• kehet@sopuli.xyz
    1·
    15 days 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.

    • realitaetsverlust@piefed.zipEnglish
      2·
      15 days 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
        1·
        15 days ago

        Where is this?

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

    • SpaceMan9000@lemmy.world
      0·
      15 days 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
        1·
        15 days 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.

  • Die4Ever@retrolemmy.comEnglish
    1·
    14 days 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.

    • boomzilla@programming.dev
      0·
      13 days ago

      IDK. Defender had a good reputation when I still was on Windows, 8 years ago. It was non-intrusive and didn’t slow down the OS like other AV solutions. One good experience I had was when I dragged a zipped e-mail attachment to the desktop out of interest and Defender immediately quarantined it. Don’t understand the MS lingo in the text you quoted but yeah everything mentioning 365 sounds like a PITA. So maybe it’s BS now.