2 ms·
> I feel like those calling the shots at Microsoft realised it's no longer an optional component or that security is merely a marketing story I dunno, if a com
by diggan 2y ago
> I feel like those calling the shots at Microsoft realised it's no longer an optional component or that security is merely a marketing story
I dunno, if a company has for more than two decades (2002: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/gates-security-is-top-priority/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/gates-security-is-to...) said that security is the top priority, and they keep re-iterating that every now and then (2024: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2024/05/03/prioritizing-security-above-all-else/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2024/05/03/prioritizing-sec...), yet they still don't actually seem to act like it, I'm pretty sure they still see it as an optional component/marketing story.
- Aachen 2y ago> I dunno, if [they've been saying it for 25 years], yet they still don't actually seem to act like it That's what I'm saying though: from my point of view, they've started to act like it in the last ~20 years. If you've got evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it. From my pov, they're about as perfect as the average other for-profit, which is not very security-in-depth at all but it's not just a marketing sham anymore either the way that it used to be. From Bitlocker to Defender to their security patching and presumably secure coding practices, it's not the same company that it was when they launched XP. A lot of the market seems to have grown up and, at least among our customers, we're finding fewer trivial issues At any rate, this subthread started by saying this standard Windows setup shouldn't be used in the first place. I'm all for not using closed software, but then the question rather becomes: who do you think is deserving of your trust in this scenario?