Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP PCs Breed Rootkit Infections
CWmike writes "Machines running the decade-old Windows XP make up a huge reservoir of infected PCs that can spread malware to other systems, a Czech antivirus company said. Windows XP computers are infected with rootkits out of proportion to the operating system's market share, according to data released Thursday by Avast Software, which surveyed more than 600,000 Windows PCs. While XP now accounts for about 58% of all Windows systems in use, 74% of the rootkit infections found by Avast were on XP machines. Avast attributed the infection disparity between XP and Windows 7 to a pair of factors: The widespread use of pirated copies of the former and the latter's better security. Vlcek assumed that many of the people running XP SP2, which Microsoft stopped supporting with security patches a year ago, have declined to update to the still-supported SP3 because they are running counterfeits."
Is this really a surprise?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Unfortunately the effect is that it impacts others, these are the machines which get used as zombies for spamming, ddos attacks etc.
so rootkit authors can focus on Windows 7
Just so it's clear to everyone, you don't need a "genuine" version of Windows to download and install critical updates. And honestly, SP3 is over 3 years old. It's hard to hold Microsoft or even Windows XP accountable for users refusing to upgrade.
Standardising on a non-free operating system thus encouraging people to download rootkitted warez.
Most people worldwide genuinely can't pay $250+ for an operating system.
Well better plan for windows 7 to go long term as the NEW GUI in windows 8 make it vista / ME 2. And seeing how good windows 7 is Big business may just stick to it for a long time like they did with windows XP.
The other day, I was looking at yet another hyperbolic report from Symantec that 60,000 new malware variants are released per day. Among the many reasons I find this claim dubious is that it's pretty damned obvious that most malware infections are on old Windows XP installations, which is significantly less secure than newer versions of Windows, especially if they're not being updated regularly. And in those circumstances, why would anyone be wasting time and effort writing new malware, when old malware can already move in and claim the PC as part of a botnet?
I bet someone will come up with a utility that restores the GUI back to sanity.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Here's a few premises:
1. The probability getting an infection increases with time.
2. The average person probably does not format their system and give a clean install until the system becomes nearly unusable (it would cost them money and time).
3. Windows XP has been in use for a long time.
Given these, I would figure that another reason why there would be so many infected PCs with XP out there is that the XP installations have been in use for a lot longer than any of the newer OS installations. I would go as far as to guess that most people today would rather buy a new PC than get a professional to reinstall XP, meaning that these systems currently running XP would have been installed quite a number of years ago.
Just a thought...
The "Metro" interface that people are talking about is not the default GUI anyway. That is the GUI intended specifically for tablets and even then it is entirely optional. People who actually watched any of the published videos would have seen the user jumping back to a stock Windows 7 explorer desktop in the middle of the demo and running normal applications.
Metro is more like Windows Media Center, a secondary UI intended for a specific environment. That said, I do hope that MS considers better integration with Metro and Explorer with tablet installations of the OS as I can see elements of Metro working better in that form factor. On a desktop or laptop it would be absolutely horrid, though, and I doubt most people would ever see it.
losing all their work when Microsoft decides it is time for your system to receive a security patch
Complain to your application's maintainer. Windows notifies applications before the system is about to restart for updates. Applications that don't save the user's work are defective.
It always bugs me to hear people use "counterfeit" when talking about illegally copied or distributed software. Do people not understand what these words mean? Apparently not, since we're still talking about "piracy" in a non-piracy sense.
If someone in China were to dress up Linux to look like Windows and sell it as if it were MS Windows, that'd be counterfeit. But so-called "pirated" Windows XP installations are not counterfeit, obviously. I guess it's all about manipulating public thought. Is your copy of windows "genuine?" The thought is quite silly if you think about it. Of course it is genuine. It's windows isn't it? Legal copy? That's the real question. Genuine advantage indeed.
The only "problem" with that version is that it's for system builders.
In fact, it might even be copyright infringement to buy and install that version on your own computer. Microsoft says OEM software is for computers you plan to sell at arm's length, not for computers you plan to use.
Most people can't afford to upgrade or don't know how, and are running PCs so old buying a new OS isn't worth it and buying more RAM adds to the expense.
Light Linux distros (can) work fine on older hardware but only geeks can learn more than one OS without their heads exploding. Ya gotta wanna.
Puppy Linux is popular with curious noobs (I use the term in the most friendly way!), but what is most needed is a simple distro designed to play Flash games, surf da intarweb, and watch Youtube. I could load that on my friends "kid PCs" and save having to Ghost them so often.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Bad troll. You can tell Windows what to do about updates and restarts.
If you can't handle that, go back to you mac where your daddy Steve Jobs decides what you can install and when.
> Windows XP computers are infected with rootkits out of proportion to the operating system's market share
This statement lacks considering time the OS are in use:
XP 11 years - since 2001
W7 2 years - since 2009
So, with 2 years W7 gathered 12 % of infections having 31 % market share, that's 6 % infections/year
and 11 years of XP gathered 74 % of infections having 58 % market share, that's 6.7 % infections/year
Since market share started from 0, let's assume linear increase of market share since release and use W7 with 16.5 % and XP with 37 % average market share over time.
W7 gets 6 % infections/year with 16.5 % market share and XP 6.7 % infections/year with 37 % market share.
Which give factors for W7 0.37 and XP 0.18 infections/year/market share.
W7 more secure? Fat chance!
The memory-demands for SP3 have increased a lot - Where SP2 runs well with 512MB, you need at least 800MB for SP3 to run basic software like IE and Office smoothly. Though this is not official, I have seen too many cases with unresponsive PCs after the upgrade. A good reason to revert back to SP2 if people don't know how or dare to upgrade hardware nor want to spend another €300,- to €500,- on a new computer.
Which applications does it break?
I've not come across anything since shortly after SP3 came out that has had any trouble at all (I still run XP as my main home desktop, and in VMs at work). Even our more conservative clients that won't yet move away from IE6 are running SP3, so presumably they have no problems even with some of the ancient software they run that they don't want to update/replace for one reason or another.
The machines are longer online, so they had more time of being infected. They will be less likely to have users who are tech savy and want to run the latest. As they are less tech savy, they will know less on how to protect themselves.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Ah, yes, because using an insecure, malware-prone OS for gaming makes sense. Nothing like being part of a botnet, having your credit card and personal information stolen, and getting your gaming accounts hacked in order to shave 5ms off your ping and gain 10fps. Your hardware is going to have a vastly bigger impact on gaming performance than your OS, and frankly I'm not clear what gaming "circles" are, in 2011, wanting to use XP SP2 anymore unless they are using outdated hardware.
I think the bulk of these SP2 installations are going to be corporate users who are wiping brand new systems with Windows 7 and installing an ancient corporate image. You would think that security concerns would make it worthwhile to update badly written software that is broken by OS vulnerability patches, but that's just "not in the budget" for a lot of companies.
Most of the XP installations are probably OEM, and people never upgrade them because they're typical Windows users, they're afraid of "breaking something" or they don't have admin rights because they lost the password or got the computer from someone else. The fact that you have to reinstall everything from scratch and might lose your software licenses keeps many people (including myself) from installing Windows 7. Rootkits on XP might be overrepresented simply because XP systems have been running for a longer time, and if the user can't patch them for lack of admin rights they have a bigger chance of getting infected over time.
The notion that you can't easily get cracked XP-SP3 or 7 is bullshit btw.
If all PCs were fixed so they didn't catch or pass on viruses what would all the "security" companies do for a living? Maybe instead of spreading FUD they should just step up a gear. Since this survey has identified a nice big market (i.e. out of support/illegal and therefore un-upgradable O/S's) why don't they stop bleating and start creating products to satisfy this demand?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Just a quick note: Those sub-$400 computers frequently come with at least two of the following variables:
(1) No monitor
(2) Onboard Video
(3) 3GB or less RAM with Windows 7 booting up to 1.8GB RAM used.
(4) Sub-300w power supply (OK for greener computer, Bad for video cards)
(5) Bad computer case (either flashy buttons stacked on actual buttons, severe space limitations, etc.)
yes it makes sense. 'security' is not the word of the day when you are gaming. 'fps' and 'ping' are. so, you got that right. there are people who are trying to gain 5 fps over 110 fps. foolish ? for you maybe. for them, it is their thing.
Read radical news here
There are plenty of legal copies. That has zilch to do with them getting rooted. Most PC users know nothing about security. Not "very little", but "nothing". That will never change.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The claims above are likely more due to the length of time of the install than anything to do with the OS itself. I've had my current install of windows for like four years. Nobody with Windows 7 can say that about their OS. And a lot of times spyware ridden machines just stay that way. I demand they look at the data from "time since install" and tell me that that isn't just directly correlated and explains away most of the XP dataset.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
PCs are vital nowadays, and most of the world can't casually shell out 400 bucks.
I can, but I know MANY folks who can't, including people with large families who need multiple PCs for their kids.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The friendly way to call someone a newcomer is newbie, not noob.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
I was running SP2 until a couple months ago because Windows Update failed to update me to SP3. It turns out that if you had upgraded Internet Explorer to some version under SP2 (IE8?), it would not upgrade to SP3 because doing so would break the downgrade process (you could upgrade to SP3 flawlessly, but if you tried to downgrade back to SP2 it would break) unless you first downgraded IE before upgrading to SP3. Therefore, SP3 would not be listed in Windows Update, and it would not tell you that it was hiding the upgrade, or why. Utterly idiotic. I assume a lot of people are still running SP2 not because their using an unlicensed version, but precisely because, like me, they have a legit installation, but just don't know SP3 was out and being hidden from them, with Windows Update cheerfully telling them every week that their system is perfectly up to date.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
... so in spite of the (supposed) improved security of Win7 and the (in comparison) short time it has been around, a quarter of all infections are on Win7? ...
While it is understandable that the decade old OS is easier to attack, this is definitely no good track record for Win7
but what is most needed is a simple distro designed to play Flash games, surf da intarweb, and watch Youtube. I could load that on my friends "kid PCs" and save having to Ghost them so often.
What you're describing is called "Ubuntu" and it's been around for awhile now.
My son's netbook came with Vista "starter" edition and after the built-in system restore function hosed the system (this is what you get when you try to save 10 bucks by buying a laptop from a fourth-rate Chinese manufacturer) my only realistic choice was to load Linux on it. He is perfectly happy with it now, as all he did was play flash games on it and Flash (finally) works just as well on Linux as it does on Windows.
The problem with Linux comes it on when you want to do anything beyond browse the net and look at youtube videos.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Microsoft changed the license years ago so buyers of brand new PCs really don't have any choice, if they want to reinstall their machines, other than taking them back to the shop (and spend $$$) or install a pirated version.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
So everyone go out right now and pay the $139 for Windows Home Premium. I'll wait...
(This should cause a measurable bump in the economy. Any moment now...)
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
http://bodhilinux.com/
Minimalist. Can be full-featured, that stuff is available, but at its core, it gives you a desktop, an internet connection, and a browser. You will need to add Flash, because it's non-free, but it may be what you're looking for. :)
Check the old /. threads. ..."? Marketshare was identified as the deciding factor in what "mal-ware" was written.
How many times have you seen the claim that "if Linux had the same marketshare as Windows
Now this seems to contradict those claims.
This is clearly a misuse of statistics for the purpose of piracy propaganda. As others have pointed out, XP has simply been around much longer. It hasn't been long since it was the standard OS on new machines. It was also the last of the OS's to be included as physical media with a new PC (most new PC's just have a restore partition these days, last I checked). Oh, and in my experience XP runs better on low-resource virtualization setups than Windows 7... ESPECIALLY if you avoid SP3! Come on gang, lets not play in to this loaded debate.
"It seems that when people become desperate they consult the gods, and when the gods become desperate they tell lies." -
Some people rarely ever see $400 dollars that could be justifiably spent on a new PC. Yet they may have some ancient XP disc lying around. Not to mention it does run far better on old hardware. Determined people get things done with what they have.
"It seems that when people become desperate they consult the gods, and when the gods become desperate they tell lies." -
Could there be some confirmation bias that is clouding the true meaning of the collected stats?
It may not just be that the the remaining XP users are less careful/knowledgable/what-ever on average so aren't fully patched with service packs and so forth either by choice or ignorance. A lot of those XP installs have been around a long time, so have had a much longer period (compared to the average Windows 7 or Vista install) in which they could have been exposed to malware.
Many of the installs not properly patched up with security updates could be a symptom of this, rather than a cause, as there are plenty of examples of malware that block some or all updates from being installed (either accidentally due to the damage they do while hacking their way in, or deliberately as a self preservation measure).
The widespread use of pirated copies of the former and the latter's better security.
I attribute it mainly to the fact that Windows 7 by defaultt at least includes a basic AV software (Windows Defender) whereas Windows XP has none.
And don't mention UAC, please - most people either ignore it and answer YES to all its alerts or disable it altogether right after the installation.
And no, "pirated" versions of Windows XP (most of them are just a VLK version with a valid serial key included) have nothing to do with Windows XP security or lack of it.
I think we should hang a trillion rootable XP virtual machines on the web. The virus will be so busy infecting all these decoys that it won't be able to find the real machines. We can constantly reset these virtual machines back to clean so they won't be propagating the infection, just chewing up the time of the computers sending out the viruses.
problem solved :-)
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Guess you should read the article.
"XP's share of the infection pie was much larger than Windows 7's, which accounted for only 12% of the malware-plagued machines -- even though the 2009 OS now powers 31% of all Windows PCs."
There are move versions of Win than XP and 7.
Ubuntu in recent incarnations is slow on machines without a lot of memory.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Thanks! Looks interesting so I'll install in a VM then play with the memory and graphics settings to see how low it can go.
Plenty of seeders at the moment.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It'll run at less than 64mb of RAM if you have a super-basic e17 environment going. :) On my current laptop, it's using 250mb or so, but that is with the e17 equivalent of compiz/fusion and a whole bunch of other programs open too. (chiefly firefox and pidgin, but also a few others that I need to play friendly with the network at work)
Changing times, changing terms. The term 'newbie' is passing out of usage, even though it has a distinct definition from 'noob' in theory. I've noticed that the latter is not quite such a loaded term as it once was. I'm not surprised that someone can use it with a friendly intent. Can't expect net slang to remain static, when the population using it has changed so much in the last ten/fifteen years.
LindowsOS used to be the answer. That is, until Micheal Robertson sold out.
We'll have to look at Win7 once it's been in the wild as long as XP.
I wasn't sure if this should be modded flamebait, since there doesn't seem to be an 'astroturf' rating. *Any* version of windows should not be on the internet without a separate firewall solution deployed. Period.
This just feels too much like a marketing FUD to make people buy more Microsft licenses.
- Dan.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
If your mainframe program assumes that any loss of connection is a command to discard your work, then your mainframe program is defective. Does the operating system have a counterpart to GNU Screen that allows resuming a session?
%APPDATA%\myapp? And now you have to check on startup to see if anything was saved there and let the user know about it
This is exactly the behavior that I expect, and exactly the behavior that applications such as Firefox, Cool Edit Pro, and the like implement. In fact, I seem to remember reading that Microsoft recommends that an application register itself to run once at next login if there happen to be unsaved changes that the user hasn't chosen to save or discard. From Microsoft's guidelines for applications to interact with Restart Manager:
Yay, more logic that has to be implemented in every program.
So is how to load and save files.
Half the time you don't actually need to, just seems to be a standard thing for an installer to ask for, because hell, you'll be rebooting the damn thing pretty soon, whatever you do.
That sucking sound isn't the economy being inflated -- it's the sound of money being 'renditioned'.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Microsoft makes the majority of their money from OEM and business. The number of people buying boxed copies of windows is pretty small in proportion. If they would just give it away (or for a small fee) to consumers they would get a lot of good Karma AND cut down on people trying to steal it.
They can EASILY afford it.
It would be a good business decision.
I hate to break it to you but often an update is required. This is because windows cannot replace a file that is open. This seems to be single user legacy stuff. Always makes me laugh about how stoneage windows is.
My first reaction was OH GOD NO.
However, after watching several videos I think it is blown out of proportion. It is not that bad because it is not pervasive. The tiles are only the startup login screen. When you get back to your desktop from lunch you will have the weather, traffic reports, email, stock quotes, etc. Then they will go away when you select the desktop to get work done. The Windows 7 desktop is still there and required for Office and other non tiled apps (all of them). In essense you can use Windows 8 as a regular desktop or as a mobile tablet and the response and reviews from Windows 7 mobile and Mango are very high according to www.amplicate.com and others. Applets are not apps and are treated differently. The tile method may not be bad if Office works for it and you have a tiny 9 inch screen netbook and only running a few apps at a time and want to drag pictures in email and facebook applets.
I prefer this approach rather than take away functionality of gnome-shell and Unity. How is taking away the minimize button functionality making your product better?? As long as both are included I am happy and I do not think it will be like the ribbon where you can't get the menus back.
http://saveie6.com/
Four hundred bucks is food for a month or more in much of the US.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
According to gstats Windows 7 has already taken the majority of marketshare in the US.Only 1 out of 4 are still running XP. In comparison, most of China is heavily XP based with IE 6 being their default browser with 85% running pirated versions of XP which of course is totally different than a corporate locked down XP machine running IE 8, fully patched, with anti virus software you see in developed nations.
I would say it is not XP is the problem more than unpatched decade old computers in 3rd world countries running outdated browsers from 10 years ago being infected. Windows XP Sp 3 with IE 8 is not too bad fully patched and it is MUCH MORE secure than Tho0rx XP Black edition Sp 1 with IE 6 with no anti virus.
http://saveie6.com/
To be fair the OS is only as old as the last patch.
"Vlcek assumed that many of the people running XP SP2, which Microsoft stopped supporting with security patches a year ago, have declined to update to the still-supported SP3 because they are running counterfeits."
I, and many others I know in a forum I frequent, won't upgrade to SP3 as it breaks USB. It's a known bug (for many years) that USB becomes significantly slower in SP3 (it's not known what hardware configurations can avoid the bug). This causes problems with data transfer speeds.
Recent incarnations of X/K/Lubuntu seem quite responsive, even running from USB stick on my Kogan Agora netbook.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I have heard that, and read it. I don't really see the evidence. But - I'll grant that the most popular desktop environments are memory hogs. For that reason, I wish Ubuntu had worked a bit more with the Enlightenment crowd. Fast, responsive, small memory footprint - and prettier than anything else I've ever played with.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I've looked at Bodhi in the past. Looks nice - but I demand 64 bit operating systems on my 64 bit hardware. For that reason, I've only looked at Bodhi. A similar offering, in 64 bit, is available from Sabayon: http://forum.sabayon.org/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=24632
Notice that Sabayon is available with or without any of the major desktop environments. If Bodhi appeals to you, then you'll want that E17 image. Sabayon IS somewhat different than the "average" Linux, in that it is based on Gentoo - but it's not so different that you're likely to be lost.
I'm actually running that distro on metal right now, after a disk failure borked my 3 year old Ubuntu installation.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I agree - and I disagree.
The agreement is, Microsoft shouldn't have ever come to rule the computing world - or any segment of the computing world.
Reality, however, is what it is. We have an entire generation who grew up on free computers in schools, being taught by people who were basically Microsoft indoctrination agents. People know and demand Microsoft. So - since that is where we are at, we have to cooperate. It's time for all those MS-centric people who are still on XP to upgrade. If they insist that they must make monetary offerings to Microsoft in order to use a computer, then it's time to make a new offering.
Of course, I'll still be trying to show people that Microsoft is a false idol, and trying to get them to upgrade to a Unix-like operating system. Sometimes, I actually succeed!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
> The only thing that protects linux from this is its tiny market share
Nope. Most distros also patch kernel vulnerabilities somewhat faster than Microsoft, because they think it's more important to push out the patches than to risk pissing off their users, since their users are currently (mainly) not paying.
Most Windows botnets are kernel botnets. In XP, moving from a user-space botnet to a kernel-level one was trivial for most user installations.
Your point that Linux is still quite vulnerable to user-space botnets is correct, but if/when the time comes it will be possible to try to catch such botnets from the kernel level. My guess is that people using Linux will "roll-over" their user installations periodically, just like people used to reinstall Windows periodically. Some of these "roll-overs" will work for getting rid of infections, and others will be circumvented by the botnets.
Another advantage of Linux over Windows is that it is possible to legally run it in a VM without having to pay for a second license. Easy VM usage will help against (but not eliminate) the threat of malware/botnets.
Of course, by that time, I'll probably be running Haiku, Syllable, Hurd, or Plan 9, myself. Hope to see the day!
First - android is a modified Linux. Highly modified, in fact, by the vendors. Each device marketed by a vendor has the exact same security flaws. Crack one, you've cracked them all. This is contrary to the more general Linux distros, wherein the user decides what apps, what kernel, what development tools, even which desktop environment. In short - android is largely a monoculture, like Windows. Monocultures are dangerous, in that each individual device is susceptible to all the same exploits that all it's brethren are.
Second - perl, python, or whatever is installed by default on this or that Linux distro - but not all of them. Again, it depends on the user who sets up the distro. Even if python is installed by default on my distro - I can remove it easily enough. Unlike Android apps.
And, that market share argument? I'm not impressed. The fact is, Linux servers and Linux workstations simply aren't infected like Windows is. You can make that argument all you like, it doesn't become any more true with infinite repititions. The WORST thing I've ever seen on a Linux desktop, was a browser hijacking. I guess if I were susceptible to phishing, I would have seen much worse by now - but therein lies part of Linux' security. The braindead can't be bothered to run an OS that they might have to learn! It's so much easier to insert the Windows CD, accept all the defaults, then fire up "the browser" that was installed by default, and navigate to music, porn, movies, P2P, and all the other mindless drivel that appeals to the braindead.
You can have market share, because you get to count every braindead user in the world in your corner, LMAO
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's the same perversion of language as when you call illegal copying for private use "piracy". The copyright industry chooses these terms for a reason - by using certain words, you can affect people's perception of the phenomenon they refer to.
(Another example is when you call outdated software "legacy" to give it a positive spin, although that has nothing to do with copyright.)
people kill people, and people get rootkitted, plain and simple, it is not the computer at fault bu the user using that computer....so windows xp has nothing to do with it....linux can just as easily be rootkitted.
I predict we'll eventually require some kind of licensing and periodic hardware/software security inspections in order to connect a machine to the internet, and somehow impede traffic from countries that don't undertake similar measures. Yes, it will be a pain, but plenty of countries impose periodic certifications on cars, and this wouldn't be that different. It will also make Stallman's head explode from pure rage, but it will kill the botnets, probably.
You have a far better point than the other reply to my comment, but nevertheless...
Kernel or other patches are a reactive measure, not proactive such as micro kernel, sandboxing, mandatory access controls, and shifting drivers to userspace (of which linux has the least).
One of the pillars of good security, i.e. ex-post detection of malicious behavior, is completely missing from linux installations, and seemingly from the mentality of the linux community, whereas on windows it is the norm to have an "anti virus" software, which can be pretty efficient in detecting userspace threats and sometimes even stands some chance against kernelspace intrusions.
The point of being able to run a VM legally in linux is valid, but no wide-spread practical application of that is currently available. In fact there's a lot of fine security solutions for linux (unfortunatelly sans the kernel itself) but they all are brutally under-utilized. From that perspective linux desktop is only at the very beginning of the road towards security. I stand with my previous assessment that the lack of linux based malware is from its greater part caused by minimal interest on the part of the criminals.
And yes, when linux becomes so popular that it will attract malware enough, the plan to move to another less known OS is pretty good ;-)
Your monoculture argument is wrong. From the dawn of times, linux exploits come tailored for the most common distrubutions and some are even intelligent enough to determine the environment at run time. Some can even adjust for non-standard parts replaced by the user. And they have a very good success rate indeed. The number of possible combinations for a typical linux server or workstation is not by a long shot high enough to pose any problem due to environment diversity.
Well, sir, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But, Google offers a lot of opinions that seem to support my own.
http://dan.tobias.name/thenet/monoculture.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture_(computer_science)
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/fbs/publications/IEEEspMonoculture.pdf
Some opinions see monoculture as a very serious problem, others see it as a less serious problem - but all see monocultures as a problem to some degree.
And, if Linux exploits are so good, why is no one using them to create botnets, or to harvest data? Oh yeah - market share. I haven't bought into that argument in the past, and I'm not buying it now.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Y'know, there was a time when Enlightment was considered excessive eyecandy with a heavy footprint. It's not all that different now than it was then, but we sure have some perspective now, eh?
Linux actually is popular enough, and it is actively targeted. As an end-user, you can be forgiven for your assumption that it's not, from your side of things it looks like a pretty thoroughly Windows world. But from the other side of things, the side where your information is being pumped through this global sewage system we call the internet, Linux is more popular than you may be able to comprehend. The raw number of Linux servers out there, did you see that estimate that Google is running about 900,000 servers? I find it highly unlikely that they've got anywhere near a million Windows servers kicking it over there. Hacking Linux opens up the information of the entire world, your music and porn just isn't that interesting.
Yeah. Which is exactly the point. Windows XP installs are going to necessarily be older and have been around longer and perhaps have more malware built up over that time. We just have a correlation between XP and Malware. When the real correlation could be length of time OS installed to Malware and XP installed on systems much longer than Windows 7. There's a lot of things that could explain the data that don't necessarily imply one OS is better than the other or that we need to dish out a lot of cash to upgrade. It could just be that the longer you've had it, the more likely you are to have malware.
And TFA says "rootkits" and the only good way to trash some of those is to reinstall anyhow.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
I don't see what you were trying to say about servers. Obviously, the user factor will vanish on a headless machine, but OTOH servers get usually reaped via buggy webapps. The OS role in this is relatively minor.
I know what monoculture in security context is. Let me restate my opinion: presenting 10 or so choices of popular distro's is not going to render a significant difference from only 1 choice.
As for botnets or harvesting data: they are doing it. Run a honeypot and you'll get yourself an IRC based botnet in 2-3 days average. Faster than snail mail!
I don't consider the OS role in this minor at all given that the widespread worms such as Sasser and Blaster on Windows replicated through vulnerabilities in the base operating system services. To say that the OS is so inconsequential makes the entire idea of "once Linux gets popular enough to attract malware" have no meaning whatsoever. This discussion has reached a point of incoherence, lad.
Apparently I replied to my own comment by mistake, this new discussion system jumps around too damn much.
I don't consider the OS role in this minor at all given that the widespread worms such as Sasser and Blaster on Windows replicated through vulnerabilities in the base operating system services. To say that the OS is so inconsequential makes the entire idea of "once Linux gets popular enough to attract malware" have no meaning whatsoever. This discussion has reached a point of incoherence, lad.