Archived thread 1017403 from Windows. Markdown source: Windows/thread_1017403_Windows_Now_More_Malware_Than_Software.md
http://www.pcworld.com/article/144279/malware_count_blows_past_1_million_mark.html
Not a new article, but I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention.
Microsoft Windows users unknowingly run more malware than actual software. 65% malware doing 'who knows what', 35% software doing what the Windows user wants, according to Symantec.
More malware is officially produced for Windows than software.
Over a million known kinds of malware 'in the wild'.
Use Windows: BE 100% COMPATIBLE!
:P
Microsoft Windows users unknowingly run more malware than actual software. 65% malware doing 'who knows what', 35% software doing what the Windows user wants...
This is certainly NOT the conclusion to be drawn from the article.
The total malware available in the software landscape exceeds the amount of available desired software. It would certainly be easy enough to apply your logic to the amount of available Linux "brokeware" and conclude that the vast majority of programs that Linux users have installed on their machines are broken...but that is not the case.
However, efforts by ISPs and large search engines limit exposure as do good AV software and good user practices.
In three years of running a Windows machine essentially 24/7 connected to broadband, I have NEVER contracted a single instance of malware.
I attribute that to reasonable security measures (AV and router NAT) and good user practices (we do not download warez/pirate software of any sort)
The Whitelisting is a good idea... and simple to implement.
The only problem would be reducing the impact on the end-user, especially those who are not tech savvy, and would blindly press yes to everything.
The secret, my friends, is to have a special opt-in portion of participants, and THOSE specific users get to choose which programs are allowed, and which are not, as they are run for the first time.
Their results are tallied (popularity contest-style) and the result is passed on to millions of other users around the globe. No dialog needed, just an internet connection to an update server once a day.
The Whitelisting is a good idea... and simple to implement.
The only problem would be reducing the impact on the end-user, especially those who are not tech savvy, and would blindly press yes to everything.
The secret, my friends, is to have a special opt-in portion of participants, and THOSE specific users get to choose which programs are allowed, and which are not, as they are run for the first time.
Their results are tallied (popularity contest-style) and the result is passed on to millions of other users around the globe. No dialog needed, just an internet connection to an update server once a day.
The Whitelisting is a good idea... and simple to implement.
The only problem would be reducing the impact on the end-user, especially those who are not tech savvy, and would blindly press yes to everything.
The secret, my friends, is to have a special opt-in portion of participants, and THOSE specific users get to choose which programs are allowed, and which are not, as they are run for the first time.
Their results are tallied (popularity contest-style) and the result is passed on to millions of other users around the globe. No dialog needed, just an internet connection to an update server once a day.
tsali said: This is certainly NOT the conclusion to be drawn from the article.
The total malware available in the software landscape exceeds the amount of available desired software. It would certainly be easy enough to apply your logic to the amount of available Linux "brokeware" and conclude that the vast majority of programs that Linux users have installed on their machines are broken...but that is not the case.
However, efforts by ISPs and large search engines limit exposure as do good AV software and good user practices.
In three years of running a Windows machine essentially 24/7 connected to broadband, I have NEVER contracted a single instance of malware.
I attribute that to reasonable security measures (AV and router NAT) and good user practices (we do not download warez/pirate software of any sort)
same here. end of the "horror" story
Wow, a company that makes security/antivirus software releasing a steady about a huge problem that they make software to combat against....
Of course, I'm probably just being cynical.
/me checks his computer... nope no malware
But then I am very picky as to what runs and I am not, repeat, not afraid of the Windows registry as well (I just tend to be very careful). I also practice safe computing practices by either going to sites I trust or download software from sites I trust. I also run Firefox by default with SiteAdvisor enabled and Noscript installed (I know they are not bulletproof) and combine that with safe computing practices, I hardly get any malware whatsoever. The biggest problem in regards to this so-called report is that it was done by probably one of *the* worst companies that bogged down computers with the overbloated computer security software. So I take it with a grain of salt.
Zerocxis