In article <jfcp4p$m8f$>,
says...
>
> In news:,
> Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> > In article <jfc6il$6gu$>, says...
> >>
> >> In news:,
> >> Char Jackson wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:19:28 -0600, "BillW50" <>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In news:,
> >>>> mechanic wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:35:41 -0600, BillW50 wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's not what the article says at all! All it says about
> >>>>>>> Windows 98 is that not a lot of people use it!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure it does. During the study doesn't say it in the text (which
> >>>>>> ran for almost 3 months). But it says in the graph that zero
> >>>>>> percent of Windows 98 users got infected by malware (out of
> >>>>>> 13,210 Danish users).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No all the graph tells us is that the number of W98 users infected
> >>>>> is too small to show. As the number of W98 users is itself rather
> >>>>> small, it doesn't tell us anything useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure it does. It tells us Windows 98 won't likely run most modern
> >>>> malware.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, you inferred that. I don't know if your inference is right
> >>> or wrong and the chart doesn't say one way or the other.
> >>>
> >>> It only says what it says. When you draw conclusions from what it
> >>> says, you're interpreting the data. You may be right, or you may be
> >>> wrong, but you're no longer simply reading the data.
> >>
> >> Well let's see. This was a study done for almost 3 months and "The
> >> statistical material covers all in all more than half a million user
> >> exposures out of which as many as 31.3 % were infected with the
> >> virus/malware due to missing security updates."
> >
> > Citing a study that refutes one of your pet theories - interesting...
>
> Yes it is. Their theory is the lack of security updates is the reason
> for the infections. And it is my claim that chasing after security
> updates for a security measure isn't very effective. As it is my belief
> that a stealth firewall and an updated AV scanner is far, far better
> than security updates.
>
> I have found no evidence whatsoever, that an AV scanner cannot stop any
> malware getting through a security hole. And if anybody has any studies
> about this, evidence, or anything, I sure would like to know about it.
Did Conficker, Sasser, Zotob and many others escape your attention?
All of them spread through systems with up-to-date anti-virus
solutions, but could have been stopped cold by applying the Windows
updates that were available at the time of the outbreak.
> And I have been thinking about doing my own studies.
As if an amateur like you could possibly produce a study worth the
attention of the computing world, especially given your stated biases.
The respected and well-regarded security professionals in the industry
today have already studied the issue, and all agree that promptly
applying OS security patches is a critical part of a comprehensive
approach to securing systems.
> Although I need a list of malicious websites for testing.
Frankly, I doubt your ability to handle malware safely and responsibly.
>
> And if you noticed, their own data refutes their theory. As the three
> Windows versions that no longer gets security updates are the ones that
> gets infected less often. So how do you explain that Zaphod?
As others have said, those systems are no longer being targeted. Much
of the malware being written today simply won't run on those systems.
However, unpatched XP systems *are* being targeted, and infected, as
evidenced by the study you cited. Until XP is no longer being
targeted, and malware being written for current Windows versions won't
run on XP, it is still important to apply security updates.
--
Zaphod
Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's
something big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the
universe gets that.
Similar Threads
