similarly, I’ve removed Microsoft from my system.
Probably a good move on your part. When they try to force windows 11 on me, that’s when I will be moving to Linux.
I’m basically the IT guy in my village. Especially for my grandparents and their friends, so literally every senior here. Everyone uses Windows 10. Some, like my grandparents, are visually impaired and get completely lost with any change, so the switch to Win 11 would basically end their ability to navigate their computer. Some use Laptops that are too old for Win 11, not only because of M$’ arbitrary requirements but also because it’s already slow on 10. So in three years I’ll have much fun teaching everyone Win 11 or Linux Mint. Hopefully the latter.
Why wait, do it now.
I jumped ship to Linux when Win 7 died, cause I’d rather be fucked by a rusty fencepost than be forced to use 10, and 11 is right out.
Why wait, do it now.
Because Linux is a giant pain in the ass for anyone who is not a software engineer.
I think it depends, I guess you “just” need the right distro and compatible hardware (e.g. a Thinkpad). I started as a complete Linux noob too, but most problems I encountered I could easily solve in no time because a lot of things are nicely documented or someone else had them before and documented their solution on the internet. But depending on your usecase and other factors I understand Linux can be a pain in the ass.
At this point, Microsoft Windows itself can basically be classified as malware
When Windows 95 was in beta I would install it and next day it was dead. We finally realized that the BIOS was killing it.
Wat?
95 is kill
I’m not sure about the browser, but a lot of malware used to ship with the tor binary and used it to connect to the CNC. I can totally see it ending up in the indicator list.
I love bashing MS as much as the next guy, but this is not completely indefensible behavior given typical user use cases and needs. As long as it’s easy to add an exception of you installed it on purpose.
Yeah I’m guessing this is a false positive based on heuristic analysis, i.e. the TOR program has a lot of the same behaviors as malicious programs. Of course it is more accurate to say that the malicious programs are copying TOR behavior or just straight using TOR code, whatever the case may be.
My main issue is that it kind of shows a lack of due diligence. I assume the official TOR binaries are signed, so the official TOR binaries should be exempted from these heuristic positives. If the binaries are unsigned/have no valid certificates, then I can totally understand the false positive. At that point, the user should know they are installing software that cannot be automatically verified as being safe, and antivirus should never assume that something is safe otherwise. Like you said, for typical users this should be the expected behavior. Users can always undo Windows Defender actions and add exemptions.
I still don’t understand why Windows doesn’t use .exe whitelisting instead of bothering with endless blacklists and heuristics and antiviruses.
On any given system there’s a handful of legit .exe while out there there’s like a billion malware .exe, and more created every minute.
Or at least switch to an explicit “executable” flag like on MacOS and Linux.
Windows has both WDAC and Applocker for allowlisting, not just for exes, but stuff such as powershell scripts and what drivers run in the kernel as well.
In it’s strongest form (a signed WDAC policy) even admin access can’t easily override it, and a well written policy can even enforce stuff such as downgrade protection (example: only allow firefox.exe signed by Mozilla at or above a certain version) which prevents an attacker from loading older versions of an executable.
The problem is that it’s not so easy to use in practice - an installer will often drop loads of unsigned files. Tor Browser ironically enough is a prime example, and any WDAC policies allowing it have to fallback on hash rules, which are fragile and must be regenerated every update, or filepath rules which are not so robust.
Microsoft is trying to make allowlisting more accessible with Smart App Control, which runs WDAC under the hood. It does save the hassle of managing one’s own policies (and also blocks certain filetypes like lnks commonly used for malware), but it is not very customizable.
Because it makes it the easiest thing to spoof an .exe which enables attacks of which you will never get out of. A legit.exe vs a spoofed legit.exe will be the exact same in every way except the coding in spoofed fucks you.
Edit: you’re trading security risk for security risk that makes it easier to hide. Not worth it.
Edit 2: their is nothing 100% secure MD5 and Sha1 are both spoofable. Checksums and anything is capable of being man in the middle. You people act like you just found something that can’t be broken. This is the real world the moment you switch most black hatters and white hatters will switch too…
Not really, WDAC doesn’t usually just look at the filename. It can look at the certificate it was signed by, or fallback to using hashes.
