Edit: typo

  • Surp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    You laugh but windows defender is awesome. People give windows shit but the reason it’s attacked the most is because of it’s market share being above and beyond leaps and bounds sun vs tiny fleck of dust in space os market shares that Linux and Mac os have. No one’s wasting time hacking the tiny stuff as much just because its a numbers game. Guarenfuckingtee you if Linux was number one market share OS it would be getting attacked way more often than any other OS as well. Dont kid yourselves.

    • RmDebArc_5@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      macOS and Linux have additional security features at a system level, on Linux most software comes through controlled repositories or sandboxed flatpaks. There are also tons of multi million dollar companies that constantly try to find and fix kernel level vulnerabilities and a distro like Debian, which is very popular for servers, has had less major vulnerabilities than windows 7 throughout its entire lifecycle and Debian exists for other 30 years. So I’d say Linux is would have a few less (different) attacks

  • cedeho@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Most Windows Programs running with root access is like, I don’t know… Windows XP era maybe?

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is Linuxmemes, what did you expect?

      Up-to-date knowledge of other systems? lol

    • 1337@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Windows ME was the last edition to make this assumption. NT was never like that.

      • kernelle@0d.gs
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        UAC was introduced with vista, IIRC in xp any program would inherit the privileges of the user running them

  • aard@kyu.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Windows NT 3.5 and later NT 4 had C2 security certifications - assuming the system was not connected to a network, and didn’t have floppy drives (this was before USB was a thing).

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    windows defender is better than how it used to be where had to buy an expensive proprietary av or download clam av and hope for the best

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    The only secure Windows is Windows 1.0. There is no network stack in it, and nobody would want to use it anyway.

    Anything else is up for grabs.

    • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s way too reliant on their cloud infrastructure though, causing it to detect and react to malware slower than other solutions and it turns to shit the second the network disconnects. The PC security channel on YouTube has some good analysis of it.

  • Pantherina@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Does Smartscreen upload your .exes ? I disable its internet access and would be stupid if it only uses that to download databases or stuff.

      • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Depends on how you categorize “Linux” User, if you include anything running a Linux Kernel as “Linux” then the vast majority have no clue they’re using Linux.

    • AtmaJnana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think they’re probably just young and enthusiastic. I was like that about linux 20 years ago when I had the energy for it.