Wannacry ransomware, Microsoft and PR

[Arun3]

In the wake of Wannacry ransomware attack on vital facilities across the globe on a catastrophic scale, and the appearance of articles such as those in NY Times, should Microsoft hold a press event and explain themselves/clear the air?

 

[HeyCori]

They have nothing to explain. Microsoft patched the flaw months ago and it's not Microsoft's fault if users don't update their systems. And I'm hesitant to blame IT departments. I'm willing to bet that for every IT department that "can't afford" to buy new hardware, there's a CEO/board that never budgeted for new equipment because - as they say - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now they're so deep in the hole that re-doing their entire network would be a massive undertaking.

 

[LuxuryTouringZone]

They have nothing to explain. Microsoft patched the flaw months ago and it's not Microsoft's fault if users don't update their systems. And I'm hesitant to blame IT departments. I'm willing to bet that for every IT department that "can't afford" to buy new hardware, there's a CEO/board that never budgeted for new equipment because - as they say - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now they're so deep in the hole that re-doing their entire network would be a massive undertaking.

This. Microsoft made it very clear that support ended, but people and companies refused to move on, and are now suffering the consequences of not upgrading their tools when they had the chance to.

 

[Arun3]

That's right.. You know this, I know this and the "Mod Emeritus" knows this... Not the common man.. who, knows that they have a PC at work, which got infected... or... those 'annoying updates' that keep restarting the PC when I am in the middle of work, so I am turning that off. When MS speaks to the media..and I am not taking about Windows Central or Engadget or The Verge.., they cover it in the evening news, and people know what went wrong. The I.T guy where I work made a snide comment as to if more people owned a Mac it would've made their job much easier..

 

[DavidinCT]

They have nothing to explain. Microsoft patched the flaw months ago and it's not Microsoft's fault if users don't update their systems. And I'm hesitant to blame IT departments. I'm willing to bet that for every IT department that "can't afford" to buy new hardware, there's a CEO/board that never budgeted for new equipment because - as they say - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now they're so deep in the hole that re-doing their entire network would be a massive undertaking.

That's right.. You know this, I know this and the "Mod Emeritus" knows this... Not the common man.. who, knows that they have a PC at work, which got infected... or... those 'annoying updates' that keep restarting the PC when I am in the middle of work, so I am turning that off. When MS speaks to the media..and I am not taking about Windows Central or Engadget or The Verge.., they cover it in the evening news, and people know what went wrong. The I.T guy where I work made a snide comment as to if more people owned a Mac it would've made their job much easier..

Right. A lot of compaines still use Windows XP. NOT because they cant afford new computers, or the cost of Windows 7/8.1/10. It's because their applcation they use for their business wont run on a newer version of Windows.

A lot of these applications were custom programmed years ago, The dev/company who made it is out of business. There is appliances like ATM, robot Manfufacturing computers and other devices that could be STUCK on XP.

We even have 2 (one XP and one 7) computers were we work, they cant even take a security update or breaks a very important app. They are blocked from internet access but, STILL, there are a lot of computers out there. THey cant be updated to newer versions because the software is not available and it would cost MILLIONS to create a replacement application.

If there is a % of people in the world using one of their OS, I still think Microsoft still has a reasonable responsbilty update aganst major secrity holes that Microsoft had not fixed in the past. This is a flaw in Windows a product Microsoft designed, NOT by the end of life or the users fault for not updating.

Think of it like a car... You buy a car, it comes with a 5 year, 75K miles warratny. 8 Years later they find a major flaw with the car (your car is long out of warranty), that is causing accedents. The goverment MANDATES that they issue a recall if XX amount of deaths because of the problem. If your family member DIED because of a flaw, you can sue the car manufacture. This is an extreame case but, it does apply in some ways where a failure could cause money in high volumes to be lost.

Now, if the patch is available to you, and you CAN update but, just dont want to, then yea, it's your own fault. BUT, if you cant be because it's not availbe to you and your in a case where you CANT upgrade. This is where the problem is.

Microsoft SHOULD hold SOME responsablity for something like this. After all, it is THEIR fault that the flaw/hole is there.

In other ways, ALthough this sucks for a lot of people who WILL lose their data, it will open some eyes on people who just disabled Windows update.

I've been in IT for over 20 years, and yes, the biggest pain in the <bad word here> is Windows updates. Try to manage a data ceter (part of my job) with 1000+ servers that all need Windows updates. About 5% of these machines CANT be shut down.

Welcome to my hell.

 

[Sebastianx]

- Turned off Automatic Updates or still using XP and Vista.
- Microsoft Releases a patch a month ago before the attack.
- Catastrophic ransomware was launch in the wild.
- Blame Microsoft.

 

[etphoto]

No. MS does not need a press conference.



Twitter: @PhotographyET

 

[HeyCori]

Right. A lot of compaines still use Windows XP. NOT because they cant afford new computers, or the cost of Windows 7/8.1/10. It's because their applcation they use for their business wont run on a newer version of Windows.

A lot of these applications were custom programmed years ago, The dev/company who made it is out of business. There is appliances like ATM, robot Manufacturing computers and other devices that could be STUCK on XP.

But even though we're talking about software, that goes back to my original point. If the developer behind a highly critical piece of software goes out of business, a company should invest in newer (and theoretically) better software.

And I understand where you're coming from. This isn't magic. People can't wave their hands and poof, new software. It takes time, money (lots of), and there will always be those extreme cases where something absolutely cannot be changed. But that doesn't justify a company not reinvesting in new hardware/software until it's too late. Maybe a planned expansion gets put on hold, or they have to apply for grants/loans, but companies gotta do a better job of keeping up with technology.

 

[Arun3]

I'm glad that we are talking about the problem from both angles, instead of a blind "No..they don't have to do it". It is not about Microsoft explaining or justifying what they did or didn't do. It is about getting the right narrative out there. Acknowledging why people who didn't update didn't do it and what can be done to protect MS's customers from such future attacks...(would also work in favor of getting 2 billion users in on Windows 10, seen from a larger perspective) Also getting the fact out that regular updates are vital to prevent this from occurring in future.

 

[Arun3]

"But that doesn't justify a company not reinvesting in new hardware/software until it's too late."

On the flip side, they probably also weigh in on the fact: what are the odds of an attack of this magnitude happening vs spending money on the the latest tech. For some companies it may no just be monetary; could be the deciding factor between letting a few employees go vs the status quo. Also remember it was not just Win XP machines that got affected; there were Win 7 machines as well.