paid for a custom support agreement, you’d better not be running any 2003 in your environment, as that’s 36 unpatched vulnerabilities discovered."
You wouldn't even know what the current number of vulns are in an unsupported software. Nobody is reporting it. So using the above example you could have 36 + (insert any number, because we don't know or care).

>>59889692
There's no conspiracy here, mate. I want somebody to show me that using old, unpatched, outdated software is dangerous.

Just before support for XP ended, everyone was sure that it would turn into a hacker's playground, with visions of basically everyone using it getting infected and exploited.

That didn't happen. Why?

>>59889857
You're using fear-mongering to support fear-mongering

>>59889870
Find the number of people using XP and the breakdown of the patch versions they are using. First of all, you can't, and secondly, how would you know if they are infected? Only the botnets know the real answers.

File: Vulnerabilties-by-vendor.png (44KB, 491x297px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 491x297px

>lenovo has nearly 0 vulnerabilities
Is this why the Thinkpad is the best the best the best?

>>59890054
>fear-mongering
No, it's called not willing to gamble. Shodan is full of clowns like you who thought they knew better and lost.

>>59890131
I've been using outdated software for years now, so I guess my gambles are paying off. In fact, I've never lost! I don't even use an antivirus! What are those odds, anon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB-7jcfQVC8

In this video from 2015 a middle-aged woman attempts to infect Windows 2000 by visiting all kinds of nefarious websites and fails completely.

>>59889870
You can get security updates for xp untill 2025. Simple regedit. They still updating as it's the most used pos os.

>>59890193
Yes that's right, except it's until 2019. I don't even bother attempting to install those new patches because of how slow Windows Update has become.

>>59890111
lenovo .... chinese spyware.. us gov used to use ibm's when they were still american...

ITT: We believe what we want to believe.

>>59890225
In this post: anon doesn't make an argument

>>59890215
>chinese spyware
[CITATION NEEDED]

I also unironically feel more comfortable with the chinks spying on me than NSA doing the same

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/mmpc/2013/10/29/infection-rates-and-end-of-support-for-windows-xp/

>>59890351
>Microsoft Technet article

Oh yeah, totally not biased at all.

I mean, it's not like Microsoft has an agenda to get people to upgrade or anything.

>>59890225
>Muh common scents!

File: no-of-vulnerabilities.png (17KB, 634x307px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 634x307px

As you can see in pic related, at least 5x as many vulnerabilities were discovered in the newer versions of Windows compared to the old, which makes them more likely to be infected, especially since their install base is bigger (though surprisingly not much bigger than XP's)

The only security "features" implemented in newer Windows versions to combat infection are UAC (User Account Control) and Windows Defender (Microsoft's own antivirus).

UAC is totally useless since anybody looking to inadvertently install malware is going to press OK and Continue no matter what. Windows Defender has a poor detection rate and will most likely miss most things.

>>59890238
Too lazy to type it all out,desu.

>>59890619
That's a lie and you know it.

File: Windahz2000isdabest.png (304KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1680x1050px

ITT /g/ failed to prove that it's dangerous to use old software on a computer facing the internet.

For those of you who also browse /pol/, believing old software is insecure just because somebody told you so is the bluepill. Being redpilled means that you can substitute a small amount of knowledge and common sense for the placebo that is supposed "security".

Greetings from Windows 2000. Did you know that you can still use Outlook 2000 with GMail? Yeah, I was surprised as well.

Ta ta

>>59890491
source on that data?

>>59890878
Oy vey, attacking pol when its the nu males and lib shits the ones who must have the latest win10 update, latest software patch and shit for all those updates and new (((features)))

>>59890878
No one cares, autist.

If you were redpilled, you'd use an open-source OS you compiled yourself so you can actually see what its doing.

The obvious answer is to have an online computer (probably a laptop so it can be put away), and an offline computer that's nice to use and you never have to worry about infections and other shit.

>>59890111
>tfw use dell
>american and still no vulnerabilities
feelsgoodman.jpg

>>59890878
My man of african ancestry.
Even though i don't use 2000 as my daily driver i still have a laptop who runs it for compatibility.
Also the red bluetooth icon, why even using bluetooth if you have no adapter?

File: 51Zp0iHAg7L.jpg (39KB, 325x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 325x500px

it's only something to *seriously* be concerned about if you're running a publicly accessible and/or frequently used server, or if you use peer-based file sharing software constantly. on personal desktops that are simply for productivity and entertainment, the risk factors are relatively low, and you can easily get by running old OSes like BeOS, completely outdated LiGNUxes, OS X Tiger, Windows XP etc...

that being said, it is always a smart move to be running decent firewall software on your machine (or better yet firmware with a good firewall on your router), and even on non-Windows machines to keep stuff like ClamAV and rootkit checkers installed. It's also always a good idea to keep your software on the outdated platforms as current as possible, and if that's not feasible, to use software that is so obscure no one has really targeted it.

this is all it really comes down to.

p.s. if you really feel the need to use tor, only use it via TAILS (without persistence). that simple. though i don't know why anyone who doesn't live under a despotic regime, or who isn't involved in some seriously subversive violent activity, would use TOR. except to score realllllllly suite drugs, but even then it's too sketchy for that now, and better avoided due to invasive ISPs and shit.