Upgrading to Windows 7

[BillW50]

In

Hey! Let's get out those old windows98 disks! How is it for wifi
support?

My old Toshiba 2595XDVD ('99 era) with Windows 98SE and a US Robotics
USR5411 WiFi card does just fine with WiFi. ;-)

 

[Wolf K]

In

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). And
Windows 2000 users came in a close second at 2%.

Well, all that means is nobody bothers to write new malware for W98. And
that a few new variants for XP/etc will also infect W2K.

Ciao,
Wolf K.

 

[BillW50]

In

Well, all that means is nobody bothers to write new malware for W98.
And that a few new variants for XP/etc will also infect W2K.

Yes that is my theory as well. As I believe most modern malware won't
even run under Windows 98. And Windows 2000, is more like a stripped
down XP. And while Windows 2000 with SP4 can run most of everything
requiring XP SP1, XP with SP2 is pushing it and that is hit or miss (I
give it about a 50% chance of running). Another limiting factor is that
Windows 2000 is stuck at IE6 and WMP9. Although third party software can
push it further.

 

[mechanic]

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.

Anyone going back to W98 on this basis would be clueless in the
extreme.

 

[BillW50]

In

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. And hackers are not going out of their way to hack into Windows
98 systems. Just like they leave Linux, Mac, PalmOS, etc. pretty much
alone as well.

Anyone going back to W98 on this basis would be clueless in the
extreme.

Not as clueless as running the latest and greatest most popular Windows
version which hackers are more than happy to hack into. There is no big
payoff hacking into Windows 98 systems. Although XP, Vista, and Windows
7 systems there is a great payoff.

Plus Microsoft is very slow to plug security holes and don't take
security very seriously. As they have taken up to 7 years to finally fix
some security holes. This gives hackers up to a 7 year window to do
their evil deeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_attack

 

[Char Jackson]

In

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.

 

[BillW50]

In

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."

That means 1/3 of computer users were getting infected and 2/3 were not.
It states 2877 out of 13,210 were infected. The last figure I have of
Windows 98 users on the web was 0.1% back in 2008(1). I am sure it is
less now, but using this last figure means there was probably 13 Windows
98 users tops in this study. But probably less than that and more than
0. And if any one of them 13 or less had gotten infected, there is no
way that figure would be at 0%. So one or even more and still at 0% is
pretty damn good if you ask me.

And they even broke it down:

41% of XP users were getting infected
38% of Vista users were getting infected
16% of Windows 7 users were getting infected
2% of Windows 2000 users were getting infected
0% of Windows 98 users were getting infected

(1) OS Statistics
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

That means 1/3 of computer users were getting infected and 2/3 were not.
It states 2877 out of 13,210 were infected.

Someone's numbers or statistics are off. 2877 out of 13,210 is less
than 1/4 (about 21.8%).

FYI

--
Zaphod

"So, two heads is what does it for a girl?"
"...Anything else he's got two of?"
- Arthur Dent (to Trillian, about Zaphod)

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

In

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...

 

[BillW50]

In

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.
And I have been thinking about doing my own studies. Although I need a
list of malicious websites for testing.

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?

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

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?

Maybe Zaphod will phrase it this way:

"the three Windows versions that gets infected less often are the ones
that no longer gets security updates"

 

[Bob I]

In

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."

That means 1/3 of computer users were getting infected and 2/3 were not.
It states 2877 out of 13,210 were infected. The last figure I have of
Windows 98 users on the web was 0.1% back in 2008(1). I am sure it is
less now, but using this last figure means there was probably 13 Windows
98 users tops in this study. But probably less than that and more than
0. And if any one of them 13 or less had gotten infected, there is no
way that figure would be at 0%. So one or even more and still at 0% is
pretty damn good if you ask me.

WRONG. It says that 31.3% of those infected were because the user was
missing the security update. In other words, approximately 1 out of 3
infections could have been avoided by proper update installation.

 

[BillW50]

In

WRONG. It says that 31.3% of those infected were because the user was
missing the security update. In other words, approximately 1 out of 3
infections could have been avoided by proper update installation.

Yeah and their data shows otherwise:

41% of XP users were getting infected
38% of Vista users were getting infected
16% of Windows 7 users were getting infected
2% of Windows 2000 users were getting infected
0% of Windows 98 users were getting infected

So genius Bob, explain how the Windows versions that you can't even get
updates for are actually the ones that are far safer?

What to hear one of my theories? Windows 98 and Windows 2000 users ain't
stupid! It isn't really the security updates protecting them, but it is
their AV scanners instead. What a shock if proven true, eh Bob?

 

[Andy Burns]

Bob I wrote:

41% of XP users were getting infected
38% of Vista users were getting infected
16% of Windows 7 users were getting infected
2% of Windows 2000 users were getting infected
0% of Windows 98 users were getting infected

explain how the Windows versions that you can't even get
updates for are actually the ones that are far safer?

I can think of various reasons ...

The malware requires APIs not supported by older operating systems

The malware specifically exploits vulnerabilities in newer operating systems

Malware authors target operating systems that the majority of people
actually use today.

 

[BillW50]

In

I can think of various reasons ...

The malware requires APIs not supported by older operating systems

The malware specifically exploits vulnerabilities in newer operating
systems
Malware authors target operating systems that the majority of people
actually use today.

I am sure all of this is true. But it doesn't explain it all I don't
believe. As I have heard AV marketing claims that something like more
than 70% of Windows users doesn't use AV software. I personally find
these claims hard to believe. But something far less would be more
believable to me. And if you take the above percentages and say:

59% of XP users were running updated AV
62% of Vista users were running updated AV
84% of Windows 7 users were running updated AV
98% of Windows 2000 users were running updated AV
100% of Windows 98 users were running updated AV

Now that would sound far more believable to me and explain it all. ;-)

 

[Char Jackson]

In

Yeah and their data shows otherwise:

41% of XP users were getting infected
38% of Vista users were getting infected
16% of Windows 7 users were getting infected
2% of Windows 2000 users were getting infected
0% of Windows 98 users were getting infected

That's actually not what their data shows. It says, of the systems
they monitored, the percentage breakdown was as you listed above. For
example, 41% of the systems they monitored were running XP, which is
not to say that 41% of all XP users were infected. That's a huge
difference.

Infections were low on Win 98 because no one in their pool was running
it, not because it's immune. It may be immune, but the data doesn't
show that.

So genius Bob, explain how the Windows versions that you can't even get
updates for are actually the ones that are far safer?

You need to take another look. It doesn't indicate what you think it
does.

 

[mechanic]

Malware authors target operating systems that the majority of people
actually use today.

Yes there's no kudos in telling your mates that "I hacked a win98
system!" it's far too easy. No security worth a damn. So to gain
prestige in the hacker community you have to do something difficult.

Who on here is actually using win9x day-to-day? I'd just like to
adjust my Bozo bin settings...

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

In

Yeah and their data shows otherwise:

41% of XP users were getting infected
38% of Vista users were getting infected
16% of Windows 7 users were getting infected
2% of Windows 2000 users were getting infected
0% of Windows 98 users were getting infected

So genius Bob, explain how the Windows versions that you can't even get
updates for are actually the ones that are far safer?

What to hear one of my theories? Windows 98 and Windows 2000 users ain't
stupid! It isn't really the security updates protecting them, but it is
their AV scanners instead.

Or just that they know not to click on unknown things or go to dodgy sites.
Or maybe these older OSs are on their secondary PCs that they don't use
much.

 

[Bob I]

Or just that they know not to click on unknown things or go to dodgy sites.
Or maybe these older OSs are on their secondary PCs that they don't use
much.

From my observation Bill doesn't read very well, and tends makes it up
as he goes. Here is the link to the article about how drive-bys are
using third party software to deliver the payload. Simple logic dictates
that IF your PC OS can't run the software that is used to deliver the
malware, you don't get tagged.

http://www.csis.dk/en/csis/news/3321

 

[BillW50]

In

From my observation Bill doesn't read very well, and tends makes it up
as he goes. Here is the link to the article about how drive-bys are
using third party software to deliver the payload. Simple logic
dictates that IF your PC OS can't run the software that is used to
deliver the malware, you don't get tagged.

http://www.csis.dk/en/csis/news/3321

Is that so Bob? So what did I get wrong? And what did I make up? Is this
just to steer attention away from you getting things wrong and making
untruth up as you go along?

I agree with that study if you are not going to run an updated AV
scanner. Why you wouldn't, I have no idea? But plugging security holes
are just futile. Microsoft takes up to 7 years to plug security holes.
So what good is that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_attack