this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
465 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59555 readers
3874 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

MS: I want to make Windows 11 require motherboard features that make ransomware attacks more difficult so I can say it's more secure, even though it's merely a feature of the motherboard.

Also MS: Sadly, if your tech doesn't have these features you cannot upgrade and it will be insecure because I will not make updates for it.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Are you talking about TPM 2? Because I don't think that makes classic ransomware more difficult. Also it doesn't have to be strictly a motherboard feature, e.g mine comes without a fixed hardware TPM, but my processor supports fTPM, which has up- and downsides. But it works as a TPM.

Also MS: Sadly, if your tech doesn't have these features you cannot upgrade and it will be insecure because I will not make updates for it.

Technically, this isn't true, MS will continue to update Windows 10 and even individual users can receive these officially through the Windows 10 ESU program: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/extended-security-updates

Not that I'm in favor of what they're doing, I think they should rather support older hardware with Win 11 and require modern features only on modern systems. But from a security standpoint, their decision is actually good, as it builds a secure foundation. Most private users will just do whatever on that foundation (e.g. run random stuff from the Internet), but I think going forward, this is the right choice, though probably for the wrong reason of doing Intel a favor.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 5 hours ago