Windows will: spy on you, serve you advertisements, reboot autonomously, destroying your open work, install software without consent, report your browsing behavior to advertisers, literally steal your email password, upload all your files to one drive without consent, forcibly change your default browser, insert aggressive ads for Edge in front of the Firefox download page, show you clickbait tabloid articles in the taskbar.
Honestly I'm not sure how you can consider any of that secure.
You have this very backwards, CVEs are about Security and not the other way around.
Consider why we care about security in the first place:
- We don't want our private data stolen
- We don't want a malicious program stealing our electricity and computing resources
- We don't want adware injecting advertising into our browser toolbar, homepage, email client, etc
- We want our family to be able to safely use our computers without having to worry about them falling for scams
- We want peace of mind
Unconsented advertising is absolutely a violation of security in the same way a salesmen breaking into your house to sell you things is. Don't miss the forest for the trees here.
Do not forget that the CVE system is fundamentally just a tool for tracking computer security vulnerabilities, a tool that unfortunately incentivises pedantic security researchers to fill it with garbage to pad their resumes, a tool who's authority is worshiped like a god by corporate IT departments despite it's inadequacies, but a tool nonetheless which just happens to be better than it's alternatives.
The fact that deliberate security violations enforced by the vendor are not tracked by the CVE system, is not evidence of Security, but simply a limitation of the system.
>Consider why we care about security in the first place:
>- We don't want our private data stolen
>- We don't want a malicious program stealing our electricity and computing resources
>- We don't want adware injecting advertising into our browser toolbar, homepage, email client, etc
>- We want our family to be able to safely use our computers without having to worry about them falling for scams
>- We want peace of mind
Almost all those points are basically the same thing repeated differently:
We don't want somebody else mess with our computer, but that "somebody else" almost always is 3rd party - so not you (user) and not Microsoft (vendor).
Ads from vendor aren't considered as a security issue (unless very edge cases).
They are annoying, but in the principle they aren't security defect (unless badly implemented)
Android and chromeos are Linux based, so it's very interesting that 2 of your 4 most secure operating systems are linux.
But this is a perfect example of how the premise itself is fundemntally clickbait. The problem of insecurity is unrelated to Linux, but the execution and privilege model of userspace.
Except they're not. They're the most permissive by default, maybe. But they're not the least secure.
If you put an assa abloy on your door, and then elect not to lock it. That doesn't mean assa abloy is the least secure lock.
Windows has a reputation for being insecure because if you try to keep someone out, they can still get in. This article was written on the idea that Linux is insecure, because when you don't try to keep someone out, they can get in.
Not quite, you can secure and lock down Windows too, the problem is that it isn't secure by default. And 90% of Admins don't bother with securing it other than sprinkling anti-virus on top.
Android, ChromeOS and Qubes are secure by default. Though I wouldn't trust a novice user with QubesOS.
