Slashdot Mirror
Win 7's Malware Infection Rate Climbs, XP's Falls
BogenDorpher writes "Microsoft released data today showcasing that Windows 7's malware infection rate has climbed by more than 30% during the second half of 2010, while the infection rate for Windows XP has dropped by more than 20%."
What would one expect as usage of XP decreases and Win7 increases?
Does it run Linux?
TFA: As ComputerWorld reports, during the second half of 2010, the data shows that 32bit Windows 7 computers were infected at an average rate of 4 PCs per 1,000, compared to 3 PCs per 1,000 that took place during the first half of 2010.
A difference of 1 thousandth is beyond statistical significance. How did this entry even get to the frontpage? It boggles the mind.
Seriously windows 7 went from 3/1000 to 4/1000 on 32bit and 64 bit is hovering around 2.5/1000 xp is something like 14/1000 down from 18/1000 i imagine because the people with those really infected computers had to go out and get new ones with windows 7.
The problem is the expectation that users will know when to say yes to a UAC prompt. Until users start saying cancel to UAC prompts they don't fully understand, malware will only increase.
If you don't know, don't pres OK.
In other words, software written to run on Win7 runs on Win7. If I run a malware and it infects my files, is this MS problem? And what is a malware - is Symantec Antivirus malware - it sure does slow my computer down. Did any malware infect system files without user permission - this is the question. There is no answer...
Windows 7 is now closing in on the dominant OS as XP finally tottles off to die. This is news, how?
"Microsoft released data today showcasing that Windows 7's malware infection rate has climbed by more than 30% during the second half of 2010...
In fairness it was the most secure Windows ever. It lasted longer than XP.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
One problem is that UAC is so badly implemented that people who would ordinarily have no problem with it will turn it off entirely.
Why can't I whitelist apps like Visual Studio, for instance? Why isn't there an option on the UAC alert dialog that says "Do not ask me again for this application"?
I suspect that most Microsoft devs work with UAC turned off. If the order came down from above that nobody in the company was allowed to turn off UAC, I'll bet the system would become both more usable and more secure very quickly.
Microsoft calculated the infection rates using its Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRT) by detecting and deleting selected malware such as fake antivirus programs, worms, viruses, and trojans.
One VERY important point is that Microsoft's Malicious Software Removal Tool considers certain programs which can be used to bypass Windows Activation as "malware", which is probably skewing the results.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
have less accidents than Honda Accords, per 1000 vehicles. Hmm....
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Same clueless users.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
The article doesnt cover this, but im inclined to believe that malware authors have an easier time and higher infection rates when they target 3rd party software packages. As far as i know, the biggest thing to change from XP to Win7, from the user standpoint, is the more in your face security model. That makes the malware authors jump through extra hoops if they wanna get their code executed silently. However, attack a bug in a PDF reader or browser and things can be made to look like business as usual
According to the Microsoft Report this is based on a sample size of 600 million computers. That is plenty large enough for the results to be statistically significant.
It was trollish for the summary to omit that Windows 7 still has 1/5 of the infection rate of Windows XP, though.
If you look at 2011 market share numbers MS Windows XP is still dominating the market. It probably will be until we get closer to 2014 when Microsoft discontinues support.
No malware for my IBM 5120. The old are far to wise for that malarkey!
If you turn off UAC / run as admin, and put a retard at the controls, Windows 7 will get infected by "free antivirus" software just as easily as anything else.
This is more a symptom of it being adopted by regular end users rather than bleeding edge types than any new inherent security problems discovered in 7.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
People get viruses on their XP machines and then dump them for Win7 machines, which then get viruses on them; all the tech-savvy people (who get less viruses) have already upgraded, so the percentage goes up.
Those staying on XP are mostly businesses; they have more robust security and restrict users (i.e. employees) in a manner that limits infections.
So it's just a matter of technically-impaired users migrating platforms. No surprise.
Article makes it sound like Win7 is getting inundated with viruses, but when you look at the counts it paints a different story.
Windows 7: Increase of 33%
1Q2010: 3/1000
2Q2010: 4/1000 - 64 Bit: 2.5/1000
Windows XP: Decrease of 22%
1Q2010: 18/1000
2Q2010:14/1000
Basically, You're still safer using windows 7 vs other Windows versions.
Current Numbers from MS are Here. Not exactly sure how computerworld got those numbers since MS numbers are higher and lower than others but there you go.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
which excludes all those machines out there that has been set not to update....
Surely, the statistic should be 100% of computers running *any* version of windows are infected...
Sorry, couldn't help it.
At least according to this.
In other news....MAC OSX has zero viruses to date and zero malware......Oh and slashdot is going down hill....crappy quotes, stupid sayings, and now you're erasing posts? Guess ill have to find a new website to laugh at as this one is sucking more than usual lately.....seems you had some good moderators before but the new ones are just retarded. And ive read most of these articles at LEAST 4 days ago....losers.
Without detailed information about which antivirus/firewall/antitrojan these boxes were running (if they did) and whether UAC was disabled or not, these statistics are just a measure of the (non-) efficacy of said antivirus/firewall/antitrojan programs and not a measure of the efficacy of MSRT.
In addition, a properly firewalled PC won't let MSRT phone home. Mine attempted to do that for the first time ever yesterday (on port 443) and was promptly blocked, therefore I assume that data gathering is still going on.
Could we please have some information on what precisely is MSRT logging?
Why does /. fuck up under IE9. I want concrete standards compliance issues.
Win 7 infections went from 3/1000 to 4/1000, that is infected ratio went from 0.3% to 0.4% (yes, it is a 33% increase, to be precise), while XP went from 18/1000 to 14/1000, that is infected ratio went from 1.8% to 1.4%. The numbers actually mean that Microsoft is doing a good job on security, since over 1000 PC the combined metric is not an increase of 11% (as the article seems to imply) but rather we went from 2.1% infected to 1.8%, which is a nice step.
My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
Nowadays that machines come with Win7, you'll get more new-to-computers uneducated users getting infected more easily that XP long-time users.
You know, the work of making Win7 much more secure and learning from XP and Vista.
You know, the work you paid for.
Many of those still using XP are in a corporate network using GPO and non-admin / non-power-user accounts to lock down the machine as m,uch as possible - in such a network, if it's well-run, XP should be mostly safe - we haven't had an infection for years.
Windows 7 IS safer for naive users, but only if they don't switch off UAC altogether or click the GO-AWAY button (a.k.a. "OK") without thinking.
BTW: in Win7, changing your network settings is still not covered by UAC using default settings, so they can still set your NIC to a rogue DNS, if you don't up UAC settings all the way up.
Most criminal malware authors (professional virus writers) are after money nowadays, nothing but monetizable things. People and firms who are still running Windows XP are quite likely to have low bracket fiscals, while people and firms already on Windows 7 are likely to be better-off.
(I mean they can afford big enough hardware to run Windows 7 comfortably or at least as well as their previous Windows XP experience was. This probably means 2-3x more hardware performance.)
Frankly, what can you steal from a current-day Windows XP user? The hat he holds upside-down to collect penny donations at the corner, maybe. I mean about 50% of all Windows XP outside North America is alleged to be pirated, so those running them probably don't buy anything beyond food, basic wardrobe and minimal hardware. Users of Windows7 are more promising victims from the e-crime monetary aspect (e.g. ID theft or ransomware).
On the other hand, military and espionage viruses, as opposed to organised e-crime malware, are still targeting Windows XP diligently, as the case of Stuxnetan has shown. BTW, all those iranian Windows XP boxes hit are pirated, due to the trade emberago.
I could see the drop in XP being in part to those that would regularly get their machine infested would switch to Win7 when they had to reformat their machine for the umpteenth time. These same poeple might be driving up the rates of Win7. Maybe 1 per 2000.
All cryptography is based on having a secret (like a key or password), but there are big differences between secrets and obscurity.
* An obscure system can be reverse engineered with patience, even if used correctly all the time. A secret password can not be determined with any practical amount of observation during proper use of a good cryptographic system.
* A secret password can easily be changed when compromised. It is much more difficult to change your entire OS or even encryption algorithm once it ceases to be obscure due to compatibility.
One of the fundamental principles of security is to minimize the amount of information that needs to be secret for your system to be secure. Creating a system that is secure even when it's operations are fully known furthers this goal. Relying on the fact that people don't care about the workings of your system doesn't.
In the context of this discussion, if Windows 7 is fundamentally more secure than OS X, and the popularity of OS X / iOS is increasing, then it won't be able to depend on obscurity for much longer, and making real security improvements is much harder.
Summarizing TFA ....
Windows 7 32 bit was 3 PCs per 1000, now 4 PCs per 1000.
Windows XP, was 18 PCs per 1,000, now 14 PCs per 1,000
This could easily be interpreted as the infection rates converging together as common tools are used to measure both OSs.
MSRT only "counts" that which it knows about and it only knows about that which has existed long enough and is wide-spread enough to gather the interest of its programmers. Therefore, one would completely expect it to be "better" at cleaning older things than newer things, which would cause the two numbers to converge.
Seems to me like there is a problem with false precision (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision/ ). Compuworld reports 4 in 1000 vs 3 in 1000. Without knowing the next digit, the difference could be as low as 3.5 vs 3.4 (approx 3% increase) or as high as 4.4 vs 2.5 (approx 75% increase).
Had they said 3.0% vs 4.0%, the story would have been completely different.