Microsoft Defender for Endpoint leaves some Linux boxes defenseless after update

Not content with broken Windows updates, Microsoft has disclosed two problems with Defender for Endpoint on Linux – one that could disable the security service after a reboot, and another that prevents updates on FIPS-enabled Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and 9. The more serious problem affected versions 101.26042.0000 through 101. …

[steelpillow]

Anybody run a vulnerability check of SystemD yet?

[David 132]

"No need, works for me, WONTFIX." -Poettering.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Embrace Extend Extinguish

We definitely support Linux in an office environment with our world class (tm)/security tools.

Oops they stopped working. Oh well ...

[Anonymous Coward]

all-in???

> "where an organization has gone all-in with Microsoft, the unified management offered by Defender for Endpoint on Linux"

I would've thought that if you'd gone all-in with Microsoft, you'd have no need for any Linux product

[Bebu sa Ware]

Re: all-in???

> I would've thought that if you'd gone all-in with Microsoft, you'd have no need for any Linux product

Just the services of venereologist to treat the frequent and inevitable STD^† infections.

_{† Software Transmitted Diseases or Slop Trauma Disorder.}

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: all-in???

I would've thought that if you'd gone all-in with Microsoft, you'd have no need for any Linux product

Au contraire, I think your need for something that actually works then doubles..

[Bebu sa Ware]

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on Linux

The first and last word in the above pretty much flag the problem.

"an organization has gone all-in with Microsoft, the unified management offered by Defender for Endpoint on Linux can be difficult to resist."

Going all-in with Microsoft speaks to lack of reason, of judgment, of shame and of any sense of self preservation. Allowing MS - as an afterthought - to fuck over your Linux boxes isn't likely soil your grubby soul any further.

Unfortunately MS isn't alone in this. Comparable Linux offerings from other major venders (at least five years ago) were merely slightly warmed over Windows versions rebuilt for Linux/Unix typically using the Windows privilege & (lack of) security model which causes all sorts of problems^† in itself. When you look inside the binaries you often found it had an embedded python interpretor or similar and text strings indicating the software's shady Windowy origins.

_{† one file scanning agent running as root (uid=0) crossing into an NFS file system would chuck a complete wobbly when it couldn't access the files or directories.}

[Anonymous Coward]

So...There Are People Out There Who Rely on M$ For Some Linux Environment?

Really???

Scott Fitzgerald thought that holding "two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function"

might be a sign of "intelligence".

Really??? M$ and Linux??? Really???

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: So...There Are People Out There Who Rely on M$ For Some Linux Environment?

The corporate world runs on Microsoft

Our mathematical modelling group uses Linux

Before this they also had to have a separate windows laptop for mail / teams / business stuff.

Why ? Security. Just because you use Linux doesn't mean you're a computer security expert. You have a maths PhD and write CUDA code, that doesn't mean you are immune from phishing attacks because you are smart and use Linux

Add to this the complainance requirements. Telling the auditors you can't prove that a lost laptop full of sensitive data was encrypted and has been remote wiped - because we let the dev have root and configure it how they wanted - doesn't go down well.

ps. Yes MSFT defender on Linux, and Mac, sucks and in an ideal world we would all be running VMS. But it's better than making everyone work on Windows

[nijam]

Re: So...There Are People Out There Who Rely on M$ For Some Linux Environment?

> Just because you use Linux doesn't mean you're a computer security expert.

Just because you use Windows (and pay MS a fortune for "support", and have your own IT team), doesn't mean you (or MS, or your in-house team) are security experts either.

Obviously.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So...There Are People Out There Who Rely on M$ For Some Linux Environment?

Make that 57 opposing things and you have an electronic priest.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Microsquishy: "We can screw up anything, even if it isn't our system affected. We're absolute masters of disaster."

[elsergiovolador]

Defender

I would think that Defender is something that replaces Fender guitars with alternative brands.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Defender

No it's Landrover's new computer brand.

After years of trying to invent a computer that leaks oil, they made Windows run on a Difference Engine.

(Obviously it already ran Linux and Babbage originally ported Doom to it)

[just4this]

Re: Defender

"replaces Fender guitars with alternative brands."

Squire?

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Defender

Don't want to get sued.

[Excused Boots]

In earlier news

The jobs not done until Lotus WordPerfect Linux won’t run!

[original_rwg]

Sympathy

So you have a Linux system and you install a proprietary Micros~1 product on it. You have my sympathies....

Umm no. I have no sympathy whatsoever.

[DrewPH]

So you were intelligent enough to pick Linux for your OS...

But then you were dumb enough to put Microsoft code on it?

My brain hurts.

[ComicalEngineer]

Doh!

Microsloth can't even make security work properly for their own products.

What would make anyone think that the situation would be any better for any M$ product running under Linux?