Compare and contrast

Topic

New Reply

Look at the AskWoody blog post below (“Pwnfest brings two zero-day system level hacks of Edge”), then read Microsoft’s claims about Win10 version 1607
[See the full post at: Compare and contrast]

Reply | Quote

Replies

@Woody,
I am a little confused as to where the “blog post below” and “Microsoft’s claims” are to be found — are they both inside of Thurrott’s article?
Is Thurrott’s article the “blog post below”, or is his article a separate synopsis?

Reply | Quote

Sorry. I was talking about my blog post – which talked about the three compromises at PwnFest – and Paul’s article, which basically summarizes Microsoft’s white paper.

I’ll fix it. Thanks.

Reply | Quote

I’ve seen a lot of those notes mentioning that 10 is the most secure, and why they say it’s the most secure, and to me, they’re rubbish.

1) I’d argue that most people are using Google Chrome, which has sandboxed tabs, sandboxed Pepper Flash, sandboxed PDF reader, and is kept up to date by Google. Chrome (current) is available on everything going back to Vista.

2) The detection rates of Windows Defender are still low, so using a better-rated AV like (for instance) Bitdefender Free will provide better malware prevention. Again, available on everything going back to Vista. (Not sure if it still supports XP.)

3) A smart user can use other tools, like Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit Free, or MS’s own EMET, to further harden many apps that are usually exploited. Available going back to 7, but I think they killed the Vista support.

In those regards, you can make a 7 box as secure (and really, more secure) than any 10 box. If you add those programs to 10, it makes it just as secure, but not really more secure (IMHO).

IOW, I think MS’s hype is just that – hype. Fluff.
Out of the box, sure, it’s more secure. But again I think most people are using Chrome anyway, so you can ignore most of their comments and bullet points about Edge. No one is using Edge.

Reply | Quote

W10 is more secure than W7 because MS focused on security when they developed it. W10 has integrated anti-exploit capabilities but W7 does not. Windows Defender in W7 was anemic whereas it is a far superior product in W10. That does mean that W7 is totally inferior as MS later introduced EMET and MSE to boost W7’s security capabilities.

To say that only Edge provides browser hardening is a stretch. Compared to IE they have a point, but other browsers are equal or better at hardening and can run on both W10 and W7.

Combating ransomware would be the same on W7 as on W10. Hackers deploy several avenues to break into an OS, quite often easily bypassing security products, especially AVs.

If the graph provided by Thurrott was from systems fully patched but without layered security and other user deployed restrictions then W7 would come off as less secure than W10. External security products and settings can effectively level the playing field.

Reply | Quote

This is funny :

https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2016/11/10/thats-it-ive-had-enough/

Especially when you put it in the perspective of Kaspersky being a Russian company, of Kaspersky himself having gone to KGB school, and of his hinting at “democracy” and a “police state”.

Reply | Quote

I like this in particular:

To oblige Microsoft (i) to provide new versions and updates of Windows to independent developers in good time so they can maintain compatibility of their software to Windows; (ii) explicitly inform the user of the presence of incompatible software before upgrading Windows and recommend the user to install a compatible version of the software after the upgrade; (iii) always explicitly ask the user for his/her approval to enable Windows Defender.

Reply | Quote

Paul’s graph comes from Microsoft’s publication.

I tend to think of it as comparing apples and oranges but… you know…

Reply | Quote

I’ve read his article and he has many many good points. Of course, his business is threatened by this and it is normal to defend it. But when it comes to security, he’s right that you need options and choices, second opinions, to those of MS. Especially now, and more than ever! Corporate monopolies are a tyranny we can all live without.

As for being a Ruskie, a Russian company, Kaspersky = KGB educated, well… the West always needed a bogeyman, and Mr Putin and Russia are still it. Its amazing all the BS in the MSM about it all.

Reply | Quote

I created a new blog post on this topic…

Reply | Quote

25% of 400 million is still quite a large number. Certainly more than no one.

Reply | Quote