New answers tagged patching
Nope. You have two main misconceptions: one, just because a number of publicized ransomware programs use RC4, it doesn't mean they have to, or that they couldn't just switch to AES for newer versions; two, patches cannot prevent an algorithm from being used on a computer (patches affect the behavior of a single piece of software, but can't generally cover ...
Is the client willing to tolerate high risk? If Microsoft is warning us about an OS and we don't act, it is risky. I don't care what secure control you have running on top of the kernel, you have a castle of sand. Know the risk, save money by upgrade if possible. Otherwise , it is just fomenting trouble and adding pollutive elements to the CyberBiota.
To date, there have been no cases that I know of, have read about, heard about however, the recent Target breach left Target vulnerable to a Negligence lawsuit because they turned OFF the alerts of their security appliance (read about that here: ...
Microsoft have been telling us for a while that most customers no longer bother to test patches. The reason is that the cost of testing so many patches so regularly is prohibitive compared to the very low risk of patches causing problems. This is especially true now that patch release cycles are so short since a faulty patch can often itself be patched in ...
Top 50 recent answers are included