Jump to content



Photo
microsoft security intelligence report windows 7 windows vista xp windows xp malware security q4

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 xdot.tk

xdot.tk

  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 29-May 09

Posted 12 May 2014 - 19:00

The latest Microsoft Security Intelligence Report shows that Windows Vista and Windows 7 were more likely to be infected by malware than the constantly berated Windows XP. Not really surprised that Neowin isn't covering it though while others are

 

Microsoft Security Intelligence Report (SIR)

PDFs: SIR Key Findings SIR Volume 16 (FULL)

 

Yes, I know it's a quirk but still an interesting finding.  :woot:




#2 +LimeMaster

LimeMaster

    LippyZillaD Council ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • 10,155 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 10
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 12 May 2014 - 19:06

And Windows 95 has a lower infection rate than Windows XP. It's because malware writers are moving to the supported OSes. :p



#3 Roger H.

Roger H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,941 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 01
  • Location: Germany
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 12 May 2014 - 20:25

Higher usage therefore higher infections (because of active usage, not targeting by malware).



#4 elenarie

elenarie

    Newbie .NET / game dev

  • 1,310 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 14
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64
  • Phone: Lumia 920 Yellow

Posted 12 May 2014 - 20:28

Not surprising. You go where the users are. Also, targeting 7 means your exploit will most likely work on XP too. Doesn't happen the other way around all that often.



#5 +timster

timster

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,782 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08
  • Location: Canada
  • OS: 7.1.2 JB
  • Phone: iPhone 4

Posted 12 May 2014 - 20:30

49740703.jpg



#6 Max Norris

Max Norris

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,929 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 11
  • OS: Windows 7/8.1, BSD Unix, Arch Linux
  • Phone: HTC One (Home) Lumia 1020 (Work)

Posted 12 May 2014 - 20:37

That's pretty much spot on.. more users, more malware, zero rhetoric.  Applies to any platform.



#7 OP xdot.tk

xdot.tk

  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 29-May 09

Posted 12 May 2014 - 20:38

Please read the report or the news stories associated with it before making uninformed claims.  :rolleyes: 

Usage was taken into account.

 

 

CCM.png



#8 notchinese

notchinese

    Neowinian

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: 04-October 12

Posted 12 May 2014 - 20:52

Except according to that article, this past quarter was an outlier. The Q3 numbers represent average, in which the infection rate of XP is almost twice that of Windows 7



#9 OP xdot.tk

xdot.tk

  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 29-May 09

Posted 12 May 2014 - 20:53

^ As I already said in my OP.

Yes, I know it's a quirk but still an interesting finding.   :woot:



#10 Max Norris

Max Norris

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,929 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 11
  • OS: Windows 7/8.1, BSD Unix, Arch Linux
  • Phone: HTC One (Home) Lumia 1020 (Work)

Posted 12 May 2014 - 20:58

There's also a few articles online explaining why the numbers are as they are.  Namely it's all due to one particular piece of malware, delivery mechanism, etc.  Easily found online.  Has nothing to do with the underlying OS itself.



#11 daorbed9

daorbed9

    Neowinian

  • 111 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 13
  • Location: NC

Posted 12 May 2014 - 21:04

And Windows 95 has a lower infection rate than Windows XP. It's because malware writers are moving to the supported OSes. :p

 

Pretty much sums it up.  Every year malware has increased by a large percent and the market share is larger than ever.  Besides what can MS do when it says "Do you want to do this?" and people say yes to pretty much everything without much thought.



#12 OP xdot.tk

xdot.tk

  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 29-May 09

Posted 12 May 2014 - 21:06

There's also a few articles online explaining why the numbers are as they are.  Namely it's all due to one particular piece of malware, delivery mechanism, etc.  Easily found online.  Has nothing to do with the underlying OS itself.

^I know.

I'm in no way claiming that XP is safer than NT6. Just that it's an interesting story. If it painted XP in a bad light, you can be assured that Neowin would be all over it. ;)

 

I know how things work around here. My signature was taken away because it had a cross out symbol over a Windows 7 logo. You have to tow the company line (NT6!) around here or you get in trouble.



#13 stevember

stevember

    'But thats just me....'

  • 2,644 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 01
  • Location: Cornwall, UK

Posted 12 May 2014 - 21:18

^I know.

I'm in no way claiming that XP is safer than NT6. Just that it's an interesting story. If it painted XP in a bad light, you can be assured that Neowin would be all over it. ;)

 

I know how things work around here. My signature was taken away because it had a cross out symbol over a Windows 7 logo. You have to tow the company line (NT6!) around here or you get in trouble.

 

We only ever see what we want to see, if it painted in XP in a bad light you would have ignored it.



#14 Ian W

Ian W

    Physical presence asserted.

  • 1,474 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 13
  • OS: Windows Vista

Posted 12 May 2014 - 21:38

The reports do not change the fact that Windows Vista and onward are inherently more secure than Windows XP. Features such as User Account Control, the Windows Integrity Mechanism, Structured Exception Handler Overwrite Protection, and Address Space Layout Randomization are simply not available for the older platform, and the list goes on.



#15 OP xdot.tk

xdot.tk

  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 29-May 09

Posted 12 May 2014 - 21:48

^ I said that.

I'm in no way claiming that XP is safer than NT6. 

 

 

^^

We only ever see what we want to see, if it painted in XP in a bad light you would have ignored it.

You think? I pretty much read all Windows stories.

I recently complained about the lack of them or more accurately, the shift in coverage towards hand held devices.


Edited by xdot.tk, 12 May 2014 - 21:53.