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.
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?
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...
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.
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."
> 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.
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.
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.
Any update system that forces a reboot at an arbitrary time without giving the user the option of when is convenient for them is defective. I'll reboot, on MY schedule, not the computer's. There is no excuse to not offer this flexibility.
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."
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.
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. :)
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 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.
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/
"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.
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
A) you didnt make the product, you dont set the rules. Microsoft made it, they get to set the rules, both by any sane legal standard, and by common sense.
Problem is, this collides with the only sane standard regarding physical property (I get to do what I want with my property, as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else). So, for example, I have the right to do whatever I want with my burner and my blank disks, including making copies, since it at most has an indirect effect on someone's future sales.
Our sense of morality is often based on what we're used to - what we think is absolute, is really just a convention that's been drilled into us from such an early age it's hard to conceive it being different. Ultimately, morality has to be determined by the effects it has on people and society.
I think the world would be better off without copyright than with the ridiculously long terms we have now - but the optimal solution may be to have a short copyright term, say three or five years, and allow private non-commercial use (filesharing). This would allow more people to benefit from copyrighted goods (books, films, computer programs, etc) without significantly affecting the producers' revenues.
I've written a more detailed proposal specifically about software copyright on my blog.
B) Pirating software reduces the real value of the software-- when people simply take it for free, it lowers the demand and perceived value of the software. It does not directly take money from the dev's bank account; it merely skims a tiny bit off of their sales by encouraging others to pirate as well.
Which is only a problem if you assume they have a right to earn money. You could also assume it's their own responsibility to find a way to earn money on their work, or find a new business.
For example, if a company puts out free newspapers in a city and earns money on the advertising, they can't complain if people skip the ads. They don't automatically have a right to earn money just because they make a good product. If people skip the ads, the company will have to find another way to make money on their papers or stop distributing them.
If it was illegal to skip ads in a newspaper you picked up for free, I bet people would soon start believing they had a right to have their ads read, and feel moral outrage every time someone picked up their paper without reading the ads.
I don't know how it works for computer programs, but when it comes to music and films, the reduction in sales has been indistinguishable from zero. Sales of downloadable music have sky-rocketed at roughly the same pace that sales of CDs have plummeted, and both the music and film industry have continued to increase their profits steadily since 1999, when filesharing took off, excepting the year that the bank crisis started.
The main problem for the record companies is that artists now publish their music themselves on the Internet, and get a larger share of the revenue. In Sweden and Norway, music artists earn, on the average, significantly MORE today than 1999, even though the number of artists have increased.
C) Just because you want something doesnt entitle you to it, REGARDLESS of whether it hurts someone else when you take it.
The question is not if you're entitled to do something; the question is if somone is entitled to stop you.
Copyright means, for example, that the creator of a song can stop anyone else from singing it, the creator of a play can stop anyone else from performing it, and so on. What entitles him to do that?
D) And just in case you think the current system sucks and you want to stick it to the man, by simply taking what you want without reforming the actual system, you are perpetuating the system you claim is so bad-- and this ignores the fact that this sy
Problem is, this collides with the only sane standard regarding physical property (I get to do what I want with my property, as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else).
And apparently you dont understand what a contract is. When you "purchase" Microsoft software (and certainly once you click the "I AGREE TO THE ABOVE" box during install), you have entered into an agreement with them. You could argue that its a shrinkwrap license, and not enforceable, but that gets a LOT less compelling when you read Slashdot and know darn well what the contract says and that it is a part of the conditions of use (and again, you have to click "i agree", or intentionally bypass that page with a hack).
And part of that agreement is that you do not retain full rights to the software. From the Win7 EULA:
You
may not
work around any technical limitations in the software;
reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
use components of the software to run applications not running on the software;
make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
publish the software for others to copy;
rent, lease or lend the software; or
use the software for commercial software hosting services.
Which doesnt preclude you from making copies; but you are not allowed to distribute them. You could POSSIBLY convince me that the "not copying for others" might not apply if you copied the disk from a Mac, having never installed any MS software; but including a generated install key would certainly fall afoul of the law. And I believe that there are terms on the actual packaging that tell you not to copy the disk; you can disregard those but once again they might be contractual.
So if that is a bit too draconian and creepy for you, thats fine; you can choose not to enter into that legally binding contract. But making the purchase and then utterly disregarding the terms that you agree to just means that you think somehow contract law doesnt apply to you. If you think such a contract is unenforceable, I think you would find that part of getting out of it would involve proving that you had no knowledge of it, which as a slashdot reader I can assert is almost certainly false.
Our sense of morality is often based on what we're used to - what we think is absolute, is really just a convention that's been drilled into us from such an early age it's hard to conceive it being different.
Yes, and in order for a society to function, contracts need to be enforced. It is a ridiculous position that, because we're dealing with software, the contract is irrelevant.
Which is only a problem if you assume they have a right to earn money.
By the laws of economy that have been around from time immemorial, if you make a product and others obtain it, you have a right to compensation (both for the good itself, and for your worksmanship). Anything else has always been considered theft, and detrimental to the economy, as it discourages innovation and work.
Copyright means, for example, that the creator of a song can stop anyone else from singing it, the creator of a play can stop anyone else from performing it, and so on. What entitles him to do that?
The fact that society decided to do so, and standard contract law-- at least when it comes to MS software.
Reforming the system would be better, but I'm glad people fileshare, so they'll have an incentive to vote in favour of reduced copyright.
No, it means they have an incentive not to care as they already get what they want. What do they care or know about copyright when they utterly