Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Says Windows 10 Version 1607 is The Most Secure Windows Ever (thurrott.com)
A new white paper from Microsoft claims that "devices running Windows 10 are 58% less likely to encounter ransomware than when running Windows 7". But an anonymous reader brings more news from Windows-watcher Paul Thurrott:
in a separate blog post, it also makes its case for why Windows 10 version 1607 -- that is, Windows 10 with the Anniversary Update installed -- is the most secure Windows version yet. Improvements in this release include: Microsoft Edge runs Adobe Flash Player in an isolated container, and Edge exploits cannot execute other applications... [And] the Windows Defender signature delivery channel works faster than before so that the in-box anti-virus and anti-malware solution can help block ransomware, both in the cloud and on the client. Additionally, Windows Defender responds to new threats faster using improved cloud protection and automatic sample submission features, plus improved behavioral heuristics aimed at detecting ransomware-related activities.
Interestingly, the paper also touts Microsoft's "Advancing machine-learning systems in our email services to help stop the spread of ransomware via email delivery."
Interestingly, the paper also touts Microsoft's "Advancing machine-learning systems in our email services to help stop the spread of ransomware via email delivery."
. . . .is not what **I** would call a selling point. Sticking to Win7 on my Windoze gaming box, and Ubuntu for my main box. . .
Where are the patches for Win7 which address all these known flaws? They're supposed to be providing security updates until 2020.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
...now say it in Donald Trump's voice.
Furries make the internet go.
That's only because it won't boot. That way, the machine can't get infected.
... that the Galaxy Note 7 is the hottest phone of the year!
If it was secure, I could control which outside servers the operating system contacts and what information it sends to them. An operating system for which you cannot even control where it connects to is insecure by definition.
It connects to more than a hundred outside servers Microsoft refuses to publish a complete list of these places and what data it exactly transmits, so it is also practically impossible for the end user to reliably distinguish Microsoft traffic from trojan horses and malware. It's ridiculous to call that secure.
Security that the USER cannot control is not what **i** would call a selling point
A fine stance if you are a a technically competent IT pro or equivalent. However for the 99+% of the people out there who don't fit that description, having the security handled by the system vendor can actually be a good idea. Microsoft can do a better job of it than my mother can. (yes I know... stop snickering) The VAST majority of users don't have the foggiest idea how to properly secure their computers nor any meaningful interest in learning. Having the option of user control for those with the ability is a good idea but probably not a good default for most users. Microsoft may not do a great job but they'll probably do a better job than the majority of users (which is kind of a sad commentary but it is reality). It only is a problem if they deny competent users the ability to control security when the need arises.
How secure this version of Windows is can only be determined after-the-fact.
Once a year goes by, and security researchers have sunk in their teeth, can we really determine how good the initial threat model was.
"The most secure version of windows" has been claimed for every release since Windows 98... and we know how that turned out.
"Most secure since" does not mean it is secure. Just that it is more secure thann what came before.
Say on a scale of 1-100 that Win95 was 1 secure and Win98 was 2 secure and Win8 was 15 secure and this one is 16 secure, it is indeed the most secure one. Not secure, most secure.
And that is all without knowing how the security is measured. Is the securety level stable over the lifespan, or does it decrease with time as more faults are found, or does it stay the same?
So even though the claim is valid, it is also meaningless. It is like saying that the birthday girl is the oldest she ever was on her birthday. True, but useless info.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
You'll be modded down, but in all honesty I get about as much useful information from your post as I get from what Microsoft says about Microsoft's Windows security.
Isn't that something like "Best Mexican wine"?
Saying something is "the most secure Windows ever" is roughly the equivalent of being the finest outdoor ice hockey player in Ecuador. That is to say, something which is only impressive out of context.
Who did what now?
I'm shocked that they cleared such a high hurdle!
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
My CEO once asked me why he wasn't a QSECOFR. I told him politely but bluntly that it wasn't a recommended practice for people who didn't know what they were doing to have such a level of access, that I had done the IBM courses on managing an AS400, and he hadn't.
He was a bit taken aback, but my boss backed me up.
Unfortunately at the next job the Analyst and the Programmer were QSECOFRs, and I couldn't convince my boss that was a bad thing.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom