Windows 7 has higher infection rate than XP - Source: Microsoft

[xdot.tk]

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:

[LimeMaster]

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

[Roger H. Veteran]

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

[Guest]

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.

[timster]

[Max Norris]

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

[xdot.tk]

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

Usage was taken into account.

 

 

[notchinese]

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

[xdot.tk]

^ As I already said in my OP.

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

[Max Norris]

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.

[daorbed9]

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.

[xdot.tk]

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.

[stevember]

^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.

[Ian W]

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.

[xdot.tk]

^ 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 May 12, 2014 by xdot.tk

[Ian W]

^ I said that.

Oh, the comment wasn't directed towards you, xdot.tk. The reason I made my previous post is because some people may see the article you posted and get the wrong impression about security in Windows Vista and onward.

[simplezz]

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

Are you really suggesting that more people are using Vista than XP? It could be the combined share of Vista/7/8 that's attracting more attacks since they all have the same security model.

 

In the end, this is good news for XP. Security in obscurity now means it's safer to stick with it than buying a new PC.

[xdot.tk]

Oh, the comment wasn't directed towards you, xdot.tk. The reason I made my previous post is because some people may see the article you posted and get the wrong impression about security in Windows Vista and onward.

Yeah maybe I should change the attention grabbing thread title.  :ninja:

Then again, that's how many of the articles covering this are headlined.

[LimeMaster]

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.

Yup. Sadly there's not much that can be done.

[techbeck]

If people were better educated before using a PC, then malware wouldnt be so much of a problem.  My parents/sisters used to be really bad at getting malware. I would get calls all the time.  Finally, I sat down with them and went over a few things.  Not much of a problem since.

[Ian W]

Are you really suggesting that more people are using Vista than XP? It could be the combined share of Vista/7/8 that's attracting more attacks since they all have the same security model.

 

In the end, this is good news for XP. Security in obscurity now means it's safer to stick with it than buying a new PC.

Obscurity is not security. The security of a system depends on its design. No amount of obscurity will lessen the damage that an infection does to a machine running Windows XP. On the other hand, there are features in Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8 that can mitigate an infection or even prevent one altogether.

[Noir Angel]

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.

 

ASLR is mostly to protect against buffer overflow attacks, and most of those other protections are defeated by one thing you cannot design out of any OS: end user stupidity. The Vista (and onwards) codebase is more secure than the XP base but no malware protection is bulletproof.

[xdot.tk]

If people were better educated before using a PC, then malware wouldnt be so much of a problem.  My parents/sisters used to be really bad at getting malware. I would get calls all the time.  Finally, I sat down with them and went over a few things.  Not much of a problem since.

I agree but something that most people wouldn't imagine possible happened to me when my mom got her first PC... I nuked the Dell crap that came with it and did a fresh install of XP. I then installed Firefox with Adblock Plus, added my trusty HOSTS file, deleted the IE shortcuts and sent her on her way. NO ANTIVIRUS or anything!

She was good for about a year until she fell for an email phishing scam saying the IRS owed her money (Just give us your details...).

I know. I should have spent more time explaining about phishing and watching who you give your email address to.  She's old and has a lot of trouble understanding the simplest things when it comes to computer literacy and I'm prone to losing patience on that subject.

[daorbed9]

Yup. Sadly there's not much that can be done.

 

We probably have norton to thank for that.  If they ever said no to the great almighty firewall of hell, they could never figure out how to get that program working again.

[123456789A]

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

Usage was taken into account.

 

Infection rates in 4Q13 were many times higher on all supported Windows client platforms than they were in 3Q13, because of the influence of Win32/Rotbrow. CCM figures are expected to return to more typical levels in 2014. See "A trio of threats makes waves in 4Q13" on page 42 for more information about Rotbrow and its effect on 4Q13 encounter rates.

 

In general, infection rates for more recently released operating systems and service packs tend to be lower than infection rates for earlier releases, for both client and server platforms. In 3Q13, this pattern is clearly visible, with Windows XP displaying an infection rate significantly higher than any other supported Windows client platform, and Windows 8 RTM?at the time the most recently released platform?displaying the lowest. In 4Q13, the typical pattern is affected by the elevated infection rates caused by Rotbrow, as Windows Vista SP2 displayed a slightly higher infection rate than Windows XP SP3.

 

So basically this is just an anomaly, not a trend. Not a big news story to get worked up over.