# Windows XP PCs Breed Rootkit Infections



## DoubleHelix (Dec 10, 2004)

Windows 7 is more than just a pretty face. It's time to upgrade. Legally.

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/07/...ctions?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## Ent (Apr 11, 2009)

How is this a legal matter?


----------



## DaveBurnett (Nov 11, 2002)

That is just scaremongering.
And it doesn't say how many are the ORIGINAL rootkit by Sony who are to blame for making the technique known to so many people.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Ent said:


> How is this a legal matter?


Since the article referenced pirated copies, I suspect he meant upgrading with a legal copy 



DaveBurnett said:


> That is just scaremongering.
> And it doesn't say how many are the ORIGINAL rootkit by Sony who are to blame for making the technique known to so many people.


I suspect there is an element of that, also.
But Win7 has been claimed more secure, and I don't doubt it.
But any system is still only as secure as the owner uses it.
The article intimates there is a problem of users not being security conscious. 
This is a general problem, not one limited to XP users.

The article said 74% of the rootkit infections were on XP computers, but how many computers out of that 600,000 had rootkit infections?
Consider....there is a big difference in scale and concern when out of that 600,000 there are 74XP/26Win7 infections versus 74,000XP/26,000 Win7 infections.....while the relative ratio/percentage is the same.



> That is just scaremongering.


Seems like it with out more data.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

DaveBurnett said:


> That is just scaremongering.
> And it doesn't say how many are the ORIGINAL rootkit by Sony who are to blame for making the technique known to so many people.


Rootkits existed LONG before what Sony did and I don't consider what Sony did to be a "rootkit", at least not in the malicious sense that anti-virus applications are used to protect against.

If anything, I think the article title is bad. There isn't any "breeding" at work here. I do agree that people need to upgrade to Windows 7 as soon as possible. Why? So, they can also migrate to IE8, if they insist on using IE at all.  lol

Peace...


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

tomdkat said:


> .................................. I do agree that people need to upgrade to Windows 7 as soon as possible. Why? So, they can also migrate to IE8, if they insist on using IE at all.  lol
> 
> Peace...


I only use IE for critical updates, even on my win7 computer.
I think there is enough 3rd party support , currently, to make my XP computer secure enough for me....but as time passes it's sure to degrade.

How well does IE8 compare to IE9 for security?


----------



## Ent (Apr 11, 2009)

Stoner said:


> I only use IE for critical updates, even on my win7 computer.


I only use IE to test things when people ask questions about IE.


----------



## DaveBurnett (Nov 11, 2002)

> Rootkits existed LONG before what Sony did and I don't consider what Sony did to be a "rootkit", at least not in the malicious sense that anti-virus applications are used to protect against.


I wasn't trying to say that Sony invented them, I was saying that Sony made them widely known.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Stoner said:


> I only use IE for critical updates, even on my win7 computer.


Why? On Windows 7, Windows Updates don't involve IE anymore.



> How well does IE8 compare to IE9 for security?


IE9 has more security features than IE8 but my main reason for mentioning IE8 is because people tend not to upgrade IE, for whatever reason. So, by migrating to W7, they also move away from IE6 or IE7 to IE8 and that makes web development easier.  lol

Who cares about security anyway?????  lol

(Just kidding about not caring about security)

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

DaveBurnett said:


> I wasn't trying to say that Sony invented them, I was saying that Sony made them widely known.


Definitely, but mainly to the end users who wouldn't know about them otherwise. Those developing the rootkits would have known about them long before the Sony debacle.

Peace...


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

tomdkat said:


> Why? On Windows 7, Windows Updates don't involve IE anymore.
> 
> IE9 has more security features than IE8 but my main reason for mentioning IE8 is because people tend not to upgrade IE, for whatever reason. So, by migrating to W7, they also move away from IE6 or IE7 to IE8 and that makes web development easier.  lol
> 
> ...





> Why? On Windows 7, Windows Updates don't involve IE anymore.


Probably because IE8 on Win7 still has a menu that includes Windows Update and I'm used to that path with XP and old habits die hard 



> So, by migrating to W7, they also move away from IE6 or IE7 to IE8 and that makes web development easier.


If the internet and all users were tied to IE, yes......I'm not as well as many others. My browsing is currently with Firefox....so it's rather meaningless to me on that count.
Remember....I only use IE for Critical Updates.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Stoner said:


> Probably because IE8 on Win7 still has a menu that includes Windows Update and I'm used to that path with XP and old habits die hard


Ah, gotcha. I've always been a "Automatic Updates" icon from the start menu kind of guy. You're right about old habits.  lol



> If the internet and all users were tied to IE, yes......I'm not as well as many others. My browsing is currently with Firefox....so it's rather meaningless to me on that count.
> Remember....I only use IE for Critical Updates.


I hear you and "many others" certainly don't use IE. Unfortunately, you (and I) are in the vast MINORITY of Internet surfers out there. 

Peace...


----------



## Ent (Apr 11, 2009)

tomdkat said:


> I hear you and "many others" certainly don't use IE. Unfortunately, you (and I) are in the vast MINORITY of Internet surfers out there.


If "you (and I)" refers to people who don't use IE, they seem to have a slight majority. However they are split in turn among another 4 or so major browsers.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-201107-201107-bar
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?year=2011&month=7


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Ent said:


> If "you (and I)" refers to people who don't use IE, they seem to have a slight majority. However they are split in turn among another 4 or so major browsers.
> 
> http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-201107-201107-bar
> http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?year=2011&month=7


Thanks for the links. Those charts show much more than a "slight" majority to me. I don't know from where they get their numbers or the size of their data sample but IE is consistently close to a two-digit percentage high in use than the next most frequently used browser. I maintain a handful (~10) websites and have access to the web stats for most of them. Back in July, I helped to update a couple of them so the testing activity skews the numbers in my web stats. If I look at the stats for June, when we weren't doing "live" testing or anything, we can see how my numbers relate to the two charts you posted the links to (also displaying numbers for June):

W3Counter: #1) IE: 36.3%, #2) Firefox: 28.2%
StatCounter: #1) IE: ~43%, #2) Firefox: ~28%
Site A: #1) Safari: 34.7%; #2) IE: $23%, 878 unique visitors, avg unique visitors Jan - Jun 2011: 498
Site B: #1) IE: 40.1%, #2) Firefox: 27.1%, 553 unique visitors, avg unique visitors Jan - Jun 2011: 450
Site C: #1) IE: 44.8%, #2) Firefox: 20.7%, 987 unique visitors, avg unique visitors Jan - Jun 2011: 1142
Site D: #1) IE: 33.6%, #2) Safari: 26.4%, 496 unique visitors, avg unique visitors Jan - Jun 2011: 1003
Site E: #1) IE: 34.8%, #2) Safari: 23.6%, 2,050 unique visitors, avg unique visitors Jan - Jun 2011: 1948

Clearly, the sites I maintain are low volume sites, with site 'E' being the busiest but the numbers I'm seeing aren't too far off from the W3Counter and StatCounter numbers.

More often than not, I encounter IE as the only browser installed on the machines I service and rarely do I encounter a browser other than IE as being the default browser on a machine I service. Maybe that's it right there. The people who don't use IE as their primary browser don't need my service!  lol

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Ent said:


> If "you (and I)" refers to people who don't use IE,


Yes, this was my meaning. 

Peace...


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

jeni38 said:


> Machines running the decade-old Windows XP make up a huge reservoir of infected PCs that can spread malware to other systems, a Czech antivirus company said today.
> 
> Windows XP computers are infected with rootkits out of proportion to the operating system's market share, according to data released Thursday by Avast Software, which surveyed more than 600,000 Windows PCs.
> 
> ...


Again, because statistics weren't posted concerning the numbers of infected XP computers out of that 600,000 population, the article did seem to be scaremongering.
I believe Win7 to be more secure than XP, and use a Win7 computer that I like, but the article did point out that many people didn't seem security conscious and that's probably a big element of XP having a higher instance of malware infection.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Stoner said:


> but the article did point out that many people didn't seem security conscious and that's probably a big element of XP having a higher instance of malware infection.


I see this far more often than not. Even if they have anti-virus software installed, it's out of date and if it's either McAfee or Norton Anti-virus (or any other permutation), they have expired and for who knows how long.

Peace...


----------

