[Security] Windows XP vulnerable to zero-day threats every day and forever

[FlashD]

As Microsoft pointed out already, support for Windows XP will stop April 8, 2014. This is less than a year from now and even if so, some of you probably think that this might not be an issue, since the operating system is still going to be useful afterwards. As much as I can agree on the "useful" part, there are things that might pose concerns.

One of them and really the most important one is security. Due to Windows XP reaching it's end-of-life (EOL), security patches will not be made available. Because different versions of Windows share the same architecture and with it the same vulnerabilities, releasing a patch for one system, but not another poses a huge security risk. Patches for newer operating systems could be reverse engineered to find vulnerabilities, which would be used by exploits to attack users with EOL software.

Is this a valid concern? Absolutely. Microsoft is clearly desperate to migrate XP users to newer versions of Windows. Not just for the new revenue, but also because unpatched, millions of PCs can become easy targets to host botnet and other types of malware that can disrupt the modern PC ecosystem. Because attacks drastically evolved in the past few years and have changed in nature (for instance there are less viruses, but more phishing attacks), Windows XP isn't equipped to handle these threats as it's security model is outdated.

So if you still own machines with Windows XP or an older operating system, it's the appropriate time to look around and migrate to something newer.

Thread inspired by this blog post.

[nslay]

Good riddance to Windows XP. It couldn't die sooner with all its annoying UI glitches that hinder productivity. Still, back in its day, it was superior to Windows ME and Windows 2000.

[GameGeeks]

I thought the stopped support of XP back in either June or July. Either way, happily on 7 now and don't plan to get 8, heard it's a nightmare, much like Vista.

[demonix]

I thought the stopped support of XP back in either June or July. Either way, happily on 7 now and don't plan to get 8, heard it's a nightmare, much like Vista.

I'm afraid your being misled as I took to windows 8 like a duck takes to water (except for figuring out how to turn the computer off, but that was only the first time), and I'm a hater of all those start button addons since there's no need to keep something that has been around for almost two decades (I also find the newer metro style easier to deal with since I can have it only show what I want without going through miles of menus to get there.

The only reason I haven't upgraded my desktop system is because of certain compatibility issues that modern operating systems have with some games, along with upgrading wiping out all the installed programs (I have five windows server 2012 keys to use and a method to make it act almost like a desktop operating system).

[GameGeeks]

I'm afraid your being misled as I took to windows 8 like a duck takes to water (except for figuring out how to turn the computer off, but that was only the first time), and I'm a hater of all those start button addons since there's no need to keep something that has been around for almost two decades (I also find the newer metro style easier to deal with since I can have it only show what I want without going through miles of menus to get there.

The only reason I haven't upgraded my desktop system is because of certain compatibility issues that modern operating systems have with some games, along with upgrading wiping out all the installed programs (I have five windows server 2012 keys to use and a method to make it act almost like a desktop operating system).

Not really, from what I've read it's really annoying to use and you have to jump through hoops to do certain things that you really shouldn't have to. Like you said, it takes more steps to shut down the computer which is also true for things like starting programs. I should be able to start a program or shut down within five seconds, not twenty seconds. Not to mention the entire UI seems like it should be on a phone or a tablet and not a desktop. It renders the OS extremely clumsy for PC users. I can't remember a worse UI from a Windows OS.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

Not really, from what I've read it's really annoying to use and you have to jump through hoops to do certain things that you really shouldn't have to. Like you said, it takes more steps to shut down the computer which is also true for things like starting programs. I should be able to start a program or shut down within five seconds, not twenty seconds. Not to mention the entire UI seems like it should be on a phone or a tablet and not a desktop. It renders the OS extremely clumsy for PC users. I can't remember a worse UI from a Windows OS.

Yup, accessing a lot of things takes unnecessary effort with Windows 8.

[demonix]

Yup, accessing a lot of things takes unnecessary effort with Windows 8.

Then explain what takes unnecessary effort? (shut down isn't one as it only takes three clicks (accessing the charms bar isn't counted) which is the same amount it takes to shut down on XP (it only takes me three seconds to start the shutdown process, so I don't know where your getting twenty seconds from) unless you create a shortcut that resides on the start screen that cuts it down to one click).

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

Then explain what takes unnecessary effort? (shut down isn't one as it only takes three clicks (accessing the charms bar isn't counted) which is the same amount it takes to shut down on XP (it only takes me three seconds to start the shutdown process, so I don't know where your getting twenty seconds from) unless you create a shortcut that resides on the start screen that cuts it down to one click).

I think it was accessing the control panel.

I only gave it a few tries.

>twenty seconds.
<That's what @GameGeeks said. Mind you...I only agreed but I'm not using numbers.

[GameGeeks]

Yes it took three steps to shut down on XP. But they reduced that to two with 7. Now admittedly those times are a bit exaggerated but everything I saw when it came out screamed touch screen. Yes there's a regular desktop, but that stupid start menu is still there in the background taking up resources.

[FlashD]

What has Windows 8 and it's shut down process to do with this topic which is about Windows XP and it's security issue after they cease to support it?

BTW: The above is rhetoric, but I hope you all get the hint.

[Jeroen Mathon]

XP is way to insecure especially service pack 1.
Just install Kali on a notebook run some exploits and your in.
I got into my old schools Computer Administration that way.
Linux is the safest.

[demonix]

What has Windows 8 and it's shut down process to do with this topic which is about Windows XP and it's security issue after they cease to support it?

BTW: The above is rhetoric, but I hope you all get the hint.

Some part of my opinion of windows 8 was taken out of context, and it snowballed into this (although my opinion on the usability of windows 8 won't change).

As for the control panel, it can be accessed faster by going through the settings section in the charms bar while on the desktop (it should take no more then four seconds from evoking the charms bar to get to the control panel option).

And I hope that this ends that little debate.

[AmandaNerdBot]

I run Windows XP inside a virtual machine. Maybe I should nuke my VM images and start running a more advanced windows OS for my virtual machines.

[demonix]

I run Windows XP inside a virtual machine. Maybe I should nuke my VM images and start running a more advanced windows OS for my virtual machines.

As long as you don't do anything stupid that could threaten the security of those virtual machine then you should be fine running them as they are.

[AmandaNerdBot]

I'm still using a Windows XP virtual machine. So maybe I should stop using it, because I don't want to make myself vulnerable to zero-day exploits.

[FlashD]

It is recommended that you get rid of them by April 8, unless they don't have access to the Internet, nor you move files from the Internet into them. XP is still a good OS for specific stuff, it just has to be locked away from the web.

[rf switch]

If you've still been using a PC with XP it should have been time for you to look at moving on a while ago. We've gone through Vista, 7, 8, and soon we'll be at 8.1 which is supposedly fixing issues just by adding the start button.

Linux is the safest.

That's only because nobody uses it. It's the same reason why Macs are safer than Windows.

[demonix]

It's the same reason why Macs are safer than Windows.

Except that there are malware and viruses that target macs because the users were under the false pretence that there was nothing that could infect them (that's why the more recent versions of the mac OS have a anti-malware program included as standard).

[rf switch]

Except that there are malware and viruses that target macs because the users were under the false pretence that there was nothing that could infect them (that's why the more recent versions of the mac OS have a anti-malware program included as standard).

If more people used Linux there would be more malware and viruses for that as well. There are actually malware and viruses for Linux. If you're the type to make a virus or malware you'll usually choose the larger install base. It isn't always that Windows or back in the day Internet Explorer always had more security holes it's just they were extremely popular so more people worked at exploiting them.

[DeathBlade/13.666]

XP is way to insecure especially service pack 1.
Just install Kali on a notebook run some exploits and your in.
I got into my old schools Computer Administration that way.
Linux is the safest.

Unix and FreeBSD are safer.