Windows 64 bit is safer

[Ci7]

Microsoft claims

Windows users running 64-bit versions of the operating system are less likely to get infected by attack code. According to Microsoft's security team said that 64-bit Windows has some of the lowest reported malware infection rates in the first half of 2009.

According to the Microsoft Malware Protection Center 64-bit malware is still exceedingly rare in the wild. Based on data gleened from Microsoft's Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRC) the 64-bit version of Windows XP was 48 per cent less likely to be infected than the 32-bit edition during the first half of 2009; PCs running Vista 64-bit, meanwhile, were 35 per cent less likely to be infected than Vista 32-bit.

The blog said that that Windows 7 64-bit is the dominant flavor of that new OS as he touted its security. The blog claims that 64-bit Windows was safer by design than the less-powerful 32-bit version, ticking off such measures as PatchGuard, which makes it more difficult for malware to tamper with the operating system's kernel.

source

[ReDFoX2200]

It is simply cause most ppl are still using 32bit OS.

[Raa]

Perhaps... But the fact malware isn't written specifically for 64 bit code is a factor too. Even if it was, it wouldn't work as well on Vista/7 because of patchguard.

Pity my spare iMac doesn't support 64 bit lol.

[hdood]

Heh. How many people here have EVER encountered PatchGuard? None, I bet.

It's just what redfox says, 64-bit is too fringe for anyone to bother making malware for it. The malware it does have will be of the 32-bit variety that still works because it doesn't mess with any parts of the system that are 64-bit only.

[stevember]

It is simply cause most ppl are still using 32bit OS.

I doubt very much they would say something like this if it was.

It is probably worked out on percentage usage.

[Colin-uk Veteran]

64 bit users arent safer than 32bit users. 32 bit malware still works on 64 bit hardware.

if anything 64 bit users are more at risk as they could be infected with 64bit malware as well as 32bit malware, 32bit users dont have this problem.

[McCordRm]

Overall, 64-bit is safer for the same reason Macs and Linux are: number of users.

If I'm going to spend an hour writing code to disable systems, would I rather spend

that hour and effect 1 million systems, or 20 million?

Look at the number of "dangerous" websites. You know what MOST of them have in common? Porn. They either have porn, or just advertise it to get you to the site. Why? Because there's more people searching for porn that anything else. It's all in the numbers of potential victims.

[bobbba]

64 bit users arent safer than 32bit users. 32 bit malware still works on 64 bit hardware.

if anything 64 bit users are more at risk as they could be infected with 64bit malware as well as 32bit malware, 32bit users dont have this problem.

Nothing to do with patchguard and the other x64 security features in your highly qualified opinion then... :rolleyes:

[fhpuqrgrpgvirzhpujbj]

64 bit users arent safer than 32bit users. 32 bit malware still works on 64 bit hardware.

if anything 64 bit users are more at risk as they could be infected with 64bit malware as well as 32bit malware, 32bit users dont have this problem.

How much x64-specific malware have you seen?

[Mathiasdm]

I'm going to take an extremely wild guess here and say there are more tech-savvy people using 64-bit Windows.

[soumyasch]

Overall, 64-bit is safer for the same reason Macs and Linux are: number of users.

Probably not. Most of the APIs, unless you are in kernel mode, is same. So, most malicious applications could still work in Windows x64. IMO, the higer security is probably the handiwork of on-for-all-programs-by-default hardware No Execute, PatchGuard and more randomization for ASLR

[fhpuqrgrpgvirzhpujbj]

I'm going to take an extremely wild guess here and say there are more tech-savvy people using 64-bit Windows.

Best Buy has been selling x64 Vista (and now 7 I suppose) machines for a while now.

[Colin-uk Veteran]

Nothing to do with patchguard and the other x64 security features in your highly qualified opinion then... :rolleyes:

I didnt say that & I didnt say my opinion was highly qualified, but thanks.

How much x64-specific malware have you seen?

none. but if there was none at all then the report would be pointless.

[hdood]

Nothing to do with patchguard and the other x64 security features in your highly qualified opinion then... :rolleyes:

Ever had a patchguard crash? I've never heard of anyone who has as a result of malware.

[fhpuqrgrpgvirzhpujbj]

Ever had a patchguard crash? I've never heard of anyone who has as a result of malware.

Most malware doesn't try and patch the kernel. Anything that tries to patch system dlls would fail though because they'd be 64 bit as apposed to x86 which is what it would most likely target.

[hdood]

Most malware doesn't try and patch the kernel. Anything that tries to patch system dlls would fail though because they'd be 64 bit as apposed to x86 which is what it would most likely target.

Exactly. PatchGuard isn't very relevant in this context. Not just that, but if some malware for whatever reason wanted to patch the kernel, they could just disable PG first. A piece of malware that just sent the machine into a continuous crash loop would after all not be very useful.

PG primarily stops legitimate software from doing things it shouldn't, and that is its main purpose.

[ncoday]

I think the main reason is that the only people running 64bit OSes are computer power users who know how to keep their computers safe and virus/malware free

32bit OSes are the dummies out there who have no clue what they are doing and will click on any pop-up window

[Fraud OS 11]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_...ecific_features. The first 2 apply to XP 64 as well. Alas, if only Microsoft had supported XP x64 really well when it came out in April 2005.

[_V_]

It's like this:

- Windows users running the 64bit versions are immune against every kernel mode malware that was designed for 32bit versions of Windows. Why ?

Simply because every kernel level malware that was designed for 32bit versions of Windows rely heavily on modifying the Service Descriptor Table. Modifying the Service Descriptor Table on x64 is no longer possible, not without circumventing the Patch Guard Technology. So, all that malware that was designed for x86 is obsolete on x64.

- Windows users running either 64bit or 32bit versions of Windows are absolutely NOT immune against malware that is designed for x64. Circumventing Patch Guard is very well documented now (the very first public paper on this subject was published on Uninformed by Skape who works for MS now and Skywing, back in 2005), and more malware is being developed for x64 systems, especially that more and more users/enterprises are moving to this architecture.

To sum it up, in a couple years, there will be more malware targeting x64 systems and so this equation will shift.

[ViperAFK]

if anything 64 bit users are more at risk as they could be infected with 64bit malware as well as 32bit malware, 32bit users dont have this problem.

That's just a ridiculous statement.

[_V_]

That's just a ridiculous statement.

indeed.

Joe Faulhaber from Microsoft Malware Protection Center wrote quite an objective article on this matter.

http://blogs.technet.com/mmpc/archive/2009...to-malware.aspx

[Udedenkz]

Don't worry in time malicious software will evolve for 64-bit. Lets just hope it goes x64 is as fast as Adobe.

[Ci7]

and btw

the funny fact i came by this days

almost all PC today are windows 7 , "vista vaporized quickly"

and most of em are actually 7 x64 "if not all" :cool:

[Mr. Black]

Overall, 64-bit is safer for the same reason Macs and Linux are: number of users.

If I'm going to spend an hour writing code to disable systems, would I rather spend

that hour and effect 1 million systems, or 20 million?

Look at the number of "dangerous" websites. You know what MOST of them have in common? Porn. They either have porn, or just advertise it to get you to the site. Why? Because there's more people searching for porn that anything else. It's all in the numbers of potential victims.

It doesn't matter if you wrote just for 32-bit, the 32-bit virus code CAN STILL run on a 64-bit system with WOW...in simple terms, you can run a 32-bit app/virus/etc. on 64-bit windows...it doesn't matter. Now, if it's a 64-bit ONLY virus, that's a different story...as for Linux/Mac, I have no experience to comment in that area.

So your argument is null and void for Windows 64-bit systems using AMD64 (not Itanium64 versions).

[ahhell]

Nothing to do with patchguard and the other x64 security features in your highly qualified opinion then... :rolleyes:

Haha...eye roll is right.

The comments are almost Picard face-palm worthy.

x64 was designed to be more secure. Why the **** is anyone surprised that MS says it's safer.