Wash. Post article on "Severe" Windows Security Fl

[Seeker47]

In line with the recent Moderator's sticky, I hope this is not deemed too OT. However, if accurate (and one hopes the W.P. fact checkers are doing their job well) this will be important, and may impact users here sooner or later. My brief hesitation is because a slightly similar report was mentioned recently in one of the forums here, and one respondent branded it a hoax. In that case, we will know this soon enough also.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901456_pf.html

btw, if this falls amongst the content they make you register in order to view, and you'd rather not, check out bugmenot.com

[Xylob the Destroyer]

nice...
I run Windows update on my PCs at least once a week, and seems like every time I run it, there's a security update and/or patch to fix a critical vulnaribility.
Basically, this tells me that Windows really has NO security features????

[ROF]

nice...
I run Windows update on my PCs at least once a week, and seems like every time I run it, there's a security update and/or patch to fix a critical vulnaribility.
Basically, this tells me that Windows really has NO security features????

Nope. In order for security features to be current you must have windows set to download and install updates automatically. Saying that because windows has a constant stream of updates means it's not secure would be the same as saying that your virus definitions are from 2004 and you shouldn't need to download current definitions. Part of security means to constantly download your software updates. Hackers never take a break so updates will be required forever. An unsecure windows is one that is updated manually. You may be several days behind those who would do harm to your system.

[mats.hogberg]

Moving you to Computer.

/Mats

[Seeker47]

There was this followup, from a Wash. Post columnist:

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/secu...t_release.html