New Windows 7 And Windows Server 2008 Security Updates Confirmed
Windows 7 users get good security update news.
NurPhoto via Getty Images
Security updates are very much in the news at the moment, what with a no-reboot patching feature for Windows 11 and Microsoft's announcement that hotpatching will cost at least $1.50 per core for Windows Server 2025 users. Yet, with hundreds of security vulnerabilities being uncovered that impact Windows users, and cybercriminals evolving to strike at record speed, the matter of keeping on top of security updates has never been more vital. Unless you are a user of a Windows platform that has reached end-of-support status, such as Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2, for example. There simply are no security patches available for these two platforms. Or are there? I have some good news for you if you just can't bear to part ways with your favourite Windows computer.
The secret to the continuing availability of security patches to protect your systems if you are a hardened Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2 user has been hinted at in a number of my articles. On March 27, I reported how a zero-day vulnerability impacting everything from Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 to the latest Windows 11 v24H2 and Server 2025 could be mitigated even though Microsoft didn't have any official patch at the time. Back on Dec 7, 2024, I reported how another zero-day, impacting all Windows users, could be fixed using the same method. Those fixes came by way of a micro patching service called 0patch — the same service that can now save you if you want to keep your legacy Windows systems alive and protected.
0patch addresses the vulnerability gap between zero-days being discovered and any official patch being released. It does this by providing what it refers to as micro patches, much like the subscription fee incurring Windows Server 2025 hot patch system. These work by applying the fix in memory without disturbing the process itself and without requiring any reboots.
Posting to X, formerly known as Twitter, on April 29, Mitja Kolsek, the CEO of ACROS Security, the company behind 0patch, said: 'Due to (wow!) growing demand, we've decided to extend support for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 with security patches for another year (Jan/2027). Reminder: our security patches are the only security patches existing for these Windows versions.' Wow, indeed. So, if you are a user of either platform, now is the time to reach out and get those micro patch security updates to protect your systems and your data. You only have one other choice, it would seem, and that's to remain at risk of attack.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Digital Trends
an hour ago
- Digital Trends
Apple needs an AI magic pill, but I'm not desperate for it on macOS
Over the past few months, all eyes have been fixated on Apple and what the company is going to do with AI. The pressure is palpable and well deserved. Google has demonstrated some really compelling AI tools, especially with Project Astra and Mariner, that turn your phone into something like an all-knowing, forever-present digital companion. The likes of Microsoft, OpenAI, Claude, and even Amazon have shown some next-gen AI chops that make Siri feel like an old prototype. But there is a fine distinction between using AI on phones and how they flesh out on a computing machine, like a MacBook Air. Recommended Videos You don't really talk to an assistant like Siri on a desktop I often run into scenarios where AI is useful on a phone, like Visual Intelligence, which can make sense of the world around you based on what you see through the camera feed. The Mac doesn't really need it, primarily because it lacks a world-facing camera. And second, you can't ergonomically point the Mac's webcam at an object — especially in a public place — like you would with a phone in your hand. But the problem with the whole 'Apple must do AI better' is suited well for mobile devices, and not really Macs, which rely on a fundamentally different mode of input-output, and how we get work done in apps and software. I've used my fair share of AI-first Copilot+ laptops running Windows, and I feel strongly that Apple's AI efforts don't need an urgent focus on macOS, as much as they do on mobile devices, for a few reasons. The Mac is already well fed Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, in the latest edition of his PowerOn newsletter, argued that Perplexity is a nice target for Apple to scoop up an AI lab of its own and get its hands on a ready-made AI stack. Perplexity's answering engine is pretty rewarding, it's not too expensive (by Apple standards), and it works beautifully on iPhones. Over the past couple of quarters, the company has launched a whole bunch of integrations across Telegram and WhatsApp, Deep Research mode, a reasoning AI model, a shopping hub in partnership with Amazon, media generation and image uploads, search through audio and video files, among others. There are just two problems, especially with accessing Perplexity on a Mac. First, it can already do everything in its role via the Mac app and web dashboard, so an integration at a deeper level with Mac won't be solving too many computing problems. Second, ChatGPT is already integrated deeply within Siri and the Apple stack, and it's only a matter of time before both of them step up. Let's be honest here. Perplexity is a cool product, but not exactly revolutionary in the sense that it can elevate the macOS experience significantly. Enterprise AI is a different beast, but for an average user, every AI tool out there — Gemini, ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, or Perplexity — exists as its own web tool (or app) where you truly get the best out of it. So, what about integrations? Well, they would depend on the tools at hand. A huge chunk of the computing market either relies on Microsoft and its Office tools or Google's Workspace products, such as Docs, Drive, Sheets, and more. From Windows to Office, Copilot is now everywhere. Similar is the situation with Gemini and Google software. Now, millions of Mac users actually use these tools on a daily basis, and Apple doesn't offer a viable replacement of its own. Moreover, there isn't a chance that Google will allow Apple's AI to penetrate deeper into its Workspace than Gemini. Microsoft won't do any different with Copilot and Office. Plus, it's hard to imagine an external AI working better in Docs or PowerPoint than Gemini and Copilot, respectively. The space is already tight, but more importantly, well-fed. And let's not forget, OpenAI and its GPT stack are very much baked at the heart of macOS. If Apple wanted to build integrations, OpenAI offers arguably the most advanced AI tech stack out there. Adding any more AI at the system level would only add to the confusion for an average Mac user, without solving any real problems. The space of an extra AI player on the Mac is tighter for another reason: Apple's Foundation Model framework, which works on-device as well as in cloud-linked format, but with utmost privacy. Apple says it will allow developers to build a 'personal intelligence system that is integrated deeply into iPhone, iPad, and Mac, and enables powerful capabilities across language, images, actions, and personal context.' In a nutshell, Apple's own foundation models are available to developers so that they can build AI experiences in their apps. The best part? It's free. It's not nearly as powerful as the models from OpenAI or Google, but for getting work done locally — like cross-app workflow, intelligent file search, and more — they should come in handy without any privacy scares. The productivity question The M4 MacBook Air is my daily driver these days, and it's a fantastic machine. And I use AI tools heavily on a daily basis. Yet, I have never felt macOS to be an AI bottleneck for me. Every AI tool that I rely on is either already integrated within the software of my choice or available as its dedicated app or website. Yet, the whole notion of turning a product into an AI product baffles me. It makes sense for a phone, like the Pixel 9, but not so much for a laptop. I have tested five Copilot+ Windows machines so far. Yet, the core benefits they offer — snappy performance, instant wake, and long battery life — have little to do with user-facing AI. I was able to use Gemini or Copilot just as fine on a regular Windows laptop as I was able to extract their benefits on a Copilot+ machine with a minimum 45 TOPS AI capability. The Mac is no slouch, and interestingly, all the AI tools in my productivity workflow can be accessed just fine on macOS as they are available on Windows. There are a few exclusive perks, like Windows Recall, but they are not a must-have for the average computer user out there. And let's not forget that Apple already has the foundations ready, and we are going to see the results next year. When Apple introduced the M4 MacBook Air, the company focused on its AI chops, but what flew under the radar was Apple's App Intents Framework, which integrates effortlessly with Apple Intelligence. In simple terms, any app — whether AI or not — can embrace the benefits of on-device AI processing, such as awareness of on-screen content, in a native macOS environment. Now, it's valid to criticize Apple for its AI missteps. I am at a stage where I use Gemini everywhere on my iPhone, from the lock screen widgets to the dedicated app, instead of Siri. But that's not the situation with Macs. For my workflow, and a whole bunch of Mac users' out there, they're not gasping for a next-gen Apple AI. What they need is a reliable machine to run the AI of their choice. Even the cheapest Mac can meet those requirements.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Perplexity's AI-powered browser opens up to select Windows users
Perplexity is planning to open up its Comet browser that's powered by "agentic search" to Windows users, according to the company's CEO. Aravind Srinivas posted on X that the Windows build of Comet is ready and has sent out invites to early testers already. Perplexity's CEO also hinted at a potential release for Android devices, adding that it was "moving at a crazy pace and moving ahead of schedule." In May, Perplexity launched a beta version of its AI-powered Comet browser, only available to Mac users running Apple Silicon. The intelligent browser comes with AI features baked in, like the ability to ask it questions, check shopping carts for discounts and dig up unanswered emails. The beta version even showcases a "Try on" feature where users can upload a photo of themselves and Comet will generate an image of them wearing a selected piece of clothing. There's still no official debut set, but Srinivas previously hinted at an upcoming release in an X post earlier this month. Comet is still only offering a waitlist for those interested, but the browser has already stirred up controversy. The company's CEO previously made comments during a podcast interview that Perplexity would use Comet "to get data even outside the app to better understand you." Srinivas later clarified on X that the comment was taken out of context, adding that "every user will be given the option to not be part of the personalization" when it comes to targeted ads. When Comet is released, the agentic browser will face competition from Opera Neon and similar offerings from Google and OpenAI.
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman says vibe coding has taken away some of the fun parts of being an engineer
OpenAI's cofounder said vibe coding has left human engineers to do quality control. On an episode of Stripe's "Cheeky Pint" podcast uploaded last week, OpenAI's cofounder and president, Greg Brockman, said that AI coding will only get better. But until then, it's taking away some parts of software engineering that he said are enjoyable. "What we're going to see is AIs taking more and more of the drudgery, more of this like pain, more of the parts that are not very fun for humans," Brockman said. He added, "So far, the vibe coding has actually taken a lot of code that is actually quite fun." He said that the state of AI coding has left humans to review and deploy code, which is "not fun at all." Brockman added that he is "hopeful" for progress in these other areas, to the point that we end up with a " full AI coworker" that could handle delegated tasks. Changing engineering landscape Using AI to write code, dubbed " vibe coding" by OpenAI cofounder Andrej Karpathy, has skyrocketed this year. Engineers and novices alike are using tools like Microsoft's Copilot, Cursor, and Windsurf to write code, develop games, and even build websites from scratch. Vibe coding has already started changing how much Big Tech and venture capital value people with software engineering expertise. In March, Y Combinator's CEO, Gary Tan, said that vibe coding is set to transform the startup landscape. He said that what would've once taken "50 or 100" engineers to build can now be accomplished by a team of 10, "when they are fully vibe coders." Earlier this month, Business Insider reported that AI coding is no longer a nice-to-have skill. Job listings from Visa, Reddit, DoorDash, and a slew of startups showed that the companies explicitly require vibe coding experience or familiarity with AI code generators like Cursor and Bolt. Still, some in tech circles say leaning on it heavily is short-sighted and the job is being trivialized. Bob McGrew, the former chief research officer at OpenAI, said that while product managers can make "really cool prototypes" with vibe coding, human engineers will still be brought in to "rewrite it from scratch." "If you are given a code base that you don't understand — this is a classic software engineering question — is that a liability or is it an asset? Right? And the classic answer is that it's a liability," McGrew said of software made with vibe coding. GitHub's CEO, Thomas Dohmke, said that vibe coding may also slow down experienced coders. On a podcast episode released last week, he said that a worst-case scenario is when a developer is forced to provide feedback in natural language when they already know how to do it in a programming language. That would be "basically replacing something that I can do in three seconds with something that might potentially take three minutes or even longer," Dohmke said.
