5 ms·
But the executable can still only run in the context it exists even if it is compromised. This is akin to SELinux... You cannot compromise an executable run wi
by jpc0 2y ago
But the executable can still only run in the context it exists even if it is compromised. This is akin to SELinux...
You cannot compromise an executable run without permission and magically get Administrator or some higher privilege level without another exploit. Sure that specific user's data may be compromised but in the end the system remained secure.
Also keep in mind Microsoft by default has a ton of sandboxes and checks on those applications which will likely get caught as well should that compromised application try to access something it shouldn't.
I don't personally know of a mass security event involving Windows that cannot be chuaked up to failing to implement security updates. Sure Microsoft has some massive security issues but in general their track record isn't as bad as people try to make it out as.
There are enough reasons to hate windows without making up new ones.
- justinclift 2y ago> I don't personally know of a mass security event involving Windows that cannot be chuaked up to failing to implement security updates. The recent global ClownStrike outage?
- jpc0 2y agoNot even Microsoft related?
- justinclift 2y agoHuh? You specifically said "a mass security event involving Windows". The Clownstrike outage certainly qualifies.
- jpc0 2y agoIt qualifies about as much as log4j qualified for linux. If you aren't entirely in the know crowdstrike had a very similar issue a few months before with Redhat distros so was that a Redhat issue?
- justinclift 2y agoIf you were asking for examples and said "involving Red Hat [Enterprise Linux]" then yes, that would be "involving Red Hat [Enterprise Linux]". If you meant "caused by", then maybe use that instead of "involving"? ;)
- jpc0 2y agoIf you purely want to debate semantics then sure. Cause by.