Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Links Malware Rates To Pirated Windows
CWmike writes "Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches. 'There is a direct correlation between piracy and the malware infection rate,' said Jeff Williams, head manager of the Microsoft Malware Protection Center. Highlighting research that showed worms to be the most prevalent computer security problem today, Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update. China's piracy rate is more than four times that of the US, but the use of Windows Update in China is significantly below that in this country. Same for Brazil and France. But Microsoft's own data doesn't always support William's contention that piracy, and the hesitancy to use Windows Update, leads to more infected PCs. China, for example, boasted a malware infection rate — as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT — of just 6.7 per thousand, significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US's rate of 8.2. France's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average."
So malware is Microsoft's fault for not patching pirated machines? Or did I miss something...
Suppose it was possible to apply security patches without installing Windows Genuine Advantage (malware by anyone's definition except Microsoft's). Would that make a difference? Perhaps what they are seeing is really just a choice users make between Microsoft malware and "aftermarket" malware.
And users (with both legit and pirated copies) are leery of applying patches because of Microsoft Genuine Advantage and its ilk. Does this come as a surprise to them?
Sent from my iPhone
. . . people would be "leery" of installing "security patches," MS having pushed down things like WGA as a "critical updates." Of fscking course the people running dodgy copies of Windows are going to assume that each new wave of patches might come with a copy protection trojan, in light of the fact they've done it before. So in fact, Microsoft has caused the problem they're bellowing about in the name of attempting to inhibit piracy of Windows.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Block unauthorized copies from receiving patches, and unauthorized copies have more malware.
Who'dda thunk it?
Sent from my PDP-11
The very same program that's well-known for marking valid copies as pirated and then holding people's data/work environment hostage until they cough up another $200+. Yeah, I'm leery of that kind of thing too. Why should I let them install a program that takes up a good 20MB of RAM when it's running to make me prove that I'm not a pirate?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I just recently returned from a trip to India and found that many of the cyber cafes and family homes that I visited were not running the latest service-packs for Windows. I would attribute that to mostly being because although they had "broadband" their speed even during off hours were more around the range of 64 to 128 Kbps with high latency due to over subscription. Can any of you imagine downloading Windows XP SP3 over that kind of connection? (Setup a speed limiter on your next bit torrent download at about 5 KBs/40 kbps and see how long that file takes to transfer) Along with the problem that most computers are purchased as cheaply as possible so they frequently run with the minimum amount of ram possible, making the use of Antivirus software and the latest Service packs way too slow to even browse the web.
Security patches and Anti-virus updates that are several megabytes a piece are fine for someone with a lowly 512 kbps broadband connection, but understand that most people in these countries like China and India still have very large modem and slow DSL that is extremely over subscribed at the ISP.
Even here in the US there are many people that have dial-up even if other options are available because they don't feel the broadband options provide a good cost/performance ratio. $40 for 512kbps WISP connection or $10 for a cheap dial-up connection. $480 + install for the first year, or $120 for a year of dial-up over a phone line they already have...
Please keep in mind that although 5+ Mbps broadband is available in most Metro markets there are still a lot of people that have much slower connections making many online services out of reach (Steam, hulu, and to some security patches).
Obviously Microsoft doesn't want to acknowledge the large portion of their licensed users who set Windows to do their updates automatically but have never touched an antivirus or security software. I've worked in IT and with the Joe Public users and that was by far the biggest problem out there.
People would often call in with viruses/malware they've just been living with on a 2 year old computer, and when you asked them about what they use for antivirus, they wouldn't have a clue. "I used that link that was on my desktop when I bought it," they would say. Well, that 30 day trial will get you into more trouble than not applying your windows updates, especially when they're opening up all those emails from disposed Nigerian dictators.
Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches.
When you purposely push out "security patches" that only disable copies of Windows that are pirated, then yes, they are leery of using them, and rightly so (Assuming their goal is to run Windows without paying, and not buying Windows or using another OS)
This is the exact situation Microsoft has stated they wanted to happen.
And before anyone starts, I am not suggesting Microsoft change their rules on supporting pirated copies of Windows.
It's theirs to choose how to support how they want.
Just that this is the only conclusion one could expect from their current choice.
So you're saying the people who fall for phishing scams and untrusted unvetted code overlap significantly with the ones who run Windows? Whodathunk? ;)
China's piracy rate is more than four times that of the US, but the use of Windows Update in China is significantly below that in this country. Same for Brazil and France. But Microsoft's own data doesn't always support William's contention that piracy, and the hesitancy to use Windows Update, leads to more infected PCs. China, for example, boasted a malware infection rate -- as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT -- of just 6.7 per thousand, significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US's rate of 8.2. France's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average."
How can Microsoft possibly conclude that Malware is a greater threat to pirated PCs from the previously quoted data? Obviously the US has a higher infection rate than China, with the US being at 8.2 per thousand and China only at 6.7.
If it were me analyzing the data I'm afraid I would have to conclude that users who use windows update more often and use official copies of windows(US users) are more likely to receive a malware infection than users on pirated copies without using windows update(China).
I guess I deserve a job at Microsoft if I'm able to better comprehend the statistics than they are, assuming the numbers from this article are even true.
First, I'm not even a user of Microsoft stuff (see my sig), and I'm not posting because I think I know what Microsoft should do. This is not a rhetorical question on my part, but just a plain question. As I understand it, when a machine is infected it makes trouble for everybody (becomes part of an army of botnets or whatever). So, helping pirates who, except for pirating Microsoft Software are pretty much minding their own business, to keep their machines virus free would help everybody wouldn't it? They try to give junkies clean needles not to help them be junkies, but to try to prevent the spread of disease. Have I got that right? If I do, then, isn't it a similar situation with Microsoft?
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
Microsoft has a financial incentive to make people fear running unauthorized copies of Windows.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
If I walked out of that store, and someone offered to give me an exact copy of that suit for free, I wouldn't complain.