• Die4Ever@retrolemmy.comEnglish
    4·
    54 minutes ago

    from here https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/microsoftdefenderatpblog/secure-linux-desktops-with-microsoft-defender/4560822

    This sounds like the type of stuff a company would require on their business laptops, so this might actually be a good thing for Linux adoption. Of course it sucks for people who were already using Linux for work and now gotta put up with this shit lol.

    Defender on Linux desktops requires the standalone Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Plan 2 or Microsoft 365 E5 and E7.

  • ArsonButCute@programming.dev
    1·
    42 minutes ago

    If it’s easier to set up and work with than ClamAV I’m down to clown. I won’t put it on my personal machine, but I’ve got machines I use corpware on for work and school I wouldn’t mind having it on.

  • kehet@sopuli.xyz
    26·
    5 hours ago

    If this allows more companies to offer Linux as an option for employees workstations, or even instead of Windows, I’m fine with this. Obviously this is not something for consumers.

  • entwine@programming.dev
    5·
    3 hours ago

    At least it’s accurately named. “Microsoft Defender” is designed to defend Microsoft from competitors. All those EU orgs switching to Linux are now just one short sales call to the right idiot away from falling back into Microsoft’s ecosystem.

    • realitaetsverlust@piefed.zipEnglish
      21·
      5 hours ago

      It’s actually not.

      Many laws and insurances require the use of anti-virus software. This is like a leftover from 20 years ago, where anti-virus actually did something. If you have a security breach and the insurance finds out you didn’t have any anti-virus, it’s not going to pay. So, for legal/liability reasons, company do need to install that kind of bullshit, even tho it’s not doing anything today.

      For consumers, this is completely irrelevant, but for companies that want to offer linux as an OS for their employees, that is actually a nice thing to have.

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        9·
        4 hours ago

        Where is this?

        I’ve worked in office space with computers, handling sensible data, and there wasn’t an anti-virus solution. Ever.

        • realitaetsverlust@piefed.zipEnglish
          3·
          4 hours ago

          Most insurances I’ve worked with require those. This is not a country thing, but a company thing. My current business insurance requires them

          By law, there is nothing thar REQUIRES it per se, but there is a set of rules and regulations where installing it is one way to fulfil the requirements. Especially NIS2 requires “appropriate cybersecurity risk-management measures”, so having a free anti-virus run on the system is one way to implement it, amongst other measures of course.

          and there wasn’t an anti-virus solution

          I’m not saying every company follows them. I’m just saying if something happens and they discover you’re not following certain regulations, you are in the big shitters and will be very likely held liable.

          Not caring about security is fine as long as nothing happens.

    • SpaceMan9000@lemmy.world
      7·
      5 hours ago

      Not really, Defender is quite popular as an EDR solution and a lot of companies love the pricing and logging of a modern EDR.

      Defender with its timeline is also better than some of the alternatives I’ve seen in the field.

      • Riskable@programming.devEnglish
        5·
        4 hours ago

        The pricing is garbage. The only benefit is the classic “unreasonable enterprise demands” (UED, that’s my term for it): Rather than use multiple tools that are each best in class (and possibly cheaper or even free!) enterprises will always choose one product that does all the things. Even if it does those things poorly or even worst-in-class.

        Example: VMWare. For ages, enterprises used VMWare for all their VMs because it could run/manage both Windows and Linux VMs from a single tool. Even though HyperV for Windows is vastly superior for Windows VMs and KVM is vastly superior for Linux VMs.

        Aside: Yes, you can run Linux on HyperV and Windows on KVM but neither are ideal.

        Windows Defender as an EDR is OK-ish for Windows but it’ll never top CrowdStrike Falcon or SentinelOne Singularity for Linux. It probably won’t be better than FOSS alternatives like Cilium Tetragon or even Falco (because of their flexibility/customizable nature).

        Edit: I also have a pretty firm belief that putting Windows people in charge of managing Linux systems (of any kind) is always a bad idea. Yet the very nature of the product (Microsoft Defender) insists upon this.