OG Shaka Zulu
Member
Lmao this got me.Thanks Liara
Lmao this got me.Thanks Liara
This runs counter to what what's already known about the SMBv1 vulnerability covered in MS17 010. Ransomware can be spread by phishing, as always, but this seems to be particularly virulent because it spread via a known exploit. Everything I've read suggests that a vulnerable (unpatched or unpatchable) workstation with SMBv1/CIFS File Sharing support enabled could become infected without the user doing anything.
Same way neogaf ads some times open google play store on mobile.
Always is some shitty loophole.
Wikileaks being agents of Russia is not hyperbole. They are trash.
I assumed that they were involved given the multiple posts posting about it since I couldn't recall the details of it. If they're not, sure, ok. Doesn't make them not terrible.
It's nothing but hyperbole based on what we know right now.
Thank Wikileaks!
...it was WikiLeaks that unleashed a tool of destruction without notifying journalists or governments first because they think themselves agents of chaos.
I worked at a company that got hit with this rasomeware, and it was infected from downloading a file from a phishing scam via email. We were able to act fast enough so it didn't jump onto the network, but it looked exactly the same as this. The thing I'm not understanding is if they are getting infected the same way. I looked at what you posted, but it didn't make a lot of sense to me. WannaCry is looking for the existing backdoor exploits, but how does WannaCry get on system to begin with. I'm assuming the the same way my company got it but this is so widespred I can't believe so many people fell for this scam.
It can be called conjecture, sure. That said, there's nothing hyperbolic about accusing an organization that releases mass amounts of volatile data, sometimes targeted against leftist politicians, as being a pro-Russian organization. That's literally Russia's playbook.
so of course they are lining up their dominos so they can flick the first one, start pushing software then go home for the weekend..
Additionally, we are taking the highly unusual step of providing a security update for all customers to protect Windows platforms that are in custom support only, including Windows XP, Windows 8, and Windows Server 2003.
They are Russian shills. It is known. Assange had a goddamn show on Russias propaganda network! Your post is complete and total whataboutism that tries to say that "we can't trust western intelligence agencies" to undermine them when it's blatantly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain what's going on. No one should need the CIA to tell them what they can figure out on their own.It's an exaggerated statement presented as fact. It holds no weight to it, so it irks me when I see it. It's conspiratorial nonsense as far as I am concerned, and unless there is actual evidence presented to us then I'm not going to take it seriously.
It's okay to criticise them, and I'm certainly not a fan of the timings of certain releases. But to make a claim that they're Russian shills is going beyond what we actually know. Moreover, you have to discount completely what the organisation themselves have said in addition to taking everything the state has said as a matter of fact. This is problematic in and of itself.
And we're not even touching what the official line is regarding them and how making such a statement is going far beyond it. At best, there is a suggestion that Russia used Wikileaks. Clapper even stated that if this was the case and that they don't know whether Wikileaks knew about the particular source being state-sponsored. Wikileaks, of course, categorically denied any state-sponsored actors being involved.
If you've already decided that they're Russian agents then that is a pointless question to ask in the first place. But I've yet to see a good reason to put full trust in intelligence agencies that have consistently misled the public. And I've yet to see good evidence to suggest that they are compromised by Russian intelligence or are indeed one and the same.
This is why W10 has mandatory updates.FYI: the NSA had reported the vulnerabilities to Microsoft, who issued patches well before the Shadow Brokers leaked said vulnerabilities.
The problem: people not applying the patches. It's always not applying the damn patches. Always apply the patches, fools!
They are Russian shills. It is known. Assange had a goddamn show on Russias propaganda network!
I wonder if this will be a canary for how big of a mess an exploit could makeMicrosoft releases patches for XP and Server 2003.
They are Russian shills. It is known. Assange had a goddamn show on Russias propaganda network! Your post is complete and total whataboutism that tries to say that "we can't trust western intelligence agencies" to undermine them when it's blatantly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain what's going on. No one should need the CIA to tell them what they can figure out on their own.
This has made me really paranoid. The entire process of checking whether your Win10 version is protected or not is way too convoluted for me to make any sense of, what with all the different KB IDs and how they overlap/override eachother. I've gotten automatic updates throughout May, but none of the KB numbers attached to them seem to match up with the ones listed here. I tried getting the latest KB4019472 patch through Windows Update, but as usual that thing is being a piece of shit and has the download stuck at 0%. I've also tried downloading manual .msu installers through the Microsoft Update Catalog but they simply fail to install and will not specify why.
KB4019472 is a patch for Windows 10 v1607
if you're running Windows 10 v1703 (you should be if you're up to date) you're fine? I think that's right anyway. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Going to System > Help > About says I'm on v1607 (14393.1066)
Why it's refusing to apply the patch is completely beyond me, or if 1607 is even enough to be protected. The lack of information is so frustrating.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39931635
This BBC article infuriates me an is typical of reporting these days.
The BBC should know better than to just lay false accusations at fucking North Korea with absolutely no evidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39931635
This BBC article infuriates me an is typical of reporting these days.
The BBC should know better than to just lay false accusations at fucking North Korea with absolutely no evidence.
It you actually read the article you'd note they made a point of saying the evidence is circumstantial. Seems pretty non biased to me.
Then why report on it at all?