Have to stay with Windows XP!!

Cannot upgrade or buy new PC right now. Have to use Windows XP for at least another year. Need to do online transactions. What security software measures should I use to keep my PC free from hackers? There must be something we can do?

 

This supposedly blocks keylogging, non approved screen capture, non approved clipboard capture, and webcam hijacking:

http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/spyshelter_personal_free.html

I have read that it works with WinPatrol, but it clashed with PrivateFirewall on my XP PC. PrivateFirewall monitors for the same things, and I wasn't aware when I installed SpyShelter...

This type of behavior based protection won't protect your OS installation from being damaged, but it will make it much more difficult for someone to collect personal information from your PC...

You could go with a firewall, but it's a major chore for about 3 months with all the configuration pop ups to deal with. Really big learning curve with firewalls if you haven't used one before...

 

Read posts 7 and 9 in this thread

 

2 cents on using Windows XP...

I think post 9 in Earthling's link represents a distortion of the facts with regard to the threat in that I think it's fair play to make note of the fact that no Windows based PCs are secure. The patches help slightly, and succeeding versions of Windows have slightly improved security measures included. Those come at a price sometimes for users, but, ultimately, I would say it's a matter of user confidence whether to stay with Windows XP or to try to find a way to move to a more modern OS.

Honestly, I am looking forward to using Windows XP in the future. There seems to be a chicken little mentality about the whole thing that sort of amuses me. No offense, and I wouldn't advise anyone else to use it if they aren't comfortable doing so, but I am confident that I'm not going to be having any problems that would be associated with the end of MS support.

Will I be changing my user behavior? Not one bit. Do I buy online? I do, and I will continue to do so.

Again, I don't want to come across as telling anyone that they should use XP if they aren't comfortable with how secure the OS can be. For me, I am confident that it can be made secure enough for me to do the things I do on the net and with e-mail and so on...:major

 

For a skilled user like yourself few will argue, but with the ppl who are asking me for help it would be hard to overestimate just how little they know about these things and they are worried, and will remain worried no matter how much reassurance they get. Whether the threat is real or imaginery the only decent advice for them is not to use XP on the internet. My two pennyworth anyway.

 

I'm leaning towards AltoBo thinking with 'the sky is falling', it is, they have claimed the PC market is drying up, so how can they sell more PCs? There are some Antivirus companies that will continue XP support, so you got that going for you. But the idea that there are all these hackers sitting on all the vulnerabilities just waiting for M$ to abandon XP is somewhat questionable. Is there a hacker union that says "please hold all XP hacks until XP goes EOL"?
Not one of them has used a tool from this mass stockpile of "WMDs"?
I seem to recall a patch that was released by a third party, because M$ couldn't get a fix together themselves, so will XP truely be abandoned?
Just stay on top of security announcements going forward and maybe use a Linux boot CD for 'securing' your online transactions.

 

What patch would that be?


Nobody but MS has the source code to patch it, so it sounds more like a bandaid.

As for XP not being targeted more lately, I wouldn't discount that.

https://www.google.com/search?q=XP+...4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8


People can run what they want, just know the risks. XP users already get infected up the wazoo as it is, not having 0-days patched won't help that. Personally, I rather be safe than sorry. Installing GNU/Linux takes less time than repairing a stolen identity or drained bank account.

 

I wish I could continue to use XP but with my PC, the only antivirus I've found that works well with it is Microsoft's own antivirus. I was using Avast before that and noticed how it was screwing up my PC. If it didn't cost so much to switch to another operating system I'd do it ASAP. In fact right now I'm beating my head against the wall because I tried installing Ubuntu 13.10 into one of my PC's through a CD I ordered and man is it a bitch!

 

Most of that page talks about ATMs. Don't they use embedded which resets itself to factory on every restart?

 

How often do they restart though? Removing an infection is less worrisome. What concerns is how much sensitive data is taken before that happens.


I knew it talked about ATMs, that was why I linked it. ATMs are quite a bit more secure than home users. So seeing that increased activity should concern everyone, not just those that use ATMs

 

Yo Earthling, I really don't think so. I've taken my beatings I guess, and, for the sake of the thread I'll let you get away with saying so. That's because I do play around in areas of XP most don't go, and I use imaging and so on. Not really security stuff that I have messed with mostly.

I think this is a really interesting topic. I mean Microsoft is taking a beating with Windows 8. When 8 was about to be released, MS announced that the company would be reducing the value of Windows 7 by eliminating gadgets for Vista and 7. I mean, fine, but I have a marketing degree, and this is the cardinal sin in business...taking anything from your customers. Now, how do we know that MS isn't behind the scenes shelling out $$$ (in the form of money or prestige or publicity or jobs or whatever) for people to say "the sky is falling"? How do we know from a company that responds to the challenge of hackers by punishing their customers. Rambo goes in and saves the hostages...he'd have fixed Windows 7 and Vista. :-o

That said, I don't think it's really even fair to say that all security associated with a computer (PC networks like ATMs too) should be assigned to the maker of an operating system. In the case of Microsoft and Windows, I honestly think it's best that PC network security matters are left to companies and to software writers who have expertise in the area of security. The teller thing is a good example. I mean why can't there just be some security code that forces a person to use a valid bank card to retrieve cash. If there is, then it's this that is being overrun by thieves, not the OS in my opinion. So how does business respond? Have the problem fixed with more effective security add ons. By the way, I feel certain I could find examples of Windows 7 and 8 being exploited.

I don't think Microsoft will ever write effective security code. This is my impression based on what I have seen from them. I have to say I believed 15 years ago that MS wouldn't be able to effectively create security software. I think that's been true so far. At best you get a passing stab at security in any of the OSes so far. Again, I'm not expecting great PC security personally from any OS writer, anyway...

No offense, but this seems to imply that using GNU/Linux will make you 100% safe. What about all the sacrifices users have to make to use GNU/Linux? Many would say alot. There are oceans of software titles for Windows and there is much creativity and freedom of choice that goes along with those options. All that is lost when switching to GNU/Linux. This is sort of akin to asking an IBM compatible user to switch to Apple. Just isn't an option sometimes...many times.

I hope this discussion will mature into, "what can be done to improve security for PC users so that they don't have to worry about buying online?" and so on. This is the important angle moving forward. XP could be protected, and it has all the non-security features business would need to build on. Nonetheless, I can understand them moving to 7 or whatever. In the final analysis, though, I don't see why developers should consider it their call of duty to write off Windows XP when they write security software. It's not any harder to write for really. I don't believe they will by and large. If they do, I think it will speak more to the poor quality of what they have than anything.

I agree with foogoo. Not up for a debate about changing my mind...I'm going to wait and see what happens...

Just for the record. I run XP and haven't had an infection in as long as I can remember. That would be at least 8 years. No malware, no viruses. The last one I recall was on Windows 98 SE...a redirect virus and then .dll hell from the early days of combofix...

 

It will make you safer than doing the same in XP, and that is a fact. Even if you think that it is security by obscurity, it is still more secure at this time. I didn't imply 100% safety, but it is exponentially more secure than XP. I mentioned GNU/Linux for those who cannot afford to switch. Not to mention that older programs have a decent chance of running under WINE.

That is fine, but IMO you have been here for 3 years, and therefore new members will look up to you. Please consider advice that will benefit them too, not just your own experience.

Because continuing software support gives people a sense of security with support still existing. When a platform can no longer be updated, developers should encourage users to move to a safer platform. Continuing to build software for them keeps them on that unsupported platform. When 0-days are not patched, there is increased risk. No antivirus stops everything, and if your first and only line of defense is breached....thats not good.

Would be redundant: http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=44525, and with browser support also going away at some point, there will be no way to not worry about online spending with XP. There will always be a risk with any OS, but much greater with XP.

That is because you practice safe computing. This is not relevant for the average user, because you are much more secure already due to your computing habits. O-days have made it through third party defenses before, and will continue to do so. When exploits are not patched, it increases risk. I would be a lot less concerned about XP users that practice Safe Computing than those who do not. That said, if everyone did practice it, then malware wouldn't be the epidemic it is today.

 

Hey guys, I have to agree with Adrynalyne on this matter. I'm still on XP and I know I will be after support ends, but it's a matter of affording the upgrade that has held me back, and as soon as I can afford it, I WILL be upgrading at least to Windows 7. It's just not worth the chance and the time to have to be worrying about when my PC will get infected. First chance I get, I will be switching, reluctantly, but necessary.

 

Post 12 Adrynalyne...

All fair and good. I don't have any problems with anyone being concerned over the issue of the end of updates for Windows XP.

Honestly, I find it difficult to put this into perspective, but I guess I could sum it up this way. I don't expect security from Microsoft. I'm willing to pay for security although I haven't so far. That said, if the current security available from software writers other than MS isn't enough, I will hope someone steps up and writes some. Beyond that, given that I don't think MS will ever create a secure OS, if noone does step up, I will just trash the PCs and find something else do with the time I icurrently nvest in them.

Hope it doesn't seem like a whine, because I'm not emotionally invested in PCs. Instead, I am just sure I can find other things to do, and operating a PC can't be much more of a hassle than it is already without me starting to think about it. That's just me. I don't mind if they become more of a nuisance to me than a valuable commodity...

Again, fair enough Adrynalyne...:major

 

An interesting test would be if the onslaught of hackers hitting Windows (its the most common consumer OS, making it the most profitable too), would do the same to OS X or GNU/Linux. So much security is through obscurity these days. I read one article a while back saying Windows was more secure than OS X because of the constant attack Microsoft has been under and the fact they must release security updates almost weekly. At first glance, that seems unlikely, but when you consider that OS X sees updates months apart in time, it makes sense. GNU/Linux is constantly seeing updates, so I'd say it would fare better than OS X.