Hacker News Reader

UEFI Secure Boot, mandatory signed binaries, and Windows Defender (XProtect on macOS), have contributed more to protecting from malware than 3rd party anti-virus. Although I think the existence, cost, and PITAness of 3rd party anti-virus might very well have contributed to motivating the OS vendors into securing their products better.

View on HN

It should be noted, I believe the parent comments included Windows Defender as an anti-virus. 3rd party was never specified, and disabling Windows Defender can indeed improve file access performance.

Can confirm. I usually have to turn off windows defender whenever I'm doing anything with docker, or node modules, or something similar. If I don't, my computer slows to a crawl.

Source? I thought UEFI was just a way to make Linux a pain in the ass to dual boot with Windows? What's your evidence that it's effective against malware? I am biased here, and hate uefi.

UEFI is not the same thing as UEFI Secure Boot. UEFI booting in general makes dual-booting far easier than BIOS-based booting where operating systems have to fight over who owns the MBR. Secure Boot makes it harder to set up a multi-boot system because you need a signed bootloader for your Linux system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com