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...
Including Windows Genuine Validation is the likely culprit for this.
They're pirates. Of course they're going to run malicious software.
What the hell else would pirates do with a computer, donate to charity and solve world hunger? No, they're going to use it to look up www.saucywenches.com or download illegal treasure maps, or perform DDoS attacks on Royal Navy ships. They'd use a pirate version of Quicken to count their doubloons and inventory their treasure chest. They'd be looking up suspicious sites for syphilis treatments. They'd manually edit the Windows Registry with nothing but a cutlass and a corkscrew.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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).
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?
Quite likely, but Microsoft is definitely within their rights to insist that people pay for their software. You and I may find it to be unwieldy, intrusive and obnoxious, but that's our problem, not theirs.
If people don't want to deal with the mess and hassle of keeping their Windows machines clean and up to date, they have alternatives. They can pony up for a Mac or they can install Linux. Heck, if they're absolutely committed to using Windows without paying, they can run it in a snapshotted VM on Linux.
Just last week I wrote a newspaper column advocating Ubuntu Karmic over Windows 7, so I'm no fan of Windows whatsoever. But as someone who writes a fair amount of software, I fully respect Microsoft's right to license it - and enforce that license - as they see fit.
The fact that they're doing so in such a way as to drive the world away from them is just gravy, as far as I'm concerned. 8^)
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
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.
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.
Do people on car forums provide computer analogies to their car issues?