It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionGood News: Galaxy.dll breaks XP-compatibility in good old games(258 posts)(258 posts)
(258 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 21, 2017
avatar
tammerwhisk: Yeah... but the problem is some businesses take those machines online and they are hugely vulnerable. I remember in 2010 a local insurance business that was using a Win 98 zip server for medical information and yes it was networked online. *headdesk*
avatar
richlind33: If the network is properly configured, not running scripts, active x controls and whatnot, and no one in the office is doing stupid shit like surfing, where's the vulnerability?
Well for one thing if someone gains access to the network (since it's connected to the wbe) the entire thing is a sitting duck with peoples' info on a device that even the dumbest of script kiddies could access.
avatar
DosFreak: Define "properly configured".
So no one in the office is surfing the internet?
Tthe computer on the network with security holes you could drive a truck through.
avatar
richlind33: If you have a good hardware firewall, where's the vulnerability?
Firewalls are not the end-all be-all of security. There is a lot more to it.
Post edited June 21, 2017 by tammerwhisk
Posted June 21, 2017
avatar
richlind33: If the network is properly configured, not running scripts, active x controls and whatnot, and no one in the office is doing stupid shit like surfing, where's the vulnerability?
avatar
tammerwhisk: Well for one thing if someone gains access to the network (since it's connected to the wbe) the entire thing is a sitting duck with peoples' info on a device that even the dumbest of script kiddies could access.

Firewalls are not the end-all be-all of security. There is a lot more to it.
If your firewall is hardware, remote access is disabled, and you're not broadcasting your SSID, I'd say you're as safe as anyone that *is* using remote access and broadcasting their SSID.
Posted June 21, 2017
avatar
tammerwhisk: Well for one thing if someone gains access to the network (since it's connected to the wbe) the entire thing is a sitting duck with peoples' info on a device that even the dumbest of script kiddies could access.

Firewalls are not the end-all be-all of security. There is a lot more to it.
avatar
richlind33: If your firewall is hardware, remote access is disabled, and you're not broadcasting your SSID, I'd say you're as safe as anyone that *is* using remote access and broadcasting their SSID.
Hardware firewalls from time to time have exploits and vulnerabilities. There is no perfect security solution. And while this is true for any network or OS, running a massively out of date system ensures that if someone does gain access literally everything is an open book practically immediately.
Posted June 21, 2017
avatar
tammerwhisk: Well for one thing if someone gains access to the network (since it's connected to the wbe) the entire thing is a sitting duck with peoples' info on a device that even the dumbest of script kiddies could access.

Firewalls are not the end-all be-all of security. There is a lot more to it.
avatar
richlind33: If your firewall is hardware, remote access is disabled, and you're not broadcasting your SSID, I'd say you're as safe as anyone that *is* using remote access and broadcasting their SSID.
Not broadcasting your SSID is just plain stupid.

So basically because you don't want to broadcast your SSID at your home (despite the fact that the network is still easily findable for anyone competent enough to use Google) you are instead fully willing to have your laptops and devices constantly broadcast and attempt to connect to said hidden network regardless of their positioning in the world. Unless you disable "automatically attempt to connect to this network when not detected" as well, which basically forced you to manually connect all of your devices whenever you arrive at home.

"I don't want my SSID 'findable' so I would much rather that my smartphone and laptop attempt to connect to said 'hidden' SSID when I'm on a bus, a train or at work. Because that's MUCH safer!"

Not broadcasting your SSID is probably more vulnerable than actually broadcasting it, due to the above mentioned issues.

It's like three of my neighboring networks at home. All of those three have a "hidden" SSID. Well, that doesn't stop me from simply using a network analysis or two to capture all packets being flown around and detect the SSID in that way, especially not when one of those hidden SSID's are entirely unencrypted, and the other two are using WEP of all things to "protect" themselves.

*slow clap*

Hiding the SSID of a network gives a false sense of security that you can't rely on. Hell, it even includes risks if you're actually telling devices to attempt to connect to the network when it's hidden.


avatar
HereForTheBeer: -snip-
Did I miss something? When was GOG renamed to "gOg" ? What does that stand for? "gimme OLD gog" ?
Post edited June 21, 2017 by Aemony
Posted June 22, 2017
avatar
richlind33: If your firewall is hardware, remote access is disabled, and you're not broadcasting your SSID, I'd say you're as safe as anyone that *is* using remote access and broadcasting their SSID.
avatar
Aemony: Not broadcasting your SSID is just plain stupid.

So basically because you don't want to broadcast your SSID at your home (despite the fact that the network is still easily findable for anyone competent enough to use Google) you are instead fully willing to have your laptops and devices constantly broadcast and attempt to connect to said hidden network regardless of their positioning in the world. Unless you disable "automatically attempt to connect to this network when not detected" as well, which basically forced you to manually connect all of your devices whenever you arrive at home.

"I don't want my SSID 'findable' so I would much rather that my smartphone and laptop attempt to connect to said 'hidden' SSID when I'm on a bus, a train or at work. Because that's MUCH safer!"

Not broadcasting your SSID is probably more vulnerable than actually broadcasting it, due to the above mentioned issues.

It's like three of my neighboring networks at home. All of those three have a "hidden" SSID. Well, that doesn't stop me from simply using a network analysis or two to capture all packets being flown around and detect the SSID in that way, especially not when one of those hidden SSID's are entirely unencrypted, and the other two are using WEP of all things to "protect" themselves.

*slow clap*

Hiding the SSID of a network gives a false sense of security that you can't rely on. Hell, it even includes risks if you're actually telling devices to attempt to connect to the network when it's hidden.
I was tired. lol

But just for the sake of argument, is the average hacker going to analyze traffic that's got E2EE?

What exactly makes a small business network running XP more vulnerable than Win 7?
Posted June 22, 2017
avatar
Aemony: Did I miss something? When was GOG renamed to "gOg" ? What does that stand for? "gimme OLD gog" ?
No, and yes.

It wasn't. That's my special snowflake way of typing it out.

good Old games, the old name with emphasis on "Old". My vain attempt to tell gOg not to forget where the store came from and who helped get them here: those who showed up for the old games.

See above.

I guess it could also be for "get OFF [my] grass", or "get off my lawn". Recognition of old-fartitude.

Feel free to randomly sprinkle "dadgum" and "whippersnapper" throughout my posts.
Posted June 22, 2017
avatar
richlind33: But just for the sake of argument, is the average hacker going to analyze traffic that's got E2EE?
Depending on access and proximity some stuff is literally just "scriptkiddie" tier as far as setting it up and waiting. And not all forms of encryption are necessarily secure, especially if the rest of the setup isn't.

avatar
richlind33: What exactly makes a small business network running XP more vulnerable than Win 7?
It's a lot of work finding in-depth write-ups beyond malware infection rates, but here is some examples:
https://biztechmagazine.com/article/2011/04/windows-7-vs-windows-xp-security-showdown

There is a lot more stuff to consider beyond that, but again it's a ton of work.

Especially for businesses every bit of security matters, since businesses are primary targets. Recently a local business chain that deals in medical equipment got breached, they didn't do security how they should have and now there are tons of people with everything from bank info to social security/health info exposed/potentially exposed.
Posted June 26, 2017
avatar
richlind33: What exactly makes a small business network running XP more vulnerable than Win 7?
avatar
tammerwhisk: It's a lot of work finding in-depth write-ups beyond malware infection rates, but here is some examples:
https://biztechmagazine.com/article/2011/04/windows-7-vs-windows-xp-security-showdown

There is a lot more stuff to consider beyond that, but again it's a ton of work.

Especially for businesses every bit of security matters, since businesses are primary targets. Recently a local business chain that deals in medical equipment got breached, they didn't do security how they should have and now there are tons of people with everything from bank info to social security/health info exposed/potentially exposed.
I could have found that article in about 2 minutes. lol

Look, I agree with you in general, but If a business runs a tight shop and makes sure it's employees understand what *not* to do, I don't think it makes a great deal of difference. Firmware is a far greater vulnerability than XP, and Win 10, AFAIK, does nothing to mitigate it.

The human element is the single greatest factor re computer security, and this video illustrates why Windows is part of the problem, rather than the solution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XdcPegud5c
Posted June 26, 2017
avatar
richlind33: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XdcPegud5c
Accurate.
Post edited June 26, 2017 by chevkoch
Posted June 26, 2017
low rated
deleted
Posted September 16, 2018
Looks like I'm a Johnny-come-lately to this thread, but there has been another example of GOG's galaxy.dll breaking compatibility - specifically Grim Dawn:

http://www.grimdawn.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65149

I'm no fan of Galaxy myself since it seems to present the same security and privacy risks as Steam's client, so the idea that this supposedly "optional" software is responsible for denying XP-users access to software they paid for, is an indictment of GOG's customer service. And since Windows 7 is currently on extended support only for another 16 months, it seems quite possible (and even likely) that Win7 users will be making similar complaints before too long.

Regardless of people's views about WinXP, the decision to remain with it or not should be up to end users. If GOG wishes to restrict Galaxy support then good for them. However it should be seen as unacceptable to (effectively) disable currently working games.

And to forestall the inevitable questions, I use (and intend to remain with) XP because:

* it can be customised (thanks to XPLite and nLite) to completely remove security issues like Internet Explorer, Outlook Express and MSN Messenger (though NTLite should offer similar options now for later Windows versions);
* Windows Activation (which XP introduced) can be easily worked around allowing for off-line use;
* it lacks PatchGuard meaning that security software can modify the kernel and patch the SSDT, more or less essential for providing effective security;
* it is far less wasteful of memory, CPU and disk space than Windows 7 (usage as low as 64MB on its own);
* it doesn't suffer from Windows 8's TIFKAM (The Interface Formerly Known as Metro) or Windows 10's effectively-compulsory spyware (Windows Telemetry, which is enabled by default and silently re-enabled after certain now-compulsory updates).

Every version of Windows requires extra steps to secure it - Windows XP does however benefit from having process-control software like Process Guard and System Safety Monitor (these both allow users to control exactly which process can be run and limits the actions they can take) and, properly configured, these can cope with virtually any malware threat.
Post edited September 16, 2018 by AstralWanderer
Posted September 16, 2018
avatar
AstralWanderer: I'm no fan of Galaxy myself since it seems to present the same security and privacy risks as Steam's client, so the idea that this supposedly "optional" software is responsible for denying XP-users access to software they paid for, is an indictment of GOG's customer service. And since Windows 7 is currently on extended support only for another 16 months, it seems quite possible (and even likely) that Win7 users will be making similar complaints before too long.
Do you mean that in the past the game card of Grim Dawn included not only Works on: Windows (Vista, 7, 8, 10), but XP as well?
Posted September 16, 2018
avatar
AstralWanderer: it seems quite possible (and even likely) that Win7 users will be making similar complaints before too long.

Regardless of people's views about WinXP, the decision to remain with it or not should be up to end users.
Sure, the decision should be up to the end users --- but, that's not how this world actually works, unfortunately. Rather, this world works in such a way that end users are eventually forced to use OSes that are considered current/modern, whether they want to or not.

You are right that Windows 7 users will be having the same complaint in the years to come.

But that's always been how the computing world operates.

To try and remain with Window XP or Windows 7 forever is an uphill, losing battle that cannot possibly be won, if for no other reason than that eventually no new hardware or software will be compatible with them. And all hardware dies, eventually.

I empathize with your position. I myself stayed on Windows XP for as long as I possibly could.

I'm just trying to show you that the longer you try to hold on to XP, the more problems like this you are going to run into, and eventually it's inevitably going to reach the point where you have to let it go.
Post edited September 16, 2018 by Ancient-Red-Dragon
Posted September 16, 2018
avatar
AstralWanderer: it seems quite possible (and even likely) that Win7 users will be making similar complaints before too long.

Regardless of people's views about WinXP, the decision to remain with it or not should be up to end users.
avatar
Ancient-Red-Dragon: Sure, the decision should be up to the end users --- but, that's not how this world actually works, unfortunately. Rather, this world works in such a way that end users are eventually forced to use OSes that are considered current/modern, whether they want to or not.

You are right that Windows 7 users will be having the same complaint in the years to come.

But that's always been how the computing world operates.

To try and remain with Window XP or Windows 7 forever is an uphill, losing battle that cannot possibly be won, if for no other reason than that eventually no new hardware or software will be compatible with them. And all hardware dies, eventually.

I empathize with your position. I myself stayed on Windows XP for as long as I possibly could.

I'm just trying to show you that the longer you try to hold on to XP, the more problems like this you are going to run into, and eventually it's inevitably going to reach the point where you have to let it go.
I think you've summed up the situation very well. I don't think we can expect GOG to continue to maintain downloads for outdated OSes for ever and the reality is, whether we want it or not, it's not going to happen.

I'm still on Windows 7 and I accept the time will come that if I want to keep playing my GOG games on that OS, then I'll have to download and back-up all the installers to my hard drives.
Posted September 16, 2018
avatar
AstralWanderer: Too many words.
Thanks for dragging a year old thread back to life. Now, back in my day, it was considered poor form to bring back a thread after 30 days, much less a whole year.

• On the matter of Grim Dawn, if you use Windows XP, you're not only limiting yourself, but the game as well. Windows XP only supports DirectX up to 9.0c, and I'm sure it's a similar story for OpenGL as well. Most installations of Windows XP are 32 bit as well, bringing a massive slew of limitations as well. There certainly is a 64 bit version of Windows XP, but that also has problems.

• Further to the first point, GOG has no reason to support Windows XP any longer, as the usage has fallen comfortably well under the MOE. Windows XP support officially ended for any application in 2014, after Grim Dawn was released. I suspect that the compatibility had was a complete accident, and not an intended feature.

• Your asterisks don't explain why you remain with XP, but rather a large amount of hoops and workaround you use to justify remaining. This is in my visual imagination, akin to keeping several buckets and rolls of duct tape to keep a rotting boat around.

• Those little bits of third party software, I imagine could easily be routed or circumvented with laughable ease. (I can't help but note that both are referenced in the past tense and the latter is 10 years dead.)

So I have a better question: Why not use Linux? Or if your machine is running a Cyrix MediaGX, why not buy a nice used machine? (I'm not sure why anyone would be concerned or fretting over a megabyte memory/size footprint.)
Post edited September 16, 2018 by Darvond
Pages:
1
5
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionGood News: Galaxy.dll breaks XP-compatibility in good old games(258 posts)(258 posts)
(258 posts)