If you operate such devices, it is an absolute imperative that you have a procedure for taking them offline regularly for updates
In some contexts that simply isn't a viable strategy. As an extreme example, consider something like an implanted medical device that needs to run 24/7 for the rest of a person's life, which can only be replaced via surgery under hospital conditions, and for which any failure is already a life-threatening event. Of course that kind of device probably isn't going to be running an OS like Windows, but it makes the point. In fact, the USSS has reportedly had the standard wireless update facility disabled in such devices for prominent public figures who might be at risk of being attacked that way.
Some equipment used in hospitals or to run other essential infrastructure might be within the realms of running a "normal" OS like Windows but still be in a position where any time out of service is extremely expensive in one way or another, so routinely disrupting operation to apply updates still isn't acceptable. There are also contexts where the device is regulated and making any change at all requires re-approval -- a legitimate and serious conflict when faced with this kind of security risk if the situation when a regulated device goes out of spec can also be serious.
You need different security strategies for this kind of environment, which rely more on external controls. You can't just say everything must be able to come out of service at frequent intervals for security updates, and you can't just handwash the problem away by calling people who understand the issues "unqualified". It's a far more complicated problem than that, and often there are no completely satisfactory arrangements.
Yes, things are complicated, but airlines manage to routinely take $100m devices out of service for days to months for servicing, so it seems like a bad excuse that a hospital can't plan around taking any given device offline for a few hours every couple of years.
But it's not every couple of years, is it? The patch for the current widespread problem was released just a couple of months ago, and there have been more security patches for other things since then.
Also, those $100m devices aren't in service 24/7/365. No-one takes an airplane out of service in mid-flight to apply a security update.
Sorry, the two years was a reference to Windows XP, of which there were also way too many installs still around (although possibly not on critical devices, but all the more irresponsible to not have upgraded them, then).
> No-one takes an airplane out of service in mid-flight to apply a security update.
In some contexts that simply isn't a viable strategy. As an extreme example, consider something like an implanted medical device that needs to run 24/7 for the rest of a person's life, which can only be replaced via surgery under hospital conditions, and for which any failure is already a life-threatening event. Of course that kind of device probably isn't going to be running an OS like Windows, but it makes the point. In fact, the USSS has reportedly had the standard wireless update facility disabled in such devices for prominent public figures who might be at risk of being attacked that way.
Some equipment used in hospitals or to run other essential infrastructure might be within the realms of running a "normal" OS like Windows but still be in a position where any time out of service is extremely expensive in one way or another, so routinely disrupting operation to apply updates still isn't acceptable. There are also contexts where the device is regulated and making any change at all requires re-approval -- a legitimate and serious conflict when faced with this kind of security risk if the situation when a regulated device goes out of spec can also be serious.
You need different security strategies for this kind of environment, which rely more on external controls. You can't just say everything must be able to come out of service at frequent intervals for security updates, and you can't just handwash the problem away by calling people who understand the issues "unqualified". It's a far more complicated problem than that, and often there are no completely satisfactory arrangements.