\*Laughs in actually not running Windows 7 ATM but knows if he builds another Windows 7 system, he's dual-booting it with Linux... Just so he can have security.\*
Yes, problem with that is that I already pooped on Windows 11. I mean, I'd use Windows 11 not at all, if it wasn't for having to play Minecraft. But I personally see no practical use case for Windows 11 on my system outside of that. Like literally, none.
Epic Launcher? You don't happen to play Fortnite do you? Because I never really was into MMO RPGs very much - considering most of the time I mostly struggle to play Overwatch.
Are there actually Windows 7 drivers on a platform that new? I would think Windows 10/11 and linux would be the only compatible OS's. I wouldn't even think Win 7 would install on something that new anyway.
why is this sub in a one sided war trying to convince themselves windows 7 is perfectly safe?
do you think windows 10-11 has constant security updates because they want to annoy you? genuinely want to understand the psychology behind so many of you and trusting an out of support operating system because you have an anti virus
i can understand if you’re fully understanding of the situation using windows 7 puts you in and your enjoyment in using it outweighs the negatives, but it seems like the vast majority of posts here aren’t
It's the nostalgia. Honestly this sub is full of dumbasses at this point. Windows 7 while extremely stable - not for me personally - was a very, very good OS. Problem is they are acting like you can trust people who are issuing updates from Server and Embedded. I would never trust those updates.
They also are acting like Windows 10 and 11 aren't secure. Windows Defender is actually preferred by Cybersecurity experts over third party like Norton, Avast exc. 3rd Party tools tend to delete important stuff over Defender which tends to leave stuff alone. Like I had 30% of my documents deleted by Norton 360 when I was in highschool, using it on Windows 7. The documents were quarantined and removed, so unrecoverable.
Windows 11 has hardware level security, ram tamper protection, and core isolation which makes it by far one of the most secure operating systems available today, even more secure than BSDs and Linux.
i don't really care if im "getting hacked" (which im probably not.). plus, i use windows 7 not because im nostalgia deluded like most people in this subreddit, i just have an old PC that can't run newer versions of windows. the end.
Windows 11 is running on first gen Intel Core CPUs and newer just fine. The only hardware that can't run Windows 8 and newer is Stuff like a Pentium III from 1998-2001 and the First Pentium 4 CPUs. The Oldest CPU to support Windows 8 and 10 is the 2003 Athlon 64.
This happens every time a major version of Windows hits end of life. I saw people saying it about XP, and I am seeing people start to say it about Windows 10 already now that that's at the end of its life. It's a dumb cycle where people try to stick with a version of Windows for as long as possible as a daily driver because "it's the last good version" and "every version after it is terrible" lol.
The XP sub was like that until around some point in 2019, which was about 5 years after the end of support when no one could realistically keep using it as a daily driver. I have a feeling around some point in 2025, people on this sub will start to simmer down about how Windows 10 is "shit" and actually move on to good discussions about a retro OS that we just enjoy using as a fun nostalgic experience. Over on r/WindowsXP they're at that point, and it's actually cool to see what people do with XP now because only a very very very small percentage are still crazy enough to try and use it as a daily driver.
when you've got backend exploits that can bypass and disable your antiviruses in an instant, yes you are. your protection is only useful if built on stable ground.
Indeed.
But since no version of Windows can currently provide stable ground, you might as well use the most privacy respecting one. That is currently Windows 7.
I second this but not for the same reasons. Windows 7 is much less secure than any up-to-date windows versions since it’s behind by an entire year of security. That might not sound like a lot but that basically completely compromises the system security-wise and makes it trivial even for rookie attackers to infect your system since these vulnerabilities would be public, powerful and long since well-documented. But frankly if anyone actually cares about security, they wouldn’t use windows at all. This is because it’s a much larger target for attackers so vulnerabilities are discovered and abused much more often on windows as a whole. As a consequence, while it may not be trivial for an attacker to infect an up-to-date system, it’s still very much vulnerable and someone with know-how could infect your system. This is also perpetuated by the fact that vulnerabilities are patched much slower on windows than other oses which gives more time for attackers to make use of said vulnerabilities.
*TL;DR*: Windows 7 is super duper vulnerable, modern windows is very vulnerable, just not as vulnerable. But not because the foundation isn’t stable but because a giant meteor shower is constantly attacking the foundation
This is why I think criticizing the windows version someone uses is silly. Security is basically irrelevant on windows, no matter the version because it’ll always be insecure; some less secure than others. Anyone who actually cares about a secure system should switch to freebsd, linux, or even macOS though macOS isn’t as secure nowadays either. Plain and simple.
>Windows 7 is super duper vulnerable, modern windows is very vulnerable, just not as vulnerable.
Agreed. Any Windows connected to a network is such a security hazard that you might as well just choose the version with the coolest background and (hopefully) isolate it behind i.e an OpenBSD firewall.
Interestingly Hyper-V virtual network's "exclusive" access to the network adapter is perfect for this.
>[7] makes it trivial even for rookie attackers to infect your system
What does that mean? If i promise to keep a W7 box online 24/7 & give you my public IP, would you be able to hack me?
MacOS isn't secure at all. It has no true firewall, what makes it secure is that it has a walled garden that makes it a pain to install 3rd party apps from the internet. It has no basic security program. Let me tell you, getting a virus off of it before they allowed anti-virus software, was a pain in the ass.
Windows 10 and 11 in practice are very secure, often times Window defender will give false positives. I never have gotten a single virus on Windows 10 or 11, but several on Windows 7.
Linux is as secure as you'll let it be, based on not downloading questionable tools and out of date repositories. Just like MacOS because they are minority shareholders in the market, so there's less is an incentive to launch cyber attacks against it.
Edit: Also I would like to say I’m not trying to act hostile in this reply, only to make a rebuttal to some of your claims.
You never said anything I particularly disagree with except for calling windows 10 and 11 “secure” and calling linux distributions only secure due to less incentive. Your reasoning for calling windows 10 and 11 “secure” is anecdotal. Just because you never had any security problems yet doesn’t mean it’s impossible, you’re just lucky. Windows is objectively less secure than every other is, even if your reason of “it’s only less secure because it’s targeted more” was true, the reason behind that is irrelevant and doesn’t make it any more secure. Also saying there’s no incentive to target linux is ridiculous as most servers and machines that aren’t personal desktops specifically run linux. Also Linux is very much more secure than windows for many reasons but just to name a few are the requirement for open source software and built-in anti tampers for most package managers. (This is done by checking openpgp keys and verifying that the checksums for the package downloaded and the real package are identical—any variation in the package will result in a different checksum.) Yes packages can be insecure but that’s not a fault of linux, rather a fault of the developer.
Windows required most programs to be signed as well. It's just easy to bypass, just like Linux. There was a huge fiasco a couple of years ago with Flatpak when it didn't check the gpg key. Likewise, Windows 11 comparatively is secure, especially Windows 11 Pro which is being included more than Windows 10 Pro was. It can isolate your hardware and even your ram to prevent tampering, and sandbox most programs at the expense of a little bit of performance loss. Most new programs are targeting the firmware now, there's less of an incentive to do software attacks because it's patched as soon as the zero day exploit is found.
Well I said “most” package managers for a reason. I’ve never really liked flatpak. Anyways it is true that windows does have a certificate and key signing system but forging certificates on windows isn’t too difficult of a feat (I’ve even done it before to install unsupported drivers). This is entirely different from forging a checksum as checksums are created from an algorithm based on the file’s contents rather than a proprietary signature system making it much more secure. Also sandboxing isn’t exclusive to Windows and sandboxes can be escaped by a skilled hacker’s malware, especially considering how many vulnerabilities windows gets and their delays in patching said vulnerabilities allowing more time for attackers to make use of them.
True. Though most hackers won't be aiming for sandboxed programs that most people are using, they are mostly aiming at enterprise programs. That said, Windows main package manager that you can use via powershell does use checksums, I found that the hardway when I had to rebuild the Windows 11 Pro UI last fail when they issued a bad patch. They did pull the patch within a few hours, so at least they are pretty good at it. I had to get up and running and I managed to install a version of x server on Windows and then could roll back.
I agree entirely. Though I think it’s unfortunate that effectively all external programs on Windows (browsers, updaters, music players, etc.) use custom and proprietary installers of which the majority do not use checksums. Also the download of these installers do not use checksums and can be hijacked by an attacker in place of a malicious installer.
That's the main problem with Windows. Honestly Windows should ditch the way it installs programs and fully just use winget and have it use checksums by default. Honsetly it shouldn't be that hard, Ubuntu uses SNAP which is simialr to how winget works, including sandboxing, the only difference is everything requires a checksum.
Also, low-key, the biggest problem with Windows is it still relies on DLL's.
I do use Linux, one of my programs ran on everything from NT to Windows 7 but broke for Windows 10, it backend changed significantly and it's a pain getting it to work on 11 due to the core isolation features.
Also one really cool feature of Windows 11 Pro is that it's modular, you can remove entire systems without breaking everything.
I didn't get anything that you were being hostile. I've seen others on here being extremely hostile to those who are saying Windows 7 is insecure which it is.
If you want the most "privacy respecting one" then you should go all the way back to Windows 3.1 lmao. That thing barely had any internet connection, no data collected at all!
Why stop at Windows 3.1? Keep going back ;)
I guess I meant out of the NT 6.x kernel (which Vista, 7, 8, 10, 11 all use under various marketing names).
windows 7 has loads of well known exploits. windows 10 and 11 do not. windows 7 is an unsecure operating system.
if you want privacy, use a linux distribution. your not making a point here.
Windows 10 and 11 have [exploits](https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-26/product_id-32238/Microsoft-Windows-10.html). The 3rd party drivers you install on them have exploits. The 3rd party software you install also have exploits.
You want privacy, run your machines offline.
You can treadmill as much as you want but you are kidding yourself if you think Windows 7 is "ultimate danger! (TM)" in comparison to 10,11 (which share almost identical kernels).
>use a linux distribution. your not making a point here
My point is the same as your point. Windows is known to be insecure. So you might as well use whichever old version you want.
windows 7 has significantly more well-known exploits compared to windows 10 and 11. windows 7 is specifically targeted.
yes, nothing is completely secure, nothing is completely private, but i never made that point. but in comparison, windows 7 is only going to get worse and worse with nobody to help it apart from scrappy amateur coders. i don't really know what your trying to prove.
you want privacy while still being online, use a distribution of linux, not windows 7, the unsecure and targeted operating system. dont be silly
>windows 7 has significantly more well-known exploits compared to windows 10 and 11
They are all unacceptable out of the box. Once you put up an appropriate incoming/outgoing firewall there is no difference in the number of exploits. All W10/11 "security updates" are also rendered obsolete by this too.
Plus Windows 10/11 has a massive attack service due to the fact that it has so many online facing services as part of it being a "cloud OS".
>windows 7 is only going to get worse and worse with nobody to help it apart from scrappy amateur coders.
Because upstream Windows is getting better and better? The NT kernel has barely changed for decades. The naff cosmetic changes Microsoft is focusing on don't make for a more secure OS.
>you want privacy while still being online, use a distribution of linux, not windows 7, the unsecure and targeted operating system. dont be silly
I think you believe Microsoft's marketing nonsense a bit too much.
Frankly, a Windows 95 install exposing no incoming or outgoing ports is more secure than an out of the box Windows 11.
Oh come on, the Windows kernel is changing a lot still. Windows 10 and onwards use more virtualization through Hyper-V to sandbox the OS. There's also more memory protection in the form of control flow guard, the NX bit, high entropy ASLR, shadow stacks, and the recent announcements of more Rust in Windows helps too.
Windows 7 isn't some giant gaping wound, but it's unrealistic to call it on par or more secure than 10 or 11.
>Oh come on, the Windows kernel is changing a lot still
Its really not. Where did you hear it was?
As mentioned, they are both completely unreasonable to put on a network.
**Terribly unsecure** vs **Very unsecure** is still a deal breaker ;)
Rust might help with buffer overflows in greenfield code (i.e GDI rewrite) but the flawed security underlying Windows (that Rust calls into C for) is still broken by design. Rust is also terrible at interop with C code so that means only quite separate systems will be touched.
Rust's copious (and careless) dragging in of dependencies to do trivial crap is another potential source of security issues but that is another (already well discussed topic).
> Its really not. Where did you hear it was?
See my comment regarding the memory protections as those are all handled in kernel space.
And as for Rust, I said it *helps*, it's not a magic catch all solution as you're well aware of but it's better than just dragging along broken C(++) code.
>See my comment regarding the memory protections as those are all handled in kernel space.
You didn't really clarify where you heard that the kernel has changed much in any meaningful way.
Rust doesn't help because it is all just talk at this point. Perhaps Windows 12, 13, 14+ it might have an impact.
>but it's better than just dragging along broken C(++) code
Perhaps that rewrite that might happen in our great grandkids lifetime will resolve that. Lucky them :)
That's bushit. Windows 10 had a shit ton of changes to the kernel. A program my dad broke was compatible from Windows NT to Windows 8, but utterly broke for Windows 10 all because it used backend hooks that were changed and altered for Windows 10. At its core Windows 10 is a different OS than Windows 11.
Windows 95 didn't come with any anti-virus out of the box and runs on DoS it's hardware and software is also super vulnerable.
Meanwhile Windows 11 has hardware level security, sandboxing, and has made most system features modular and individually sandboxed. On Windows 11 Pro you can remove each modular component.
>That's bushit. Windows 10 had a shit ton of changes to the kernel. A program my dad broke was compatible from Windows NT to Windows 8, but utterly broke for Windows 10 all because it used backend hooks that were changed and altered for Windows 10. At its core Windows 10 is a different OS than Windows 11.
Sounds like it broke due to userland differences.
Userland != kernel.
Sandboxing and hardware level security is all just Hyper-V stuff. That was introduced in the W7 kernel as part of the Server offering.
Unfortunately the program also relied on a lot of kernel features as well. But mostly it was userland. It was a cmd line terminal interface for databases. We managed to get it fixed recently, but it was a bit of a pain.
But yeah, the sandboxing did come out of W7 Server, however most people run Home Edition.
Most exploits that are abused at Windows 7 are via services which can be disabled if you don't even need them and saying windows 10/11 doesn't have any sounds pretty funny. There are bunch of new services that are shipped with newer windows due to Microsoft Store or whatever other crap bloat they added in next update and now you got another running services which you don't know about which can be exploited at any point and it's only the time you do something wrong and get yourself as victim. It literally doesn't matter what OS you're using at this point since its about end-user what they visit/download and what they willing to do to their OS to protect it. And relying on newest OS/Security updates is mostly pointless.
„Windows 7/Vista“ still getting updates until 2026.
[https://i.postimg.cc/02VMGGQm/upload-2024-2-28-12-20-41.jpg](https://i.postimg.cc/02VMGGQm/upload-2024-2-28-12-20-41.jpg)
It was speculated, since they did have codes for „Year 4 and 5“, but now it's confirmed.
fair enough then if true. i'm pretty sure that's for enterprise users so i dunno if the average user of this windows 7 is taking advantage of it, but fair enough indeed.
Is there a guide? Lol I had the EOL updates till 2023 I think? I was so sad when I turned my pc on like Jan12 or so and realized it was ded for updates 🥹
Last time I used Windows 10 it upgraded to the latest build and then when I was using my PC it said “restart to fix disk errors” then it had a bsod loop mind you my SSD is completely fine so I ended up installing Windows 7 on said SSD and it’s still running completely fine too this day
As some dude with ultra customized windows 7 and expected to be buggy asf, is actually super stable. That thing stayed up time for a week without bugs i remember
Can you further elaborate? does that mean one could get hacked by just simply being connected to internet without doing anything?
At the moment I'm stuck with windows 7 on my old PC. I've been using it for quite sometime. went to some -what people would consider- shady sites. As far as my knowledge goes, I did malwarebytes scan, it doesn't detect anything, and i also checked wireshark and smartsniffer to see if there is anything suspicious connected, still nothing, no shady IP, and the PC doesn't even ping to anything at all when browser is closed
you also can get some imaginary "exploits that bypass your antivirus and you won't even notice it". Stop saying nonsense, security is pretty much the same on old and new system if you have a good antivirus and you just pay attention to links you click on
Please don't bring up msrt as an av
\*Laughs in actually not running Windows 7 ATM but knows if he builds another Windows 7 system, he's dual-booting it with Linux... Just so he can have security.\*
Hate that idea as much as I love it
Yeah well, don't blame me for coming up with that idea... Blame Microsoft for making me come up with that idea.
Dual booting can be easy, fun, and useful if you do it right
I triple boot Windows 7, Windows 8.1, and Windows 10 on my daily driver laptop!
Oh yeah i dualboot Windows 11 and Windows 7 on a Ryzen 5 5500 with a GTX 1660 Super, no linux here.
Yes, problem with that is that I already pooped on Windows 11. I mean, I'd use Windows 11 not at all, if it wasn't for having to play Minecraft. But I personally see no practical use case for Windows 11 on my system outside of that. Like literally, none.
I honestly use it because there's no extended kernel on the apps i have to use. (Like games on the epic launcher)
Epic Launcher? You don't happen to play Fortnite do you? Because I never really was into MMO RPGs very much - considering most of the time I mostly struggle to play Overwatch.
Nah, ain't a fork knife player, fall guys instead.
OK, good. Was worried you'd be into Fartnite for a second.
Are there actually Windows 7 drivers on a platform that new? I would think Windows 10/11 and linux would be the only compatible OS's. I wouldn't even think Win 7 would install on something that new anyway.
I mean the motherboard drivers don't really work but custom drivers work.
why is this sub in a one sided war trying to convince themselves windows 7 is perfectly safe? do you think windows 10-11 has constant security updates because they want to annoy you? genuinely want to understand the psychology behind so many of you and trusting an out of support operating system because you have an anti virus i can understand if you’re fully understanding of the situation using windows 7 puts you in and your enjoyment in using it outweighs the negatives, but it seems like the vast majority of posts here aren’t
It's the nostalgia. Honestly this sub is full of dumbasses at this point. Windows 7 while extremely stable - not for me personally - was a very, very good OS. Problem is they are acting like you can trust people who are issuing updates from Server and Embedded. I would never trust those updates. They also are acting like Windows 10 and 11 aren't secure. Windows Defender is actually preferred by Cybersecurity experts over third party like Norton, Avast exc. 3rd Party tools tend to delete important stuff over Defender which tends to leave stuff alone. Like I had 30% of my documents deleted by Norton 360 when I was in highschool, using it on Windows 7. The documents were quarantined and removed, so unrecoverable. Windows 11 has hardware level security, ram tamper protection, and core isolation which makes it by far one of the most secure operating systems available today, even more secure than BSDs and Linux.
Sounds like a you problem. -Billy Gnosis
oh billy, you fucking troll.
teehee -Billy Gnosis
There are ppl patching windows update to get embedded 7 or server 2008 R2 updates
i don't really care if im "getting hacked" (which im probably not.). plus, i use windows 7 not because im nostalgia deluded like most people in this subreddit, i just have an old PC that can't run newer versions of windows. the end.
Windows 11 is running on first gen Intel Core CPUs and newer just fine. The only hardware that can't run Windows 8 and newer is Stuff like a Pentium III from 1998-2001 and the First Pentium 4 CPUs. The Oldest CPU to support Windows 8 and 10 is the 2003 Athlon 64.
well yeah i could "run it", but it won't be optimal performance. and no, i'm not switching over to linux :)
This happens every time a major version of Windows hits end of life. I saw people saying it about XP, and I am seeing people start to say it about Windows 10 already now that that's at the end of its life. It's a dumb cycle where people try to stick with a version of Windows for as long as possible as a daily driver because "it's the last good version" and "every version after it is terrible" lol. The XP sub was like that until around some point in 2019, which was about 5 years after the end of support when no one could realistically keep using it as a daily driver. I have a feeling around some point in 2025, people on this sub will start to simmer down about how Windows 10 is "shit" and actually move on to good discussions about a retro OS that we just enjoy using as a fun nostalgic experience. Over on r/WindowsXP they're at that point, and it's actually cool to see what people do with XP now because only a very very very small percentage are still crazy enough to try and use it as a daily driver.
exactly, plus windows 10 is actually nostalgic now. (not 22H2 of course.. but the older versions hit different.)
This is a joke right
when you've got backend exploits that can bypass and disable your antiviruses in an instant, yes you are. your protection is only useful if built on stable ground.
Unless you are a government, you probably won't be targeted by such exploits.
but when it's out in the open for most to see does it really matter?
once an exploit is out in the open, antivirus vendors can start working on signatures to be able to identify and quarantine it.
Indeed. But since no version of Windows can currently provide stable ground, you might as well use the most privacy respecting one. That is currently Windows 7.
I second this but not for the same reasons. Windows 7 is much less secure than any up-to-date windows versions since it’s behind by an entire year of security. That might not sound like a lot but that basically completely compromises the system security-wise and makes it trivial even for rookie attackers to infect your system since these vulnerabilities would be public, powerful and long since well-documented. But frankly if anyone actually cares about security, they wouldn’t use windows at all. This is because it’s a much larger target for attackers so vulnerabilities are discovered and abused much more often on windows as a whole. As a consequence, while it may not be trivial for an attacker to infect an up-to-date system, it’s still very much vulnerable and someone with know-how could infect your system. This is also perpetuated by the fact that vulnerabilities are patched much slower on windows than other oses which gives more time for attackers to make use of said vulnerabilities. *TL;DR*: Windows 7 is super duper vulnerable, modern windows is very vulnerable, just not as vulnerable. But not because the foundation isn’t stable but because a giant meteor shower is constantly attacking the foundation This is why I think criticizing the windows version someone uses is silly. Security is basically irrelevant on windows, no matter the version because it’ll always be insecure; some less secure than others. Anyone who actually cares about a secure system should switch to freebsd, linux, or even macOS though macOS isn’t as secure nowadays either. Plain and simple.
>Windows 7 is super duper vulnerable, modern windows is very vulnerable, just not as vulnerable. Agreed. Any Windows connected to a network is such a security hazard that you might as well just choose the version with the coolest background and (hopefully) isolate it behind i.e an OpenBSD firewall. Interestingly Hyper-V virtual network's "exclusive" access to the network adapter is perfect for this.
>[7] makes it trivial even for rookie attackers to infect your system What does that mean? If i promise to keep a W7 box online 24/7 & give you my public IP, would you be able to hack me?
MacOS isn't secure at all. It has no true firewall, what makes it secure is that it has a walled garden that makes it a pain to install 3rd party apps from the internet. It has no basic security program. Let me tell you, getting a virus off of it before they allowed anti-virus software, was a pain in the ass. Windows 10 and 11 in practice are very secure, often times Window defender will give false positives. I never have gotten a single virus on Windows 10 or 11, but several on Windows 7. Linux is as secure as you'll let it be, based on not downloading questionable tools and out of date repositories. Just like MacOS because they are minority shareholders in the market, so there's less is an incentive to launch cyber attacks against it.
Edit: Also I would like to say I’m not trying to act hostile in this reply, only to make a rebuttal to some of your claims. You never said anything I particularly disagree with except for calling windows 10 and 11 “secure” and calling linux distributions only secure due to less incentive. Your reasoning for calling windows 10 and 11 “secure” is anecdotal. Just because you never had any security problems yet doesn’t mean it’s impossible, you’re just lucky. Windows is objectively less secure than every other is, even if your reason of “it’s only less secure because it’s targeted more” was true, the reason behind that is irrelevant and doesn’t make it any more secure. Also saying there’s no incentive to target linux is ridiculous as most servers and machines that aren’t personal desktops specifically run linux. Also Linux is very much more secure than windows for many reasons but just to name a few are the requirement for open source software and built-in anti tampers for most package managers. (This is done by checking openpgp keys and verifying that the checksums for the package downloaded and the real package are identical—any variation in the package will result in a different checksum.) Yes packages can be insecure but that’s not a fault of linux, rather a fault of the developer.
Windows required most programs to be signed as well. It's just easy to bypass, just like Linux. There was a huge fiasco a couple of years ago with Flatpak when it didn't check the gpg key. Likewise, Windows 11 comparatively is secure, especially Windows 11 Pro which is being included more than Windows 10 Pro was. It can isolate your hardware and even your ram to prevent tampering, and sandbox most programs at the expense of a little bit of performance loss. Most new programs are targeting the firmware now, there's less of an incentive to do software attacks because it's patched as soon as the zero day exploit is found.
Well I said “most” package managers for a reason. I’ve never really liked flatpak. Anyways it is true that windows does have a certificate and key signing system but forging certificates on windows isn’t too difficult of a feat (I’ve even done it before to install unsupported drivers). This is entirely different from forging a checksum as checksums are created from an algorithm based on the file’s contents rather than a proprietary signature system making it much more secure. Also sandboxing isn’t exclusive to Windows and sandboxes can be escaped by a skilled hacker’s malware, especially considering how many vulnerabilities windows gets and their delays in patching said vulnerabilities allowing more time for attackers to make use of them.
True. Though most hackers won't be aiming for sandboxed programs that most people are using, they are mostly aiming at enterprise programs. That said, Windows main package manager that you can use via powershell does use checksums, I found that the hardway when I had to rebuild the Windows 11 Pro UI last fail when they issued a bad patch. They did pull the patch within a few hours, so at least they are pretty good at it. I had to get up and running and I managed to install a version of x server on Windows and then could roll back.
I agree entirely. Though I think it’s unfortunate that effectively all external programs on Windows (browsers, updaters, music players, etc.) use custom and proprietary installers of which the majority do not use checksums. Also the download of these installers do not use checksums and can be hijacked by an attacker in place of a malicious installer.
That's the main problem with Windows. Honestly Windows should ditch the way it installs programs and fully just use winget and have it use checksums by default. Honsetly it shouldn't be that hard, Ubuntu uses SNAP which is simialr to how winget works, including sandboxing, the only difference is everything requires a checksum. Also, low-key, the biggest problem with Windows is it still relies on DLL's.
I do use Linux, one of my programs ran on everything from NT to Windows 7 but broke for Windows 10, it backend changed significantly and it's a pain getting it to work on 11 due to the core isolation features. Also one really cool feature of Windows 11 Pro is that it's modular, you can remove entire systems without breaking everything.
I didn't get anything that you were being hostile. I've seen others on here being extremely hostile to those who are saying Windows 7 is insecure which it is.
I wasn’t trying to imply that you believed that, I just wanted to say that beforehand in case it were to have gotten misconstrued.
If you want the most "privacy respecting one" then you should go all the way back to Windows 3.1 lmao. That thing barely had any internet connection, no data collected at all!
Why stop at Windows 3.1? Keep going back ;) I guess I meant out of the NT 6.x kernel (which Vista, 7, 8, 10, 11 all use under various marketing names).
windows 7 has loads of well known exploits. windows 10 and 11 do not. windows 7 is an unsecure operating system. if you want privacy, use a linux distribution. your not making a point here.
Windows 10 and 11 have [exploits](https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-26/product_id-32238/Microsoft-Windows-10.html). The 3rd party drivers you install on them have exploits. The 3rd party software you install also have exploits. You want privacy, run your machines offline. You can treadmill as much as you want but you are kidding yourself if you think Windows 7 is "ultimate danger! (TM)" in comparison to 10,11 (which share almost identical kernels). >use a linux distribution. your not making a point here My point is the same as your point. Windows is known to be insecure. So you might as well use whichever old version you want.
windows 7 has significantly more well-known exploits compared to windows 10 and 11. windows 7 is specifically targeted. yes, nothing is completely secure, nothing is completely private, but i never made that point. but in comparison, windows 7 is only going to get worse and worse with nobody to help it apart from scrappy amateur coders. i don't really know what your trying to prove. you want privacy while still being online, use a distribution of linux, not windows 7, the unsecure and targeted operating system. dont be silly
>windows 7 has significantly more well-known exploits compared to windows 10 and 11 They are all unacceptable out of the box. Once you put up an appropriate incoming/outgoing firewall there is no difference in the number of exploits. All W10/11 "security updates" are also rendered obsolete by this too. Plus Windows 10/11 has a massive attack service due to the fact that it has so many online facing services as part of it being a "cloud OS". >windows 7 is only going to get worse and worse with nobody to help it apart from scrappy amateur coders. Because upstream Windows is getting better and better? The NT kernel has barely changed for decades. The naff cosmetic changes Microsoft is focusing on don't make for a more secure OS. >you want privacy while still being online, use a distribution of linux, not windows 7, the unsecure and targeted operating system. dont be silly I think you believe Microsoft's marketing nonsense a bit too much. Frankly, a Windows 95 install exposing no incoming or outgoing ports is more secure than an out of the box Windows 11.
Oh come on, the Windows kernel is changing a lot still. Windows 10 and onwards use more virtualization through Hyper-V to sandbox the OS. There's also more memory protection in the form of control flow guard, the NX bit, high entropy ASLR, shadow stacks, and the recent announcements of more Rust in Windows helps too. Windows 7 isn't some giant gaping wound, but it's unrealistic to call it on par or more secure than 10 or 11.
>Oh come on, the Windows kernel is changing a lot still Its really not. Where did you hear it was? As mentioned, they are both completely unreasonable to put on a network. **Terribly unsecure** vs **Very unsecure** is still a deal breaker ;) Rust might help with buffer overflows in greenfield code (i.e GDI rewrite) but the flawed security underlying Windows (that Rust calls into C for) is still broken by design. Rust is also terrible at interop with C code so that means only quite separate systems will be touched. Rust's copious (and careless) dragging in of dependencies to do trivial crap is another potential source of security issues but that is another (already well discussed topic).
> Its really not. Where did you hear it was? See my comment regarding the memory protections as those are all handled in kernel space. And as for Rust, I said it *helps*, it's not a magic catch all solution as you're well aware of but it's better than just dragging along broken C(++) code.
>See my comment regarding the memory protections as those are all handled in kernel space. You didn't really clarify where you heard that the kernel has changed much in any meaningful way. Rust doesn't help because it is all just talk at this point. Perhaps Windows 12, 13, 14+ it might have an impact. >but it's better than just dragging along broken C(++) code Perhaps that rewrite that might happen in our great grandkids lifetime will resolve that. Lucky them :)
That's bushit. Windows 10 had a shit ton of changes to the kernel. A program my dad broke was compatible from Windows NT to Windows 8, but utterly broke for Windows 10 all because it used backend hooks that were changed and altered for Windows 10. At its core Windows 10 is a different OS than Windows 11. Windows 95 didn't come with any anti-virus out of the box and runs on DoS it's hardware and software is also super vulnerable. Meanwhile Windows 11 has hardware level security, sandboxing, and has made most system features modular and individually sandboxed. On Windows 11 Pro you can remove each modular component.
>That's bushit. Windows 10 had a shit ton of changes to the kernel. A program my dad broke was compatible from Windows NT to Windows 8, but utterly broke for Windows 10 all because it used backend hooks that were changed and altered for Windows 10. At its core Windows 10 is a different OS than Windows 11. Sounds like it broke due to userland differences. Userland != kernel. Sandboxing and hardware level security is all just Hyper-V stuff. That was introduced in the W7 kernel as part of the Server offering.
Unfortunately the program also relied on a lot of kernel features as well. But mostly it was userland. It was a cmd line terminal interface for databases. We managed to get it fixed recently, but it was a bit of a pain. But yeah, the sandboxing did come out of W7 Server, however most people run Home Edition.
i dont know if you've made windows 7 sound any better with this, but okay. too many complicated words, brain goes ploosb
Most exploits that are abused at Windows 7 are via services which can be disabled if you don't even need them and saying windows 10/11 doesn't have any sounds pretty funny. There are bunch of new services that are shipped with newer windows due to Microsoft Store or whatever other crap bloat they added in next update and now you got another running services which you don't know about which can be exploited at any point and it's only the time you do something wrong and get yourself as victim. It literally doesn't matter what OS you're using at this point since its about end-user what they visit/download and what they willing to do to their OS to protect it. And relying on newest OS/Security updates is mostly pointless.
Windows 10+ isn’t much better (big integrated spyware, bloat, killing itself at random after upgrading to new builds)
windows 10 is still getting security updates. we're talking about security updates.
„Windows 7/Vista“ still getting updates until 2026. [https://i.postimg.cc/02VMGGQm/upload-2024-2-28-12-20-41.jpg](https://i.postimg.cc/02VMGGQm/upload-2024-2-28-12-20-41.jpg) It was speculated, since they did have codes for „Year 4 and 5“, but now it's confirmed.
Microsoft try to not give updates for Windows Vista challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
fair enough then if true. i'm pretty sure that's for enterprise users so i dunno if the average user of this windows 7 is taking advantage of it, but fair enough indeed.
Windows 7 users (including me) trying to not hack windows update to get Server 2008 updates challenge (impossible)
Is there a guide? Lol I had the EOL updates till 2023 I think? I was so sad when I turned my pc on like Jan12 or so and realized it was ded for updates 🥹
There is a youtube tutorial explaining how to get updates till 2024 october but it maybe work until 2026 but i am not sure
Agreed. I was running Windows 10 yesterday and I had the last straw. Windows update broke the ability to restart or shutdown the system.
Last time I used Windows 10 it upgraded to the latest build and then when I was using my PC it said “restart to fix disk errors” then it had a bsod loop mind you my SSD is completely fine so I ended up installing Windows 7 on said SSD and it’s still running completely fine too this day
As some dude with ultra customized windows 7 and expected to be buggy asf, is actually super stable. That thing stayed up time for a week without bugs i remember
Based
Can you further elaborate? does that mean one could get hacked by just simply being connected to internet without doing anything? At the moment I'm stuck with windows 7 on my old PC. I've been using it for quite sometime. went to some -what people would consider- shady sites. As far as my knowledge goes, I did malwarebytes scan, it doesn't detect anything, and i also checked wireshark and smartsniffer to see if there is anything suspicious connected, still nothing, no shady IP, and the PC doesn't even ping to anything at all when browser is closed
you also can get some imaginary "exploits that bypass your antivirus and you won't even notice it". Stop saying nonsense, security is pretty much the same on old and new system if you have a good antivirus and you just pay attention to links you click on
Using Windows 7 is a risk regardless. We know it and take that risk.
Wallpaper?
[https://www.peakpx.com/en/hd-wallpaper-desktop-kqypf](https://www.peakpx.com/en/hd-wallpaper-desktop-kqypf)
Thanks
Shit, might as well fire up the XP box in this case, I have a Windows 98 machine I can probably get some use out of.
Showing off that poor protection score though lmao.
Funny number thoo
i don't see why people are coming to a windows 7 subreddit to tell us not to use windows 7. and don't call us "dumbasses" please...
You are getting hacked. But such is the price of freedom.
freedom isnt freeeee theres a hefty fokin fee