Hi,
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:51:12AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > If these systems were running Debian, big organisations like the British
> > government could hire people to provide security support for their
> > users, even for versions which we no longer support.
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> On Wed, 17 May 2017, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:59:37PM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
>> > Microsoft users or indeed Android users, iOS users and I presume OSX
>> > users get security updates installed automagically by default.
>>
>> th
On Wed, 17 May 2017, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:59:37PM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
> > Microsoft users or indeed Android users, iOS users and I presume OSX
> > users get security updates installed automagically by default.
>
> that's awesome and I hope by 2019 the default
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:59:37PM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
> Microsoft users or indeed Android users, iOS users and I presume OSX
> users get security updates installed automagically by default.
that's awesome and I hope by 2019 the default stable Debian desktop install
will do that too!
-
at bottom :-
On 17/05/2017, Philip Hands wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
>
>> Actually, we might want to issue an statement to _Debian_ users
>> reminding them the value and necessity of keeping their Debian systems
>> up-to-date. Maybe point to our automated solutions that remi
On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 21:26 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> That won't help if you do _not_ keep updating the system daily,
> though. Which is what this is about.
It isn't what I was taling about.
Microsoft users or indeed Android users, iOS users and I presume OSX
users get security
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Or did you mean install by default the stuff that nags about available
> security updates?
I expect he is talking about the unattended-upgrades package, or the
PackageKit stuff that installs updates on shutdown.
--
bye,
pabs
On Wed, 17 May 2017, Russell Stuart wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 10:31 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Actually, we might want to issue an statement to _Debian_ users
> > reminding them the value and necessity of keeping their Debian
> > systems up-to-date. Maybe point to our autom
On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 10:31 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Actually, we might want to issue an statement to _Debian_ users
> reminding them the value and necessity of keeping their Debian
> systems up-to-date. Maybe point to our automated solutions that
> remind and/or apply security
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:24:16AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I agree with your conclusion that we shouldn't make a public statement
> trying to capitalise on this, but:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: should debian comment about the recent 'ransomware'
> malware.
Ian Jackson writes:
> If these systems were running Debian, big organisations like the British
> government could hire people to provide security support for their
> users, even for versions which we no longer support. When the obsolete
> operating system is Windows, they can only hire Microsoft
Replying in-line :-
On 16/05/2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> Actually, we might want to issue an statement to _Debian_ users
> reminding them the value and necessity of keeping their Debian systems
> up-to-date. Maybe point to our automated solutions that remind and/or
> apply s
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:31:34AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> It is probably worth it to also remind users that they must also keep
> track of firmware updates on Intel and AMD systems for platform-level
> fixes (Intel ME, Ryzen and Kabilake microcode, usual BIOS/UEFI platform
> bu
On Tue, 16 May 2017, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> If we were to do so, it should be something that helps victims, or
> those in danger of becoming victims, of this non-verbal attack. Maybe
> something along the lines of keeping one's systems up to date with
> security updates, and having good, secure ba
I agree with your conclusion that we shouldn't make a public statement
trying to capitalise on this, but:
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: should debian comment about the recent 'ransomware'
malware."):
> This is not a case where Microsoft did something clearly wrong, o
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:59:18AM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> while it was primarily targeted towards Windows machines, maybe we
> could tailor a response which shows how Debian is more secure and
> possibilities of such infections are low/non-existent .
Others have commented (correctly, I thin
shirish शिरीष writes:
> while it was primarily targeted towards Windows machines, maybe we
> could tailor a response which shows how Debian is more secure and
> possibilities of such infections are low/non-existent .
I don't believe such a statement would be factually correct, so no, we
shouldn'
shirish शिरीष wrote:
> maybe we could tailor a response which shows how Debian is more
> secure and possibilities of such infections are low/non-existent
Given that it is causing serious problems to healthcare provisioning
it would be in poor taste to attempt to capitalise on the situation
so soo
Le Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:59:18AM +0530, shirish शिरीष a écrit :
>
> I was looking at p.d.o. but much to my disappointment nobody had
> discussed the newest 'wannacry' ransomware there.
> while it was primarily targeted towards Windows machines, maybe we
> could tailor a response which shows how
Dear all,
I was looking at p.d.o. but much to my disappointment nobody had
discussed the newest 'wannacry' ransomware there.
I then looked at few articles from the web -
http://www.timesnow.tv/india/article/wannacry-ransomware-cert-in-india-cyber-security/61046
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/13/t
20 matches
Mail list logo
