Windows 7 Infection Rate Lower Than Windows XP
Newer is better.
A newer Windows is a safer Windows, as Microsoft proved with its internal security findings comparing its three most recent versions of its OS family.
Windows XP SP2 suffered a quarterly infection rate of 19.3 computers per thousand. SP3 improved things to 15.9 per thousand.
Windows Vista improved upon those numbers significantly. Windows Vista SP1 had 9.8 infections per thousand, while SP2 hit 7.5. The 64-bit versions of the OS did even better at 6.6 and 5.3, respectively.
Windows 7 was the best of all with the 32-bit version having only a 3.8 infection rate, and the 64-bit improving to 2.5 per thousand.
Microsoft offered a couple reasons why the 64-bit versions were a bit more hardy against infection:
“One reason may be that 64-bit versions of Windows still appeal to a more technically savvy audience than their 32-bit counterparts,” says Microsoft. “Kernel Patch Protection (KPP), a feature of 64-bit versions of Windows that protects the kernel from unauthorized modification, may also contribute to the discrepancy by preventing certain types of malware from operating.”
- The PlayBook Finally Gets a UK Price and Release
- Sony Details ID Protection for European PSN Users
- Super Thin Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Has Sandy Bridge
- Corsair Force Series 3 SSDs Hit 550r/520w MB/s
- Intel: No, We're Not Using Arm To Create CPUs
- Valve: Optimal Pricing Better than Licensing Source
- New Tesla GPU Smashes World Record, Says Nvidia
- 1st Access to Duke Forever Demo Will Be...
- Samsung's 'Explore 3D' Goes Live for UK Viewers
- Intel: Windows on ARM Won't Run 'Legacy Apps'
- Ereading Women Over 35 Are Turning to Piracy
- New Report Calls for Copyright Law Revamp
- London 2012 Athletes to Get NFC Phones
- Microsoft Launches 'Buy PC, Get Xbox Free' for Students Program
- Flagship's Hellgate: London Finally Back as F2P
- Microsoft says Intel’s Windows 8 Statements Were ''Factually Inaccurate and Unfortunately Misleading''
- Apple and Religion Stimulate Brain in Same Way
- Buy Your Own Quantum Computer for $10 Million
Well, that's only to be expected. For starters, Vista's kernel redesign was just about the only great thing about it.
Then there is of course the increased awareness about malware. TV shows, newspapers, magazines and websites now talk so much about computer security that even the least computer savvy among my friends and family know they need an antivirus.
Windows is safe when the user is somewhat careful, but Linux (and in the past Mac as well, but that's changing) offer a completely virus free experience. That's still a lot better.
I still don't get why Windows doesn't require a password to run something as administrator. Most people set their day to day account as admin, so things are bound to go wrong with such elevated privileges. Linux and Mac don't make a distinction between users and admin, they just ask for the password.
And another easy thing to improve security: why not ask to install MS Security Essentials during install? Point out to the person in front of the PC that they need some form of security and then offer them to either install MSE or opt to take another AV (perhaps with a sort of ballot list). That way, antitrust regulators can't act.
I still don't get why Windows doesn't require a password to run something as administrator.
Because UAC is an obtrusive pain in the ass?
You can put in all the software protection you want, but security still requires half a brain from the user, and that's something no OS vendor can do anything about.
Education is key.
Because UAC is an obtrusive pain in the ass?You can put in all the software protection you want, but security still requires half a brain from the user, and that's something no OS vendor can do anything about.Education is key.
Why is UAC pain in the ass? It only bothers when you install new software or if you try to uninstall software. These are the only cases when UAC kicks in and I know that it exists.
The pain in the ass are the bad habits from the old pre-NT Window to not have any security at all. No security = no interruptions, no passwords, no nothing = easy and comfortable (but it is bad and dangerous)
windows uac comes up everytime i try to laod certain proframs especially script files,
i just disabled it and left it at that,
but then again i clone my pc's hdd so if my pc gets messed up just restore image and done
virses can get arrounr uac anyway and most can even block antivirus programs from working the best programs are ones that moniter accses much like corporete admins are supossed to do and allow or deny accses
Windows is safe when the user is somewhat careful, but Linux (and in the past Mac as well, but that's changing) offer a completely virus free experience.
Mac and Linux users should still have anti-virus. Don't tell anyone with any OS they're safe from viruses.
On to the article. I'd like to hope that newer versions improve on older ones!
The reason Linux and Mac are virus free is because the market share is small compared to PC so there's much less money to be made making malicious software for them. If Mac owned 90% of the computer market or something (god forbid) then the rates would be the other way around I'm sure.
Going on about the UAC also.. MY GOD.. it's such a pain. When I download something and double click it, I don't want to be asked a million times whether I actually want it open. Even if I KNOW it's something dodgy, if I'm clicking it.. I want it open.
Mac and Linux users should still have anti-virus. Don't tell anyone with any OS they're safe from viruses.On to the article. I'd like to hope that newer versions improve on older ones!
That Mac was insecure was known to security researches for years now, yet it took till this year before true malware started spreading in the wild, in line with Mac OS X's steep market share rise. So far, we agree.
However, Linux is a different beast entirely. Most Linux distros are more careful with giving root privileges than either Mac or Windows. The OS is more secure at a fundamental level. Flaws are patched faster than Windows and a lot faster than in Snail OS X.
But better still, Linux is just all around more secure, as proven by its dominance in the server market. Use a firewall, some common sense and a modern, up-to-date distro and security borders on absolute.
Nothing is completely safe, but the odds of getting a virus on Linux are small. Think of it as a horizontal asymptote going towards zero...
if you have a security package like comodo, it works by getting you to allow or block actions requested by programs much in the same way as linux
so in other words even if a virus gets on your computer and tries to modify or delete bootmgr then it will tell you and ask to allow or deny
and becasue of how the program works it shows you what exe/program is trying to gain accses so you can then research it and/or delete it
IMO UAC is predominantly behind any increase in security. You can harp on all you want about features but they truth is Linux (having borrowed from Unix) had it right not allowing people root access, and UAC works in a similar enough way that it's pretty much apples and apples.
I love how MS try to pass off 'security suites' as being some awesome shield against crap. You can run with out one of these for ages and no one is going to care about hacking your crappy rig, you just need common (or maybe not so) sense.
I should clarify that I'm not against anti-virus, I just hate these 'do it all' suites. They are just resource hogs and force people to upgrade hardware prematurely