Microsoft ends Windows 7 support one year from today

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by mood, Jan 14, 2019.

  1. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,941
    Location:
    Europe, UE citizen
    Sure. The security depends from system hardening, good third part security software, patching, good policies....
     
  2. ProTruckDriver

    ProTruckDriver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Posts:
    1,047
    Location:
    "Here on Wilders"
    I don't have any installed now. I'm still reading about the many distro there are. It will probably be sometime this within the next few months I'll figure out which to download and install.
     
  3. DOSawaits

    DOSawaits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Posts:
    469
    Location:
    Belgium
    If everyone who promised to switch to Linux would have truly done so, it would be 98% instead of 2%.
     
  4. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Rofl, so true.

    Good to hear you have a plan. Just don't leave it until the last minute to ditch Windows 7.

    Exactly this, which Windows 10 (continually) introduces more for the user to use. It's sad to see so many people on this forum think that because they can't visually see the improvements in the OS, that means they either don't exist, or aren't necessary.

    Windows 10 has many breakthroughs in technology ranging from virtualization to mitigation to additional policies to performance and efficiency.

    Someone usually posts the many performance and security improvements Microsoft continues to push through with every major patch, but I guess those just don't exist because hey we can't see them right. Kind of like the wind.

    For example a good feature of 1809 is this: 'The Windows Security Center (WSC) service now requires antivirus products to run as a protected process'.
    This is great news for people that insist on using trash 3rd party AVs because they think that keeps them safer.

    Imagine being on this forum for this long and thinking that the way to know how secure your OS is if it "lets nastys get past".
    Pro tip: The real nastys won't let you know they got by ;)
    But that's good to know. I'll swap back to Windows XP right away and test if my anti virus lets anything past. If it doesn't, that means I'm secure. To hell with exploit protection and reducing attack surface, who needs that stuff!
    We're only in January and already reaching post of the year level quality.
     
  5. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    11,102
    Location:
    Here
    I agree that those improvements are great but ATM I don't think that they are "necessary". If they were, most users with older OSs would end up with compromised system. That's not true, neither for Windows 7 nor for Windows XP.

    I agree it has many improvements but OTOH has larger attack surface (new services, apps...). That's why it's not unusual for Windows 10 to receive more monthly patches for bugs and exploits than older OSs.

    For most people not letting nasties get past their defenses is exactly what means a secure OS. They won't get attacked by targeted state-level attack so protecting them form regular malware is all they really need. And they don't need "latest and greatest OS" to achieve that.
     
  6. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    This is incorrect. The majority of compromised systems are Windows 7 and Windows XP.

    This is also incorrect. Whilst there are more services in total, less of them are running when they don't need to be. This means your attack surface is reduced.

    Wtf? Good to know Windows is more secure than Linux then since Linux gets way more patches.

    Dumb logic.

    Except for the fact that he worded his post explicitly as if all he did was download a bunch of files and check if they were detected as malicious by his AV.
     
  7. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,941
    Location:
    Europe, UE citizen
    @elapsed: I agree with Minimalist. And many users don't need and don't trust Microsoft security help. Here a lot of us use to protect, virtualize, mitigate zero day exploit... third part programs much more complete, granular, effective. Windows 10 is only heavier, intrusive, spy, and needs more RAM and space. If I' m happy with 7 why Microsoft must force me ?
     
  8. Beyonder

    Beyonder Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2011
    Posts:
    395
    I dunno about that. Sync everything of value with MEGA. Linux Mint updates itself automagically and I'm using Parrot which can also very easily be set to update itself every day.
    Personally I'm planning on using Parrot when the LTS version releases this summer. It's created by the creator of Firejail, so it's very secure and really user friendly. It's based on Debian, too!
     
  9. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    11,102
    Location:
    Here
    @elapsed
    Sorry, I don't agree with you. I won't try to persuade you, but personally I just don't buy MS' attempts to try to sell (or force) users to move to Windows 10 on security basis.
    Lack of updates is for me only reason I would consider using it, but I still have time till 2023 when Windows 8.1 support ends.
    So I guess we just disagree.
     
  10. Infected

    Infected Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2015
    Posts:
    964
    How is this incorrect? I have 44 processes running in W7 and close to 80 or more in W10?
     
  11. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,514
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    If you use vulnerabilities as the criteria of how secure an OS is, this: http://www.cybrnow.com/10-most-vulnerable-os-of-2017/ states that in 2017 Win 10 was the most insecure Windows OS version. Of note is of the ten OSes noted, Win 7 was only marginally more insecure than Win 8.1 with both listed at 9th and 10th place respectively.
     
  12. reasonablePrivacy

    reasonablePrivacy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Posts:
    856
    Location:
    Member state of European Union
    I do Windows updates manually. I also create ReHIPS rules, firewall rules for new programs and so on.
    Gnu/Linux: I configure AppArmor. I also sometimes must rewrite some script that I created long ago or config file.
     
  13. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    You don't need any third party software at all to secure Windows 10. This is not true for Windows 7, and ESPECIALLY not true for Windows XP.

    Your complaints about privacy is irrelevant to the fact that Windows 10 is the most secure Windows OS. Turn off what you deem "intrusive" using the multitude of tools available, or swap to Linux.

    Then swap to Linux. Stop using a (nearly) dead OS.

    In Windows 10, some processes that were previously single processes was split into multiple, more specific processes. Windows does this dynamically when you install it based on how much RAM you have available.

    Here is an example: https://winaero.com/blog/why-many-svchost-exe-are-running-in-windows-10-creators-update/
    Again, completely dumb logic. As you see, Linux is #2 and Windows 10 is #4.
    Completely irrelevant statistic and cannot be used to judge how secure an OS is.
    If anything, the only thing that list shows is how popular an OS is, which is why Windows 8.1 is last.
    Windows 8.1 isn't some super magical secure OS.
     
  14. Beyonder

    Beyonder Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2011
    Posts:
    395
    AppArmor/Firejail is configured automatically in Parrot.

    Never bothered configuring firewall rules, except for blocking qBittorrent while not on my VPN.
     
  15. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    11,102
    Location:
    Here
    No need to. Still got a year of support on Windows 7 and then additional 3 years on Windows 8.1.
     
  16. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    8,294
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Always hoped against hope that Microsoft might one day do themselves-the industry as a whole (especially business clients), and local home users the smart choice and revisit previous versions in order to refine the quality points they sport (of which are many) that made them ever so demanding & popularly dependable, instead of plowing headlong into cramming 10 down everyone's throat and throwing their legacy right out the window.

    Bill Gates would have had an ear for such an interest-investment and according to history would steered a better course then the one that's gone so far off the rails IMHO.
     
  17. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,941
    Location:
    Europe, UE citizen
    Sorry, but I don't trust 10 for the security, Web is full of examples..... so how I didn't trust the other Windows OS. I go on to use third part softwares:more strong, more effective, more granular.
     
  18. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    4,567
    Location:
    USA still the best. But getting worse!
    W10 is intrusive telemetry that can never be tamed. Every forced wu is also to make sure M$ has some active tentacles on everyone's systems.
     
  19. Nanobot

    Nanobot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Posts:
    383
    Location:
    Neo Tokyo
  20. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,257
    @elapsed I also don't agree with you. I don't use anything to detected malware, I just don't let iit run. It can't infect you if it can't run.
     
  21. mantra

    mantra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Posts:
    5,573
    hi
    great link , w8.1 and 7 are the most secure
    i could believe linux is so vulnerble
     
  22. wat0114

    wat0114 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Posts:
    2,440
    Location:
    Canada
    And that's all it really boils down to. No matter how so called vulnerable any OS is, it's typically a user getting tricked into opening something they shouldn't, or it's a user trying to save money by using cracks. Over the years using XP, 7 and now 10, I've had no issues staying malware free just by using a default-deny security approach and common sense.
     
  23. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,746
    Peter, it is not always about security, as a matter of fact, I still basically use the same third party security that I have used on XP, Vista,Win 8/8.1 and now on win 10. If the issue was merely 'security', a switch to Linux or Apple would be justified, but I believe Win 10 is a totally different beast from its predecessors and has no rivals (so far) with its competitors...
     
  24. MisterB

    MisterB Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Posts:
    1,216
    Location:
    Southern Rocky Mountains USA
    The end of Windows 7 support will affect me just about as much as the end of Xp support, not at all except I won't be bothered anymore by the update notices. All the computers I'm doing work on with 7 will continue to run it. I still have two Xp systems running regularly including the one I'm posting this on. And Windows 7 doesn't have the 32 bit limitations that Xp has so I can see myself still doing photoshop edits with it in 2030.

    Security ultimately does reside in the user. None of my Windows 7 systems have ever had an issue, nor have my Xp, Vista or Linux systems at the client level. The only problem I've had in the last 10 years was in a server and that was due to a service being abused due to an inadequate firewall configuration, not due to exploits or infection.
     
  25. Dermot7

    Dermot7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Posts:
    3,322
    Location:
    Surrey, England.
    I concur absolutely! :thumb: How MS could have made such a ridiculous blunder as to choose to behave like a PUA can only be attributed to corporate arrogance, in assuming they would be permitted to choose that method of 'marketing' the new OS. No more MS after W7 for me, thanks.
     
Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.