×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 8 Defeats 85% of Malware Detected In the Past 6 Months

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the it's-like-voltron dept.

Microsoft 299

An anonymous reader writes "Now that Windows 8 is on sale and has already been purchased by millions, expect very close scrutiny of Microsoft's latest and greatest security features. 0-day vulnerabilities are already being claimed, but what about the malware that's already out there? When tested against the top threats, Windows 8 is immune to 85 percent of them, and gets infected by 15 percent, according to tests run by BitDefender."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

299 comments

So, ... some built in security? (3, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938749)

Did any of the malware get past whatever new copy of Windows Security Essentials they cooked up especially for Win 8?

Re:So, ... some built in security? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938875)

I understand not reading TFA, but did you even read the title?

Re:So, ... some built in security? (3, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939383)

That is exactly what the story is about, they rolled that right into the OS this time (technically, into Windows Defender, which is enabled by default).

Re:So, ... some built in security? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939689)

It's not due to "WSE". Windows 8 is highly incompatible with previous versions (google for all the stuff that wont run under W8 anymore).
In most cases the fixes required are very simple and I'm sure malware developers will be catching up fast.

Re:So, ... some built in security? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939919)

Highly incompatible? I am running all my games, all my software, some of which is close to 10 years old. I tried as you suggested and did a google search and found very little of any consequence, Troll?

No platform is 100 percent secure? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938751)

Have they tried Linux?

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (4, Informative)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938813)

Linux is not 100% secure. Linux is very secure, and is certainly more secure than Microsoft's OSes, but vulnerabilities are discovered all of the time. The biggest distinction is that since Linux is openly developed with the potential for anyone to contribute and for everyone to see, there aren't large, untested milestone releases without public eyes on them like commercial OSes. By the time that the experimental version becomes the release version it's already been vetted. Microsoft doesn't have the same quantity of testing because while there is a beta program, it's not designed to be thoroughly examined.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938843)

More like Linux still doesn't have the market share to warrent spending significant time developing malware for it.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (4, Insightful)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939117)

More like Linux still doesn't have the market share to warrent spending significant time developing malware for it.

Neither does Windows 8.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939137)

More devices run Linux than Windows. How big of a target do you need?

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (5, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939411)

More devices run Linux than Windows. How big of a target do you need?

Ah yes. But which Linux? There is, what, 20+ major distributions and dozens or hundreds of minor ones? Even calling all of them a single OS is almost a stretch, given that some of them have almost nothing in common with each other. That's not one target, it's a few dozen. And it's hacked all the time, just rarely using automated malware tools (because, again, those aren't terribly effective against heavily fragmented targets).

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939601)

Do you even know what a distro is?

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939781)

"almost nothing in common"?

What about the kernel, the drivers, and almost all of the applications? Isn't that enough for a hacker to be getting on with?

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939609)

How many of those devices are WORTH hacking, let alone what is the target profile?

Or are they even exposed to the common vector? A headless server certainly counts as a device, but the user(s) of it aren't going to open that e-mail to get Justin Bieber tickets.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939697)

I worked at a company that had Windows and Linux servers set up as a content delivery network. Guess which servers ended up getting viruses? Yeah, I don't even have to say it. The cost of that incident was large both for us and our customers.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (4, Insightful)

Progman3K (515744) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939277)

More like Linux still doesn't have the market share to warrent spending significant time developing malware for it.

Right...

Linux runs on more computers than Windows worldwide.

You know, all those servers, phones, appliances and clouds that make up the Internet? Those.

It may not be on most desktops but its on everything else and it far outnumbers Windows.

It's not more secure because it's more obscure, it's more secure because it's better.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (3, Insightful)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939373)

The overwhelming number of Linux servers worldwide are behind firewalls and will rarely ever attempt to reach out blindly to the internet. There aren't nearly as many attack vectors to exploit. It's far easier to find some bad PHP code to exploit, or an unpatched version of Apache than it is to attack it using traditional methods that might work on a user machine.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (4, Interesting)

shaitand (626655) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939537)

"The overwhelming number of Linux servers worldwide are behind firewalls"

Sure. On the other hand there are no small number of firewalls running Linux.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (3, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939887)

I don't know if you've heard, but Linux/Android PC's are moving 1.5 million units per day, with a half-billion unit installed base. At the current rate of growth Linux PCs will exceed Earth's human population in Q3 2014.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (4, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938925)

Actually, when it comes to out-of-the-box security as well as the possibilities offered to knowledgeable admins, Linux isn't really far away from Windows. Both have, from the point of view of a security expert, horrible out-of-the-box security and can be sealed tightly by the hands of good admins.

The main reason why there is less malware for Linux is simply that malware is a business: It's the same reason why there is also less other commercial software for Linux.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939369)

The same tired old nonsense....

Linux is inherently secure, whilst Windows is deliberately a security Swiss-cheese:

There isn't any malware for Linux because you specifically have to install software with the use of a password and a raised user status. Windows doesn't bother with this simple protection ( a stupid "ease of use" decision taken by Gates himself in the late 80s and still prevalent today). It is trivially simple to obtain administrative rights on any Windows system, and much malicious software is capable of doing this without user intervention.

MS naively assumed that if they didn't publish "their" code, people wouldn't be able to screw around with their systems.

It's actually funny, but EVERY major design decision in Windows has been subsequently been shown to be wrong. Their only real ability is in litigation and writing restrictive trading terms. They're pretty useless at the software business!

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939415)

It's like I'm really back in 2003! Thanks AC troll.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (4, Insightful)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939385)

The best antivirus is a smart user.

Most malware on Windows gets dumped into %APPDATA% because it can't go anywhere else without raising a red flag. This makes it fairly easy to nuke. The same works for Linux.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (0, Troll)

mrbluze (1034940) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939389)

The main reason why there is less malware for Linux is simply that malware is a business: It's the same reason why there is also less other commercial software for Linux.

But if you can hijack, say, 15% of linux systems on the web, imagine the profits!

Linux has less malware because Linux is better. It just is.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939709)

for varying definitions of "better"

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939749)

"The main reason why there is less malware for Linux is simply that malware is a business: It's the same reason why there is also less other commercial software for Linux."

You crack me up. There is more commercial software for linux nowadays than for windows. I've spent the last 15 years
with linux, when we had the need for it, it was for VMware Virtual Center (windows only) or retarded hp storages
that require a windows machine to run the admin software.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939461)

The biggest distinction is that since Linux is openly developed with the potential for anyone to contribute and for everyone to see, there aren't large, untested milestone releases without public eyes on them like commercial OSes. By the time that the experimental version becomes the release version it's already been vetted.

If that theory is true then you would expect to see fewer vulnerabilities for Linux than for Windows. In reality, over a given time period Linux experiences many more vulnerabilities than Windows.

Windows Vista: Until now 377 vulnerabilities [secunia.com] has been discovered.
Linux kernel 2.6: Until now 633 vulnerabilities [secunia.com] has been discovered.

Note that the number for Vista includes the bundled software as well (i.e. data access components, window manager (GDI, explorer), windows Mail etc) where the number for Linux is strictly kernel vulnerabilities.

Microsoft doesn't have the same quantity of testing because while there is a beta program, it's not designed to be thoroughly examined.

Ahem. Microsoft has this process called Secure Development Lifecycle [microsoft.com]. They do not rely on users to test and find security bugs. What is the process followed by Linux developers (kernel, KDE, GNOME)? Is there a formal process or do we simply rely on them to be good craftsmen? Surely they do not rely on beta testers to find security vulnerabilities?

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (2)

guruevi (827432) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939891)

Typical Microsoft propaganda here.

You're comparing vulnerabilities found by external forces with totally no insight into the inner workings of an OS to all the vulnerabilities that are found by both external forces and people with intimate knowledge and years of experience in good coding for said system. For a good comparison, you would need to open source Windows and compare the leaks found both internally and externally at Microsoft and I'm not even talking about the methodology of your picking of statistics.

And you're right, MS doesn't rely on users to find bugs, as a matter of fact, trying to submit a bug and proper insight into the bug database at Microsoft is nearly impossible while Linux has (once again) an open system that everyone can use. This only speaks to the problem that Microsoft is having. As a company/team you can only test against a handful of systems usually in an automated fashion and concentrated on regression/unit tests. Your customers who actually use the software will have plenty of use cases that you can't anticipate.

I work in a highly specialized environment myself, using Linux/Mac is a no brainer because of the high flexibility in getting to do the hardware what you actually want while with Windows you're practically running into a wall at every turn because of the layers of crud that have assembled over the years.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (4, Interesting)

cavreader (1903280) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939557)

"openly developed with the potential for anyone to contribute and for everyone to see"

I am continually amazed that people think just because they have the source code to an OS they can just scan the code and locate security holes. The low hanging fruit is long gone in today's popular OS's. OS security holes and weaknesses are found by combining and testing multiple executable decision trees with varying environmental factors and then analyzing the captured results which usually includes sorting through binary output, assembler output, and real time memory mapping looking for anomalies. Finding OS level security holes also requires an in-depth knowledge of the various CPU processor instruction sets, memory allocation models, and memory manipulation. To many developers equate OS development with Application development when in reality they are almost entirely different animals requiring radically differing skill sets.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939605)

Linux has input from a lot of less than able coders. The problem with security is that only one mistake has to slip through then you're screwed.

Re: No platform is 100 percent secure? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939745)

Ok dude... I bet Linux defeats MUCH more malware than this. An entire class of malware is made or relivent by Linux... But then, if found on Linux, it is infinitely easier to get rid of on Linux than on windows. So, please, stop with inane crap.

Re:No platform is 100 percent secure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939809)

Have they tried Linux?

Meanwhile, out in the real world, legions of Linux servers are constantly spewing spam about cheap Cialis and Nigerian Princes with fortunes.

Oh, wait, I forgot - those are systems where the user is 'doing something wrong'. Well, protip: If your Windows system is compromised, you're doing something wrong. lern2computer, fool.

How do these numbers compare ... (2, Interesting)

baresi (950718) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938779)

... to those other similarly received OSs, Windows ME and Vista?

From TFA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938805)

Only 61 malware threats managed to infect Windows 7s successor, or about 15.84 percent.

With Windows Defender disabled, 234 of the samples ran successfully (60.78 percent), 138 samples could not be started on the machine for various reasons (35.84 percent), six threats executed but then crashed (1.56 percent), and seven others launched but had their payload blocked by UAC (1.82 percent).

61/234 ... So ... "Windows defender misses 26% of current widespread malware"

Re:From TFA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939641)

Read again. 234 of the samples ran successfully (60.78 percent). That means they tried 384.

I'd take this with a grain of salt (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938807)

The reason being it is an AV maker releasing it. They have reason to want to say "Oh the built in AV scanner sucks, you should buy ours!" They may be stacking the results.

AV Comparatives puts MS Security Essentials at about 95% in their latest test, not 85%. Bitdefender is 99.2%.

However one reason for that is false positive rate. MS is willing to trade off some detection to keep it low, because users get pissed off and want to get rid of scanners with lots of false positives. MSE had 0 false positives, BitDefender had 10.

None of this is to say getting a better virus scanner isn't a good idea, just take anything from a company selling a product in an area with a grain of salt. AV Comparatives seems to indicate that wile MSE is certainly not one of the best virus scanners, it isn't bad.

Re:I'd take this with a grain of salt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938949)

so... I can't have my free bonzi buddy?

Re:I'd take this with a grain of salt (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939035)

THe ones I saw showed it to find less than 70% of malware. THe 95% was from early 2011. I use Avast for that reason

Re:I'd take this with a grain of salt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939421)

Isn't it better just to use an Operating System that doesn't need any silly anti-this and anti-that nonsense stealing CPU cycles all the time?

Why do you think the grown-ups mostly run Linux?

Incidentally - I found eight immediately obvious vulnerabilities in Windows 8 (maybe that's where they got the name?). It is trivially easy to exploit two of the quite well known Internet Explorer vulnerabilities, and then it's very easy to get admin rights for your malicious code. Once again, MS have just polished the same old NT turd without bothering to even try to make their "latest and greatest" in any way secure.

Still - you can be sure that every PHB will be gagging to get their hands on this latest iteration of the same old crud....

Re:I'd take this with a grain of salt (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939479)

It depends on your sample size and method. BitDefender took the top 385 malware recent, and came up with the 15% figure. I'm betting AV Comparatives took a much different, likely broader, sample. Makes sense that as you take a larger sample of less "popular" (which is more or less by necessity less infectious) and/or older (which is more likely to spread using now-fixed vectors) malware, the success rate will grow higher. I'd say the BitDefender method is more useful, as it selects the malware that you are most likely to be exposed to and most likely to be infected by. It really only takes one bit of malware to sneak by to cause havok. Both are obviously useful for their own measurements (one is, well, a comparative, the other is "how well does it end up working"), but you can't compare one set of results to the other.

a B+ on an open book test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938819)

Pretty sweet.

When... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938823)

it gets up to 99.99% I'll get excited.

In other news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938833)

Run those same tests/malware against Linux/Mac. 0% gets through.
I'm guessing that at least 40% of the malware that didn't get through failed simply because of shitty backwards compatibility and not a specific security advantage.

Re:In other news (4, Insightful)

farble1670 (803356) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938957)

Run those same tests/malware against Linux/Mac. 0% gets through.

really? do you think that malware written to take advantage of exploits in the windows OS won't work on linux? thanks for that revelation. linux wins again.

Re:In other news (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939095)

Run those same tests/malware against Linux/Mac. 0% gets through.

really? do you think that malware written to take advantage of exploits in the windows OS won't work on linux? thanks for that revelation. linux wins again.

You never know, Perhaps if WINE is running a Linux host could be at risk... (Not that I know of any viruses that could infect a Linux computer running WINE, except for one case where user intervention is required, but there is a first time for everything.)

cross-platform exploits (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939563)

I must nominate flash. Java next. Avoid those and you have a better chance. Add common sense and your odds are improved. Toss in firefox with noscript, and adblock, and you should be in good shape. At that point, it will not really matter if you get rooted, you should be able to re-install/recover your non-NONFREE OS quickly. Basically you really only need to worry about DPI and BIOS/UEFI based rootkits/backdoors. If you are still concerned, then pull the plug and get off the net.

Re:In other news (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938977)

Run those same tests/malware against Linux/Mac. 0% gets through.

Oh, you so smart! OF COURSE malware designed for Windows won't run on non-Windows! That's like copying bash from your Linux-installation to your Windows-installation and complaining how F/OSS software sucks because it doesn't run.

Re:In other news (2)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939065)

The malware will work if you run Wine.

Re:In other news (4, Funny)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939235)

The malware will work if you run Wine.

I actually have tried that. A lot of the malware that runs fine on Windows crashed or just didn't work properly under Wine. Does that mean Wine is broken, or that the devs haven't broken it enough yet? I can't decide!

Re:In other news (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939835)

Some malware intentionally exits under Wine and other virtualized environments in order to evade detection. Security companies collect large numbers of executable samples and execute them in a sandbox environment, which is sometimes Wine-like or a more complete VM. By exiting harmlessly, the malware appears to be as safe as notepad.exe.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939073)

Really? You mean they aren't testing any cross platform threats? They should be, as there are a number of such (usually java, but often Adobe as well) that can affect all three platforms.

Re:In other news (1)

shaitand (626655) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939597)

But they don't affect all platforms equally. Privilege escalation is a very different ballgame on a linux box than on a winows box.

Re:In other news (4, Funny)

mrclisdue (1321513) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939393)

I copied bash to my Win8 boxen, ran

# rm -rf /

and now Win8 doesn't boot.

Thanks for the perfect solution.

cheers,

Too bad less than 5% of applications work properly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938835)

I have a rock on my front porch which is 100% secure, but it can't run any software whatsoever.
Who cares! The world has moved to iMoble devices which are mostly locked down.

Re:Too bad less than 5% of applications work prope (2)

shaitand (626655) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939619)

"The world has moved to iMoble devices which are mostly locked down."

If you think mobile devices are safely locked down you live in a dream world.

Banana Defeats 100% of Current Malware (4, Funny)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938847)

Why, not a single malware application can be installed on a banana! They too are immune.

Therefore bananas are now the most secure OS

Re:Banana Defeats 100% of Current Malware (4, Funny)

Sabalon (1684) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938919)

Re:Banana Defeats 100% of Current Malware (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939903)

I would have gone with Panama Disease [wikipedia.org]
In the '50s, it wiped out the global monoculture that was banana farming.

The banana industry switched to a new monoculture, which they thought was immune to Panama Disease.
But the new banana is only immune to a specific strain, which is why Panama Disease is once again slowly spreading across the global.

Re:Banana Defeats 100% of Current Malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938921)

I must be new here... ...but I'm still amazed at the idiocy of some posts that show up on /.

Re:Banana Defeats 100% of Current Malware (2)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939413)

By my estimates, 85% of them get through the /. anti-idiocy filter. With Win 8, at least you won't get infected with /. idiocy.

Re:Banana Defeats 100% of Current Malware (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938941)

BananOS

Re:Banana Defeats 100% of Current Malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939345)

This deserves to be Score:6, Funny as Hell

Re:Banana Defeats 100% of Current Malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939425)

The Banana Jr. 6000 [wikipedia.org] had viruses back in 1985.

Re:Banana Defeats 100% of Current Malware (1)

donaldm (919619) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939481)

Why, not a single malware application can be installed on a banana! They too are immune. Therefore bananas are now the most secure OS

No that is not true the best is Apple. The problem you do have is deciding which version you want such as "Granny Smith", "Red Delicious", etc. However unlike the banana which can go brown fairly quickly compared to the Apple you do have to watch out for worms. :)

So what? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938879)

Reacting is always easy, that's why malware is so efficient. There are AV kits out there that detect 98+ percent of the current malware. Problem is not the malware we know about already, the problem is new malware that infects before patches can be applied and AV signatures can be updated.

OF COURSE a new system is more resilient against current malware. By the very nature that a lot of exploits simply don't work anymore because, well, different codebase, different handling of various things malware relies on. By that logic, MacOS is even superior to Win8 because because zero malware for Win7 can infect MacOS.

The more interesting question is why 15% (one in seven) malware threats still work on Win8.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939085)

Had you at least read the headline you would have seen "Detected in the Past 6 Months". Windows 8 has been out in preview form for longer then that and the security measures haven't really changed.

Re:So what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939449)

The more interesting question is why 15% (one in seven) malware threats still work on Win8.

Simple - it's because Windows 8 really isn't anything new. It's the same tired old faulty NT kernel with new shiny bits on top.

Incidentally, EVERY exploit I tried against it worked first time.

Now that it has "Security Essentials" built in, we can expect to see the rate of infection rocket upwards as the clueless fail to update their definition files, and as there'll be dozens of new attck vectors found each day.....

Re:So what? (1)

Grave (8234) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939751)

The clueless? You mean like yourself? Windows Update automatically takes care of updating the definitions and running background scans. Definition updates are pushed out daily, sometimes multiple times a day.

Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938895)

How much of Linux malware got by the popular new linux distributions?

And how and the hell are these malware circumventing Windows anyway? Flash? Someone educate me please.

Win8 security article on /BI may be of interest (-1, Offtopic)

Aryeh Goretsky (129230) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938917)

Hello,

Over on SlashBI [slashdot.org], Slashdot's Business Intelligence channel, is an article which may be of interest: Windows 8 Security: What You Need to Know [slashdot.org].

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

Re:Win8 security article on /BI may be of interest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939089)

I guess. If you are into that sort of thing.

Re:Win8 security article on /BI may be of interest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939779)

BURRRRRRRN! INCINERATION!
You are the insult master!

                           

New OS (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938971)

Soooo the new operating system, which was just released and hasn't yet been targeted by malware writers doesn't get infected by a lot of malware? Of course it doesn't. Windows 8 has around 1% or less of the market, almost no one is writing exploits for it yet.

Re:New OS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939789)

This isn't about new malware.
This is a piece about Windows 8's amazing ability to be backwards compatible with malware from years past.

Compared to Windows 7? (4, Insightful)

edibobb (113989) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939087)

How does an updated version Windows 7 with Microsoft Security Essentials compare? That information might make this article meaningful.

Even malware writers don't like Metro (-1, Troll)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939157)

You know you have an awful UI when even the malware writers can't bear to code for it.

Opposite spins?? (2)

AC-x (735297) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939181)

That's interesting, the original security press release is quite negative - "Newly launched Window 8 is prone to infection by some 15 per cent of the 100 malware families most used by cyber criminals this year, even with Windows Defender activated, Bitdefender testing revealed." but somehow that's become a positive "Windows 8 protected from 85% of malware detected in the past six months, right out the box"

The original point is that Windows Defender can't detect 15% of this years most popular malware, that's not exactly great for an AV program, or maybe Bitdefender has just written a shill piece with a hand picked sample of unusual malware that trip most AV programs up to flog their own AV solutions?

At any rate the figures useless because they didn't compare it to a fully patched Windows 7 system or alternative AV programs, why did this even make the homepage?

Bitdefender sells security products (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939193)

Bitdefender sells security products. Can we get a number from somebody a little less biased, or perhaps somebody biased against microsoft? How about a consulting firm with a good reputation the prefers Linux, but grudgingly supports MS because they have to? Anyway, Bitdefender has an incentive for you to think Win8 is insecure. How are they defining malware? Stuff that says, "to install, please enter admin password"? If 15% of the "malware" comes with those instructions, it'll infect anything.

Re:Bitdefender sells security products (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939737)

Stuff that says, "to install, please enter admin password"? If 15% of the "malware" comes with those instructions, it'll infect anything.

No, it'll infect anything where you let clueless users have the admin password. Users are not sysadmins, and letting them play root on company machines invites disaster.

what you say (2)

hraponssi (1939850) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939297)

so what do the numbers mean? that there are a bunch of 0-days out there that they know but haven't bothered to report or fix in the last 6 months? so the stuff silently installs and does naughty things while you surf your daily dose of naked chicks? or if you download the exe, run it as admin and see what happens, then 15% of the time it works?

What are us techs suppose to do (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939435)

I keep wondering. Software keeps getting better because computers get faster and labor gets cheaper. If you throw enough resources at it it gets done. But most of us entry level techs make our daily bread fixin' up this stuff. It's another symptom of increased productivity. Things get better and better so there's less work to do. But if there's less work there's less jobs, and our whole society is built on Jobs. People can't stand the thought of someone getting paid and not working for it. Jesus, what would we do with replicators?

Poor results (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939439)

So Windows 8 is only 15% compatible with Windows 7? :P

Seriously, even being infected with 15% is horrible.. I have been using linux for many years without a single issue. I'm sure this comment will get flagged as trollbait, but I really do not understand how that is a positive result.

Why write malware to crapware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939593)

Windows 8 already has natively everything malware does. It tracks you, it tries to sell you crap and it makes the actual usage of the machine for work impossible. What could malware possibly do that Microsoft hasn't already done ?

Incompatible (1)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939607)

If current malware won't even run on windows 8, are my regular applications going to fare even better?

I haven't read TFA, or the summary, but the headline tells me that Windows 8 has some _serious_ compatibility problems!

;)

One in seven chance you die (1)

gelfling (6534) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939651)

Ok that's pretty good for a brand new state of the art operating system. Remind me again what the fucking definition of progress is?

Buzzdock and Babylon (1)

tbird81 (946205) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939661)

These horrible pieces of spy/mal/adware that install from CNet need to be detected. I have not found a program that does so.

My computer now has the same odds as me (3, Funny)

Original Cynic (677379) | about a year and a half ago | (#41939703)

Windows 8 now ranks in the same odds as having "Safe Sex" with an HIV positive individual. Thanks Microsoft.

Re:My computer now has the same odds as me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939909)

Your username is so appropriate. I love it. +1

Congratulations. *yawn* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41939923)

I'm wholeheartedly unimpressed.

Oh and, "purchased by millions"? Like OEM's have a choice?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...