Skip to comments.One in fourteen Internet downloads is Windows malware
Posted on 05/19/2011 8:51:36 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Yes. Its true. For the first time, Mac users have a significant malware problem. But, hey, it could be worse. You could be running Windows. After all, Microsoft, not some third-party anti-virus company trying to drum up business, has just admitted that based on analysis gained from IE 9 use, 1 out of every 14 programs downloaded is later confirmed as malware.
If I may quote from Matthew 7:5, the King James Bible, First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye.
Window PCs has far, far more malware trouble than Macs, and I cant resist mentioning that after in twenty-years of Linux, weve seen a real-world example of Linux malwarenot counting the Android malware mess. Ironically, these latest appalling Windows malware numbers are shared in a Microsoft blog about how well SmartScreen Application Reputation is working in IE9.
While its true that SmartScreen in IE9 is doing excellent work in protecting Windows users form Internet-borne malware, it leads to other questions. The biggest, to my mind, is that, since Microsoft proudly boasts that IE9s new Application Reputation will prevent more than 20 Million additional infections per month (on top of existing SmartScreen URL reputation blocks), why doesnt Microsoft offer IE9 to its XP users?
I mean Microsoft just said that theres an incredible amount of Windows malware out there on the Internet. Seriously Microsoft, instead of spending money of ads trying to con convince people to shell out hard earned cash for new Windows PCs, why not port IE9 to XP. According to the April 2011 average of the various sites that measures client operating systems on the Web, Windows XP has 39.11% of the market while Windows 7 only has 28.5%. Would it really be that much trouble-any trouble?to deliver better Internet security to the majority of your customers?
In the meantime, no matter what operating system you run, and yes that includes Macs and Linux, you need to take anti-virus software and malicious Web sites seriously. Android users, for example, cant get 99.9999% of the malware out there, but their Google application sessions can still be spied on and if youre not securing your network sessions, it doesnt matter what youre running, your Web sessions can still be hi-jacked with Firesheep.
Sure, Windows, with or without IE9 has more security problems than all the other operating systems rolled together, but today network insecurity is everyones problem.
He still makes a couple of points though.
That's an easy one. Microsoft doesn't want you using XP; they want to suck you into the Windows 7 plantation.
How to make a Microsoft executive roll on the floor laughing: suggest that they make a terrific app backwards-compatible with an older generation of their OS.
Yet since he's a Windows basher you still like to post his articles. This is no different than saying more highway accidents involve cars than trucks, since most desktop computers are Windows. As for his inference Linux is in-penetrable, it's still by far the most hacked web server, close to 5 to 1 more Linux servers hacked than Windows according to the defacement archive stats for 2010.
Nothing personal, just keeping it real.
Can someone post the picture of Captain Obvious.
Ain't it a riot? In an article whose subject is "Windows malware", the LEAD SENTENCE STILL CONTAINS "Mac Users". Can't avoid getting that dig in there, can they? Gotta get those page hits. It's all about being a tech-writer prostitute.
I swear, these tech writers could teach the whores of Thailand a thing or two.
Oh, well... I'm running a mix of Win7 and XP on my many various Windows boxes, and probably won't switch to IE9 (from IE8) until either: a) I ditch XP entirely, not for a couple more years, or b) Microsoft wises up and releases a version of IE9 for XP. (Uh, best of luck with that!)
> close to 5 to 1 more Linux servers hacked than Windows
Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to that same page you reference, the number of Linux servers was also about 5 times the number of Windows servers. Meaning they're about equally attacked percentage-wise.
> Nothing personal, just keeping it real.
BTW, Microsoft is cozying up to Linux bigtime now. I'd say your enthusiasm for boosting Steve "Linux is a cancer" Ballmer ought to slack off, since he's obviously gone over to the Dark Side...
Because it was written by a prominent Linux pumper, and there is longer a peace settlement in the *NIX universe against Microsoft, since Apple starting locking things down to increase their profits as well. Google did the typical open source thing by trying to copy iOS with Android, and unleashed their hounds on Apple, and has so far seen it work with a lot of Androids being sold. It may be short lived however, as their open security model is already failing, and they're facing patent suits on multiple fronts now from not only Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle, but small timers who are winning their suits as well.
Hey, GE, welcome back! Haven’t seen you around in ages!
Those numbers are the total number of Linux servers hacked, verses Windows servers hacked, being roughly a 5 to 1 ratio (~1.1 million to ~200k), from the internet at large. The stats for server O/S footprint on the internet at large aren't of interest of the defacement archive, and are hard to measure as Apache vs IIS would be the expected comparative, but Apache runs on Windows and other versions of Unix as well.
Netcraft does the most respected job of tracking webserver O/S type, and does show Apache with a larger number of sites than IIS, but again that includes some Windows and most other versions of *NIX, and it's still no where near a 5 to 1 ratio verses IIS as we see in Linux defacements. More like 2 to 1:
There ya go ................ FRegards
Thank you, our country is in need, greater than at any time in my lifetime, and this site is still the best resource on the web for material to counter the left. My contributions to tech threads will be limited, as the IT industry is not our greatest concern at this time, but my long standing belief that Intellectual Property created in the US is a valuable resource, and should be protected rather than freely given away, or allowed to be stolen by the rest of the world, is as strong as ever. Unfortunately that means we as citizens may have to endure the mechanisms that protect this property, but most everything that is worth protecting has a lock or a fence around it as well. Thanks again.
And I’ll bet most of those come from the “blogosphere” - blogspot, myspace, examiner, etc. etc.
And probably half of them are browser “add-ons” like emoticon creators. I know somebody who got nailed by those multiple times, she just couldn’t accept that those cute little emoticons might be evil. IT was about ready to kill her.
My wife yelled at me last week to come look at her computer. Her Mac had a big warning that malware had been found on her computer and to hit OK for a full scan.
She didn’t click the link and I closed the browser with ho apparent harm but that is the first time I’ve seen something like than on the Mac.
Well, every website you or I visit knows, as part of the HTTP protocol and environment, what kind of computer we have (both OS and browser (agent)). It's trivial to craft a message that is correct and specific to the user.
Which is why I've always laughed when Windows-style malware dialogs appear on my Mac or Linux boxes. I mean, how lame is that???
The fact that Mac OS-X is nearly bulletproof against real viruses -- at the BSD operating system level -- doesn't mean the applications don't have holes, and CERTAINLY doesn't do a d@mn thing to prevent the user from being a naive fool and clicking boxes they shouldn't.
The only defense against "social engineering" attacks on a Mac is identical to the defense on Windows -- a combination of fierce skepticism and the ability to resist temptation. Curiosity killed the cat, I've heard...
It’s called “Scareware” and on the Mac the only way it will do any damage is if you authorize it to do so by typing in your userid and password and allow it to install, as long as you don’t do that, even if you download the file, it will just sit there dormant, the program won’t run. On Windows it will just install even if the user is passive.
And on a Mac to remove it, it is fairly straightforward. Usually on Windows, you have to go in and edit the registry, which is a very dicey proposition for a non-techie, hence the need for anti-malware software to be installed on a PC.
. . . and my experience is that "fierce skepticism" is a lot easier for me to bring to the Unix box than to the WindowsTM one.
Some Windows users posting here seem to take offense at my attitude of "fierce skepticism" related to OS X virus warnings. As far as I'm concerned that's their problem, tho . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.