Skip to main content

Upgrade your OS!

You can't escape the WannaCry ransomeware attack in the news. And it's a good thing that there has been plenty of coverage. But I do wish the news concentrated a bit more on how you can keep yourself safe and less on trying to find someone (other than the hackers) to blame. There are three things that everyone should do, any of which would have prevented data loss, and two of which would have prevented the attack succeeding in the first place.
  1. Do regular backups. I know it's boring, but do it. In the very early days of PCs, I had two hard discs fail within six months, in each case losing everything on them. The first time I was unprepared and lost months of work. The second time I was backing up every day and lost nothing. These days it's really easy - with something like OneDrive, Google Drive or Dropbox you simply keep your work in a specific folder on your computer and it is all automatically backed up. As it happens, in the case of the ransomware attack, you might find that the encrypted data started to replace the backups - so rapid disconnection from the internet and an occasional local backup as well would have been an additional good precaution.
  2. Don't click on links in emails. This attack was initiated by a fishing email where a user had to click on a link that didn't go where it said it did. In practice, you hardly ever have to click on a link in an email - for example, if you get an email from your bank, or Amazon, or Paypal or whatever, log in normally and check for an alert within the site. Most email software will tell you the address a link goes to if you hover the mouse pointer over it, either as a floating box or at the bottom of the screen. You can use this to check if a link is legitimate, though be careful as some malicious emailers use addresses that sound like the real thing. But most don't.
  3. Always install operating system updates as soon as you get them. Although it hasn't been hugely covered, this was the biggest problem in the case of the ransomware attack. Microsoft had issued an update in March that would have prevented it from happening. The number of times when I see other people's computers and they have an operating system update outstanding is remarkable. OS updates almost always include security patches. If you don't install them as soon as possible, you've only yourself to blame.
Although not about direct prevention, there are a couple of other minor things. Some were probably hit because they were running versions of Windows like XP that are so old that Microsoft no longer updates them. I know this can be tempting, especially when the alternative is the awful versions of Windows that have been issued lately. But there comes a point when you have to move on. One of the reasons some don't is because Microsoft has typically charged quite a lot for new versions of operating systems. This, arguably, is another reason for switching to Apple (which doesn't). Not to mention the lower levels of attack on Macs. (If you have a Mac, though, don't fall into the trap of thinking you don't need anti-virus - you do. I'd recommend the free Sophos product.)

Don't let the news of the ransomware be just a pleasant distraction from the election, or a frustration if you are worried about an NHS appointment. Make sure you keep yourself protected too.

Comments

  1. I was AMAZED to hear that many computers in the NHS, for example, still run WindowsXP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I gather very few XP computers were actually hit - it was mostly Windows 7, which a lot of large organisations stuck with as they couldn’t stand the new interface. XP tends to still be used where you either have a dedicated processor, for example in an MRI scanner, or a very low power device - I still had it on my old netbook until it died.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope