Microsoft ends Windows 7 support one year from today

Sure. The security depends from system hardening, good third part security software, patching, good policies....

 

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.

 

If everyone who promised to switch to Linux would have truly done so, it would be 98% instead of 2%.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

@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 ?

 

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!

 

@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.

 

How is this incorrect? I have 44 processes running in W7 and close to 80 or more in W10?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

AppArmor/Firejail is configured automatically in Parrot.

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

 

No need to. Still got a year of support on Windows 7 and then additional 3 years on Windows 8.1.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Microsoft to offer paid Windows 7 Extended Security Updates (2023)
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-to-offer-paid-windows-7-extended-security-updates/

 

hi
great link , w8.1 and 7 are the most secure
i could believe linux is so vulnerble

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

I concur absolutely! 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.