3 ms·

So this is an argument for only using first-party (Microsoft) security software?

• rightbyte 2y ago
  Ye I guess so. I'd argue to use some Linux distro though to remove the root remote code execution CVE.
  • chgs 2y ago
    You can buy RCE malware for Linux too - including crowdstrike. If you want a third party to manage your systems then it doesn’t matter what third party you choose Personally I’d go for diversity over any specific solution. That’s a rare thing in “enterprise” world. I suspect companies with strong shadow IT which provides business value for far better than those top down enterprise led ones.
• ryandrake 2y ago
  I'd rather[1] give "Microsoft and only Microsoft" the ability to remotely update my system, than "Microsoft and whatever fly-by-night 3rd party 'security' companies manages to sell their malware to my boss." A big problem here is that Microsoft has normalized the idea of rando third-party software having access to ring 0 and things running at the kernel level. This is one of the reasons many Linux people argue against opaque third-party blobs running in the kernel. This should not be as routine as it is in the Windows world. Apple wisely ditched kernel extensions. 1: EDIT: Ideally, I'd rather Microsoft not have access to remotely update my system, either, but that ship seems to have sailed long ago.