Oh dear oh dear.
Its not a bold statement. Its an ACCURATE statement.
No one has access to Microsoft source code.
Except Microsoft.
the NSA found this bug. I would assume they looked elsewhere as well.
The ransomware ONLY RUNS on microsoft machines.
Stop wriggling. This is 100% a microsoft problem.
No one in the professional IT world thinks differently or has any evidence to the contrary.
Why are you in denial and want it to be otherwise?
Shares in Microsoft?
I've still got a PC running Vista in a cupboard somewhere on the LAN.
8¬)
And there's been lots of talk, here and elsewhere, about who's to blame and how to fix things so it can't happen but they all seem to overlook one glaringly obvious point.
We've got into a situation where a large proportion of the world's economy depends on the use of variants of one particular operating system. It's unfortunate that this operating system has a poor reputation for security but even if it was much more secure there would still be a risk of a vulnerability being found and exploited at some time with the potential of causing widespread damage.
In the longer term this dependency on a single supplier needs to be removed. It won't be easy and will take considerable time and be expensive but it needs to be done.
Ok, so you run it on a machine on your LAN and it does a port scan on all the machines it finds within range and creates a report of what it finds?
I do have a 64 Bit Windows (10) machine I could put on, would it be easier for me to run it on that do you think?
Might be best. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
".....You dont need any kind of conspiracy theory to explain all the securi ty exploits in MS products, just monumental arrogance and contempt for the users. They ship version after version of a totally insecure product becaus e they dont have to care."
I feel the above rebuke is a bit unfair. Excepting some mission critical so ftware used in Defence systems, all software is prone to have bugs, worms,v irus, call what you will. Commercial large use software is subjected to fai r amount of debugging error fixing iterations , but, still the nature of th e beast is such all can not be assured 100% safe.
The intention is not deliberate as in Audi test software. And Microsoft has been trusted and business is largely dependent on its products and been us ing it with not so much of a whimper(I am happy myself when my pay is right ly computed and credited to by bank account month after month using MS prod ucts). While we take the numerous vehicle recalls for overlooked error fixi ng by the giant auto cos (some even caused loss of life of the driver, eg., unexplained loss of control in a 1.5 ton car/auto beast)we jump readily at the first software hack.
Philosophically nothing is perfect and thing will fail occasionally with se rious impact. Wisdom is to mend it fast and prevent one occurring in near f uture.
In essence its not even that: It resolves into a single conflict between various solutions to cost-v-benefit.
Uniformity has a huge increase in efficiency. Like it or not (and I don't) the total dominance of Microsoft allowed rapid application development for a single platform.
It also allowed rapid development of malware for a single platform
Think Irish potato blight. The potato allowed Ireland's population to mushroom.
It also allowed a blight to destroy a generation.
Pretty much, it fills a database which you can then dump to csv or xml, you need the paid version to get a pretty report.
All the individual pieces (nmap, ruby, postgres, pcap) work under windows, but it's one of those cases where you know 99% of the development has been done on linux.
I see there is now an nmap smb script, should be easier to get that going standalone, nmap installs quite nicely on windows, I haven't tried it ...
I blame Microsoft not for having buggy code or even for not fixing it, but for an attitude to the customer and the market that was utterly all about making money, and none at all about taking any responsibility for what they were doing.
We used to say 'designed to sell, not to work' or 'all chrome and tailfins, built on a tractor suspension'
In short they spent money not on securing and improving the code from an industrial strength perspective, but for layering eye candy and 'feetchas' onto a criminally obsolete chassis.
Windows was marketing led, and was 'buggered till it was saleable' and then money was spent on generating the perception that it had quality rather than on putting in any.
*nix was always short on 'feetchas' and eye candy, but it was a far far better chassis.There is a degree of security built in from the word go, simply because it started life as an operating system where messing with how it worked was done by separate people to those using it.
Very true. However, if it has internet access you're going to need security patches as and when hackers find a way in. Which is going to cost. With a current OS, you (hopefully) get those free all the time it is supported.
I know the difference between Scotland and Wales on a map. Unlike apparently some.
"*nix was always short on 'feetchas' and eye candy, but it was a far far better chassis." But Unix has a "geek" stamp on it , not everyone can take a ride unless one is just that, a geek. I only view it in a different perspective. If only Mac was quick enough to respond to the AT & T RFP (Req For Proposal) before Microsoft , ie., Mac be ating PC at the nip, things could be different. Mac is largely Unix backbon e and supposedly robust. May be with lesser calamities, one could only gues s!
I am not talking bout that.
I am talking bout what was going on in the world of IT beyond the PC desktop, in the machine rooms and server farms.
Where It directors have budgets to spend on implementing industrial strength solutions.
And were pushed into Microsoft on the corporate desktop by marketing forces.
IN a corporate IT strategy you can hire all the geeks you need.
Linux is now what runs in most server rooms, and its fully supported by IBM redhat and the like.
On the corporate desktop it OUGHT to also run. But there are issues with specialist apps.
Mac never was *nix backbone, until OSX, and they destroyed its integrity anyway.
Thanks again Andy. I got this far but guess I'm missing an ip address range argument?
F:\Utils>nmap --script smb-vuln-ms17-010.nse
Starting Nmap 4.76 (
I had a look at the various help options and added a -sP but it then throws up a script error.
And why I prefer GUI solutions or GUI front ends. ;-(
Cheers, T i m
if you used the main installer from insecure.org, you have the zenmap gui ...
In message , snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com writes
Au contraire. The Post Office NT based Horizon system is absolutely perfect, utterly bug free, the only problems with the system being those lying, cheating postmasters who cannot, ever, be trusted.
I'd guess it's beyond you to work out why. Perhaps you manage at home with no internet access.
Oh so simple. That will be why ISPs do it too - and no one ever gets unwanted emails.
That will explain why it is the market leader, then.
I'm not convinced any OS would be secure against skilled and determined hackers. More like that hackers obviously concentrate on the most common (by far) one.
Not really, it's been pretty obvious since before 1997.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.