Drive by attacks in that context does not mean wireless. It means exactly what you think is not the case: That just by being in the Internet you are vulnerable. Exploits like http://www.computerworld.com/article/2488674/malware-vulnera... get patched in Windows 7+, but they stay as a gaping hole in your OS. Nothing you described helps just a bit against that.
> My version of Flash is a bit old and, that means that Flash never runs except when I explicitly permit it to run, and I only do that on no doubt fairly safe Web sites.
That does not help. There were flash-exploits for which the click to activate function of browsers were useless against.
> I have a copy of Office 2003 -- with lots of patches, and that's fine with me.
Office 2003 is not supported anymore as well and might contain equally big security bugs (I did not look that up). You open word documents with it, you might be infected.
If you want to stay on a secure system for years where the UI does not change, you will have to migrate to Linux with one of the custom Window Managers like Openbox.
The link was for a lot of versions of IE,
some of which don't run on XP. I try not
to use IE. Sometimes I had to use it at
some Microsoft Web sites. Okay.
Mozilla will let me install a new version of
Firefox, but Microsoft won't let me install
a new version of IE or let me patch an
old version of IE. Bummer.
I'd be reluctant to let my 2003 copy
of Word open a file from an untrusted
source. I do next to nothing with Word.
Occasionally I run the 2003 version of
Excel: I generate the data outside of
Excel using whatever software I write
and then pull the data into Excel for
graphing. I don't try to use Excel files
from other people.
So, Flash can hurt even if I don't run it!
Wow. Looks like Adobe worked really hard
to help the hackers.
Does Microsoft really want the their
security holes fixed?
Gee, in a big company, how can people
pass around Word, Excel, and HTM files?
One infected file, and many of the
computers in the company can get infected.
Whatever happened to the idea that a program
that reads data checks to see if the
data is okay and makes sure that
bad data can't cause the program to
hurt anything? That was the
long the implicit, expected standard, right?
If someone can send me a DOC file for
Word and, reading that file, Word
infects my computer, then Word is junk,
and Microsoft writes junk software.
Bill and Satya need to get on the case
here.
Microsoft's infected toxic-ware?
It's been a long time, Microsoft --
time to fix this stuff.
On time sharing, it was the case
that any user could write and run
any software at all with no damage
to the operating system or to any other
user. Why is it possible at all to
run software as a user on Windows and
hurt Windows? Bummer.
Microsoft,
we need some guarantees, or at least
strong assurances with, say, a
major bounty program, that such things
just are not possible. How about
a bounty of $1 for the first bug and
for each subsequent bug double the
bounty? How 'bout that Bill?
Risk your fortune or fix the bugs?
> My version of Flash is a bit old and, that means that Flash never runs except when I explicitly permit it to run, and I only do that on no doubt fairly safe Web sites.
That does not help. There were flash-exploits for which the click to activate function of browsers were useless against.
> I have a copy of Office 2003 -- with lots of patches, and that's fine with me.
Office 2003 is not supported anymore as well and might contain equally big security bugs (I did not look that up). You open word documents with it, you might be infected.
If you want to stay on a secure system for years where the UI does not change, you will have to migrate to Linux with one of the custom Window Managers like Openbox.