[rlanday]

> > The Windows ecosystem typically deployed in corporate PCs or workstations is often insecure, slow, and poorly implemented

> Yes, but that's not because of Windows itself

Come on. There’s a reason Windows users all want to install crappy security products: they’ve been routinely having their files encrypted and held for ransom for the last decade.

[didntcheck]

And Linux/BSD generally would not help here. Ransomeware is just ordinary file IO and is usually run "legitimately" by phished users rather than actual code execution exploits

I have a similar disdain for security bloatware with questionable value, but one actually effective corporate IT strategy is using one of those tools to operate a whitelist of safe software, with centralized updates

[consteval]

I think having a Linux/BSD might be helpful here in the general case, because the culture is different.

In Windows land it's pretty much expected that you go to random websites, download random executables, ignore the "make changes to your computer?" warnings and pretty much give the exe full permission to do anything. It's very much been the standard software install workflow for decades now on Windows.

In the Linux/BSD world, while you can do the above, people generally don't. Generally, they stick to trusted software sources with centralized updates, like your second point. In this case I don't think it's a matter of capability, both Windows and Unix-land is capable of what you're suggesting.

I think phishing is generally much less effective in Max/Linux/BSD world because of this.

[BobaFloutist]

Until a a lucrative contract requires you to install prescribed boutique windows-only software from a random company you've never heard of, and then it's back to that bad old workflow.

[boolemancer]

Yeah, because no one on Linux or Mac would clone a git repo they just found out about and blindly run the setup scripts listed in the readme.

And no one would pipe a script downloaded with wget/curl directly into bash.

And nobody would copy a script from a code-formatted block on a page, paste it directly into their terminal and then run it.

Im not going to go so far as to claim that these behaviors are as common as installing software on Windows, but they are still definitely common, and all could lead to the same kinds of bad things happening.

[consteval]

I would agree this stuff DOES happen, but typically in development environments. And I also think its crappy practice. Nobody should ever pipe a curl into sh. I see it on docs sometimes and yes, it does bother me.

I think though that the culture of robust repositories and package managers is MUCH more prominent on Mac/iOS/Linux/FreeBSD. It's coming to Windows too with the new(er) Windows store stuff, so hopefully people don't become too resistant to that.

[rlanday]

A developer is much more likely to be able to fix their computer and/or restore from a backup than a typical user is. A significant problem is cascading failures, where one bozo installing malware either creates a business problem (e.g. allowing someone to steal a bunch of money) or is able to disable a bunch of other computers on the same network. It is not that common for macOS to be implicated in these sorts of issues. I know people have been saying for a long time that it’s theoretically possible but it really doesn’t seem that common in practice.

[codebolt]

I'd wager if Linux had the same userbase as Windows, you'd see more ransomware attacks on that platform as well. Nothing about Linux is inherently more secure.

[pid-1]

Yeah I don't get where this "Linux is more secure" thing comes from.

Basically any userspace program can read your .aws, .ssh, .kube, etc... The user based security model desktops have is the real issue.

Compare that with Android and iOS for instance. No one needs anti-virus bloatware, just because apps are curated and isolated by default.

[cesarb]

> Yeah I don't get where this "Linux is more secure" thing comes from.

It comes from the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, Windows was a laughingstock from a security point of view (for instance, at one point connecting a newly installed Windows computer to the network was enough for it to be automatically invaded). Both Windows and Linux have become more secure since then.

> Basically any userspace program can read your .aws, .ssh, .kube, etc... The user based security model desktops have is the real issue. Compare that with Android and iOS for instance. No one needs anti-virus bloatware, just because apps are curated and isolated by default.

Things are getting better now, with things like flatpak getting more popular. For instance, the closed-source games running within the Steam flatpak won't have any access to my ~/.aws or ~/.ssh or ~/.kube or etc.

[quotemstr]

What fraction of ransomware attacks would these security products have prevented exactly? Windows already comes with plenty of monitoring and alerting functionality.

[bombcar]

Probably close to none at some point. They may block some things.

But most of Windows falling to this is that it’s what people use. The only platform that is somewhat actually protected against attacks is the iPhone - the Mac can easily be ransomwared it’s just the market is so small nobody bothers attacking it; no ROI.

[quotemstr]

Yeah. The mobile ecosystems are what real security design looks like. Everything is sandboxed, brokered, MACed, and fuzzed. We should either make the desktop systems work the same way or generalize the mobile systems into desktops.

[skydhash]

The mobile ecosystem is what corporate IT should be. Centralized app store, siloed applications, immutable filesystem (other than the document part for each application), then VM and specials computers for activities like development. However locked iOS can be, most upgrades happen without an hitch, and no need for security software.

[lbadmin]

Hard to say, but windows defender doesn't stop as many as EDR's can. There are actual tests for this, ran by independent parties that check exactly this. Defender can be disabled extremely easily, modern EDRs cannot.

[qwytw]

> There’s a reason Windows users

Yes, average Windows users are significantly less tech literate due to obvious reasons and there are way more of them. This create a very lucrative market.

How is desktop Linux somehow inherently particularly more secure than Windows?