Windows 10 Fall Creators Update: AI powers next gen security

[HEXUS]

Windows Defender ATP intelligently detects previously unknown malware threats.

Read more.

[kalniel]

They have seen Terminator 3, right?

[Corky34]

If they wanted to 'harden' Windows maybe they should start with removing some unneeded features and/or services, instead of Windows being all you can eat it should be à la carte.

[3dcandy]

They have seen Terminator 3, right?

But they're still on XP

[deepblue08]

If they wanted to 'harden' Windows maybe they should start with removing some unneeded features and/or services, instead of Windows being all you can eat it should be à la carte.

The problem with removing any kind of support (even legacy support), is that those 12 people who use that functionality are going to whine about it until the cows come home, especially if it's a large corporation that requires some special legacy functionality. People use windows not because it's the best UX, people use it because it supports nearly everything and with good performance, if you take that away...

[Tabbykatze]

One of the big key issues (partner of Sophos) is that this is anti competitive. There is already a potential suit going ahead by some big name vendors against Microsoft because it is damn near impossible for clients to disable defender. I have all the Group Policies set in my organisation but that bloody icon is still there.

Additionally ATP is nothing new, welcome Micrsoft to 2009.

[Corky34]

The problem with removing any kind of support (even legacy support), is that those 12 people who use that functionality are going to whine about it until the cows come home, especially if it's a large corporation that requires some special legacy functionality. People use windows not because it's the best UX, people use it because it supports nearly everything and with good performance, if you take that away...

Then those 12 people can take it upon themselves to reinstall that functionality and the risk that comes with doing so.

[Saracen]

The problem with removing any kind of support (even legacy support), is that those 12 people who use that functionality are going to whine about it until the cows come home, especially if it's a large corporation that requires some special legacy functionality. People use windows not because it's the best UX, people use it because it supports nearly everything and with good performance, if you take that away...

History demonstrates quite clearly that a lot more than 12 people can "whine", or rather, clearly express the reasons they are not happy with MS's decisions, and be utterly ignored by MS. Sometimes, if vastly more than 12 object, and refuse to adopt changes, MS eventually accepts that their usual divine omniscience has staggered a bit, and they backtrack on forcing changes on users, whether they like it or not.

Besides, it's now 11 people. After about 20 years of being solely MS-based, they finally went so far I've ditched MS snd all but legacy systems here, requiring old MS OS support for legacy hardware, are now LINUX.

[deepblue08]

The problem with removing any kind of support (even legacy support), is that those 12 people who use that functionality are going to whine about it until the cows come home, especially if it's a large corporation that requires some special legacy functionality. People use windows not because it's the best UX, people use it because it supports nearly everything and with good performance, if you take that away...

History demonstrates quite clearly that a lot more than 12 people can "whine", or rather, clearly express the reasons they are not happy with MS's decisions, and be utterly ignored by MS. Sometimes, if vastly more than 12 object, and refuse to adopt changes, MS eventually accepts that their usual divine omniscience has staggered a bit, and they backtrack on forcing changes on users, whether they like it or not.

Besides, it's now 11 people. After about 20 years of being solely MS-based, they finally went so far I've ditched MS snd all but legacy systems here, requiring old MS OS support for legacy hardware, are now LINUX.

You missed my point. I argued that MS should not remove *legacy support* and to be honest they usually don't.

[badass]

It will be just like all of the other features that MS add to Windows that other vendors do for windows. It will be a poor imitation, over complicated to set up and manage and worse at detecting attacks most likely!
Look at the windows defender score for protection here! https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus...ent/windows-8/

[Saracen]

You missed my point. I argued that MS should not remove *legacy support* and to be honest they usually don't.

I didn't miss it. I was saying that MS have a substantial track record of doing what they want and not caring what vastly more than 12 "whiners" want, whether that be removing legacy support or introducing new "features".

But personally, I have long agreed with what I think Corky was getting at, which is bloating as a default Windows with a whole slew of unnecessary features and services, be it AV solutions, defraggers, or whatever, many of which are half-baked, or crippled versions of commercial software. They could include these, and many others, as install-options or even deselectable defaults, but instead, they habitually bloat an OS with all sorts of junk entirely superfluous to an OS.

Without wishing to put words in Corky's mouth, I assume when he referred to removing "uneeded features and/or services" that he was talking about everything from these kinds of features, to the usually redundant SMB v1 service that left unpatched systems vulnerable to EternalBlue, regardless of whether users needed SMB v1.0 or not. This is despite it being known for years that SMB V1.0 is one of the primary atrack vectors.

Sometimes, removing or at least default-disabling "legacy" stuff is a good idea.

[deepblue08]

You missed my point. I argued that MS should not remove *legacy support* and to be honest they usually don't.

I didn't miss it. I was saying that MS have a substantial track record of doing what they want and not caring what vastly more than 12 "whiners" want, whether that be removing legacy support or introducing new "features".

But personally, I have long agreed with what I think Corky was getting at, which is bloating as a default Windows with a whole slew of unnecessary features and services, be it AV solutions, defraggers, or whatever, many of which are half-baked, or crippled versions of commercial software. They could include these, and many others, as install-options or even deselectable defaults, but instead, they habitually bloat an OS with all sorts of junk entirely superfluous to an OS.

Without wishing to put words in Corky's mouth, I assume when he referred to removing "uneeded features and/or services" that he was talking about everything from these kinds of features, to the usually redundant SMB v1 service that left unpatched systems vulnerable to EternalBlue, regardless of whether users needed SMB v1.0 or not. This is despite it being known for years that SMB V1.0 is one of the primary atrack vectors.

Sometimes, removing or at least default-disabling "legacy" stuff is a good idea.

I can somewhat see your point, although by 12 people I referred to those that use that specific legacy feature, not in general, since obviously more than 12 people disagree with MS.

[Saracen]

I can somewhat see your point, although by 12 people I referred to those that use that specific legacy feature, not in general, since obviously more than 12 people disagree with MS.

If only 12, only given the scale of Windows usage, even 1200, maybe 12,000, need a "legacy" feature like SMB v1, remove/disable it as default but leave it available for those needing it. After all, on such issues, I doubt many inexperienced users would notice, and the more advanced users should be able to read release notes and re-enable it ... and apply patches, of course.

Even more so, IMHO, the bloat components.

Given MS's reaction to, for instance, the infamous Start button issue with Win8, I can't seem them giving a blind hoot if 12 whiners objected to anything in Windows. They are, IMHO, rather customer-deaf to whines, unless it is both monumental in volume and scale and chronic in timescale.

[deepblue08]

You make a fair point. MS should work on modularity of their legacy components, it will make the OS lighter and still support the supportive for those who need it.

[DanceswithUnix]

One of the big key issues (partner of Sophos) is that this is anti competitive. There is already a potential suit going ahead by some big name vendors against Microsoft because it is damn near impossible for clients to disable defender. I have all the Group Policies set in my organisation but that bloody icon is still there.

Additionally ATP is nothing new, welcome Micrsoft to 2009.

TBH this is one case where I think MS should be left to improve their defense software as much as possible, as they are best placed to integrate cleanly and smoothly with the rest of Windows whilst closing holes.

Or to put it another way, if MS made a mess, I don't expect to go to a third party to sell me a shovel, I expect MS to fix it. Sorry if that seems harsh on AV vendors.

As for bloat, it shouldn't really be a problem of itself. My Linux install came with web servers, numerous compilers and all sorts of stuff such that it requires *daily* updates that I get prompted to apply in a little KDE popup. I guess the difference is that the packaging is good enough to do that fine grained update reliably, plus I don't have to reboot after updating, so it isn't disruptive.

[Saracen]

Exactly my view, Deepblue. There are lots of things this applies to, but arguably, if you are SSD-based, you won't want conventional defraggers. If you have a definite choice for AntiVirus, Firewall, etc, you won't want MS defaults installed. If you have commercial FTP software, you don't need a built-in basic version. And so on.

Many of these kinds of things (unlike legacy OS services like SMB) are important to users but not core OS functions, so an install process could have an "Option center" where users could either elect to install some/all components if not installing was default, or to deselect them if installing was default.

It would also simplify subsequent patching by not havjng to patch shedloads of basic modules more discerning users never installed in the first place.

My view is an Occam's Razor type view - the ideal OS config is the one that does the minimum as default, and let ME pick what "free" extras I want. I wouldn't opt for many from MS because I'd rather use my own preferred package which I KNOW is the version I want, and is full function, not crippled-ware.

Or I wouldn't pick many MS options if I still used Windows, this being part of the readon I don't.