/g/reetings I wanted to know security wise just how weak is

>>61960574
>I wanted to know security wise just how weak is Windows 10?
An updated installation of Windows 10 or any OS is unlikely to have any serious discovered vulnerabilities in it.

>until the Ransomware stuff in the resent past.
The exploit that wanacry used was patched before the ransomware was even released, it was down to people not running up-to-date software.

>So I wanted to know how insecure is the OS
Against hackers? Not very. You're almost certainly not going to get pwned by some exploit if you install updates in a timely manner. As with any proprietary software though, the developer has unrestricted access to the software - in the case of the OS this also means they have unrestricted access to anything on your computer. So take that as you will.

>also do they still screenshot
They never did this. The video you're referring to (I assume) was demonstrated to be fake.

>and send stuff to Microsoft?
"stuff" is pretty vague. All versions of Windows 10 do have varying levels of telemetry, on the lower end (enterprise) it's just stuff like crash reports, but on maximum settings it sends a lot more including potentially personally identifiable information.

tl;dr it's no less secure than any other OS so long as you don't actually download and run malware but you may want to consider a free OS as MS themselves at least has the ability to spy on you

>>61960793
>tl;dr it's no less secure than any other OS so long as you don't actually download and run malware but you may want to consider a free OS as MS themselves at least has the ability to spy on you
Thank you, that was very concise, plus the rest of the details.

So you are saying that a lot of criticism that I hear on the matter of Windows 10 is basically overhyped (maybe ad propoganda)and mostly it is secure unless you are doing something dodgy?

>>61960886
>So you are saying that a lot of criticism that I hear on the matter of Windows 10 is basically overhyped
To a degree, a lot of people make the assumption that Windows (in general) is insecure because of the large amount of malware available for it. There is a lot of malware around for Windows, but not because of any inherent security flaws in Windows, and this in itself doesn't make Windows insecure - it's just the most popular system so there are a lot of people (including large corporations and even governments) developing malware for it. Most malware outbreaks in the past were caused by people not running up to date software. For example, Sasser, which infected millions of computers and caused billions of dollars of damage used an exploit for its' spreading routine that had been patched 2 weeks before it was released - had everyone been up to date the damage would have been restricted to anyone who actually physically downloaded and ran the malware.

So yes, I would say that Windows is secure (enough) in the context of hackers and malware.

>>61961017
Interesting, thank you for the insight!

Civil discussion about operating systems? On my /g/?

Microsoft does regularly patch their operating systems for security fixes. Unfortunately, they render this moot by adding their own spyware to consumer versions of Windows.

>>61961151
>they render this moot by adding their own spyware to consumer versions of Windows.
What would that Spyware be? That remote control access thing?

>>61961204
protip: anyone who just jumps in to a thread and yells about spyware or botnet does not actually have anything constructive to say