Microsoft Links Malware Rates To Pirated Windows 348
CWmike writes "Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches. 'There is a direct correlation between piracy and the malware infection rate,' said Jeff Williams, head manager of the Microsoft Malware Protection Center. Highlighting research that showed worms to be the most prevalent computer security problem today, Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update. China's piracy rate is more than four times that of the US, but the use of Windows Update in China is significantly below that in this country. Same for Brazil and France. But Microsoft's own data doesn't always support William's contention that piracy, and the hesitancy to use Windows Update, leads to more infected PCs. China, for example, boasted a malware infection rate — as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT — of just 6.7 per thousand, significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US's rate of 8.2. France's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average."
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So malware is Microsoft's fault for not patching pirated machines? Or did I miss something...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nah, can't be. They wouldn't call it "genuine advantage" then, would they?
Make WGA work for you (Score:2)
YMMV, but as an experiment, I chose the "alternate validation" thing long ago on a legitimate installation of Windows. Copy pasted the code into the window, then pasted the code into an email. Went to a pirated copy of Windows, ran the "alternate validation" thing again, and posted the prior code into the little window. This machine had failed WGA validation at least 2 times, but when I pasted that code into the window, suddenly it was good. The two installations were on similar, but not identical, hard
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and no. It is true that by limiting patches to "legitimate" copies, they are making the odds of malware infection worse, and in doing so, are contributing to the botnet problem that creates truckloads of spam, wasted bandwidth, DOS attacks, and other nightmares that hurt everyone including their legitimate users. So I think they're utter morons for acting the way they do.
That said, this is not the whole story. A large percentage of malware comes from people installing pirated software. People who pirate Windows are... wait for it... more likely to pirate other software, too. Therefore, you'd expect a strong correlation between malware rate and pirated copies of Windows even if Microsoft did everything they could to keep pirated copies of Windows patched. Their "Genuine Advantage" crap is merely compounding the problem.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but funny enough pirated software contains much less malware than the original packages, which is one of the its many advantages.
Re: (Score:2)
So...you expect MS to pony up bandwidth to support users that didn't pay for their operating systems?
IMHO, MS has no obligation to support pirates.
Yes they should get some flak for writing an insecure OS. But it's the actual pirates themselves that, knowing full well MS isn't going to do jack shit to support them, decide to install an unpatchable OS in the first place.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Go go gadget car analogy..
This is like saying a car company isn't liable for faulty brakes in case of an accident where the car is driven by someone who stole the car. The victim of faulty brakes isn't always the driver.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
They also drive with the handbrake engaged all the time (not behind firewall, anti-virus, whatever) so it's shot and use wheels that are known to overheat brakes (lots more pirated stuff).
Damn that car company does their nefarious schemes know no bounds? Oh the humanity!
Suffice to say your analogy fails harder than their brakes.
I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the *AAs think that logic as valid ("You wouldn't steal a car, would you?")
Still, dicking with all the hoops needed for unauthorized copies of office is a real waste of time since these days OO.o is better anyway (no ribbon FTW)
Sure, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I walked out of that store, and someone offered to give me an exact copy of that suit for free, I wouldn't complain.
Re: (Score:2)
I buy books by the hundreds. I also buy dvd's by the hundreds as well as video games (mainly for PC). However, massively overcharging for something like an OS just because someone doesn't buy a new computer is utter bullshit.
MS overcharges for Windows and I get a pirated copy - it's no different than if I used Linux except that now I can play my games that I own. MS makes no more money than it would have and I still get to use my software. Explain how that is a lesser solution than the alternative you p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
MS wants an absurd amount of money for Windows 7. I will not pay such an abusurd amount. I could use XP still, in which case MS makes $X. However, since it costs nothing to make a copy of Windows 7, I could get a copy off of the internet. MS still makes $X (with X being the same number, they did not gain or lose money from this), but now I have Windows 7. MS is just as well off either way, but now I am better off. If you ever took a basic class in game theory, you would realize that since I'm not going to pay an abusurd price and since MS does not lose money due to me copying Windows, the optimal choice is to copy Windows.
Also, if you bothered to ever read any of my comments, I specifically said if they charged a reasonable amount, I would gladly pay it. It's the fact that they want to charge 3-4x more than a reasonable amount that causes me to not pay for it (it's the same reason I do not buy from Apple, despite wanting one of their computers, because they massively overprice them). If they had a tangible product (a car, a book, a computer, etc), then they could get away with this because it would be costly to make a copy of it. However, with software / files, it costs nothing to make a copy, so their costs of production go to pretty much zip after they make the first copy.
Here's the missing piece in your logic: other customers are the third party in the system. Also, companies do not get to "charge whatever they want for a product", at least not if they want to stay in business. Let's assume MS needs a fixed profit to justify their fixed development costs. If it cost $100mil to develop (all inclusive), they might need to sell $150mil in order to beat the rate of return for their other investments and make the product worth developing. If there are 3 million people who wa
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not applying the proper spin. They are trying to spin it so the pirates look like the problem, when in reality they are holding everyone's security hostage in hopes of scaring a few users into buying a legit copy of Windows.
MS Fuud (Score:2)
The actual spin is that "it's not MS's fault" for perpetuating the outdated distribution method of selling/shipping unpatched versions of Windows to end-users and expecting them to patch up to the latest version. Sure, people can do rollups but it's OPTIONAL.
NO other security-conscious application these days dares to publish anything but the latest security-patched version.
If every OS image being installed was at least the latest "image" from one quarter ago, we definitely would have less problems as time
Re:MS Fuud (Score:4, Informative)
I, on the other hand, am inclined to think otherwise.
I don't think that anybody in their right mind would call Fedora Linux lacking in security, but if you were to download the install DVD for Fedora 11, the latest version, what you'd get is exactly what you'd have downloaded on the first day it was available. Then, after installation, you'd have to download all the updates needed to bring your system up to date. How is this different from what Microsoft does?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You can download Fedora 11 ISOs with all updates to a recent date here: spins.fedoraunity.org
I can find no similar site for Windows XP, Vista, or any other MS product.
So yeah, no difference between Fedora and Windows at all. :rolleyes:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What Microsoft does different from Fedora is to prevent copies of windows that raise the 'piracy' flag from downloading any updates.
Besides, the interpretation is flawed in more ways, by limiting the 'percentage users having malware on their computer' number to the users that run a specific tool, MSRT, which is normally found through windows update. For what it's worth, all this means is that people in china don't trust, or at least don't run MSRT.
MSRT: http://www.microsoft.com/security/malwareremove/defaul
M$ Spin (Score:3, Interesting)
It's almost like M$ keeps moving the holes around and re-hiding them, but never fixing them. That would certainly permit the known holes and backdoors to be available for exploit but make it harder for 'unauthorized' (you did read the EULA, right?) entities to use them.
That is, however, only when M$ can be assed to patch in the first place. Not like they've dropped patches [computerworld.com] for versions they still claim to support.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've paid for my Microsoft software and I still get a shitload of botnet-posted spam. Likewise, I have to do routine tech support for friends laptops with malware infested Windows installs despite the laptops having legit versions of Windows installed by the manufacturer.
So are you suggesting that Microsoft has no responsibility to myself and my friends, or are you saying that they're incapable of fulfilling that responsibility?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's somewhat akin to a scenario where every fourth, or tenth, or whatever, Toyota Camry is driven not by some citizen trying to get to work, drop the kids off at school, or buy groceries, but by a zombie/doppelganger that looks like Beetlejuice and generally causes the kind of havoc anyone with imagination could muse about.
Steals you wallet at the gas station; teaches your kids swear words while you are distracted at Wall-Mart, drives into your house, knocking out the big-screen tv, stumbling out of the ca
Re: (Score:2)
*kisses karma goodbye* The difference is more like Toyota not honoring a warranty of a Camry that's been reported stolen, or conversely saying that Toyota should process the recall of an unregistered Camry with a scraped off serial number. Yes, a Camry could potentially endanger other drivers if not properly serviced, but ultimately I find it difficult to fault Toyota for not fixing a car that the driver has no business driving to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
And well you SHOULD kiss your karma goodbye - this is a really b
Re: (Score:2)
" ... Toyota made it, and they received their profit for it when it was sold, including the money that they put aside for future warranty claims. They're not any more out of pocket if someone else swipes it then brings it in for service. This is not at all the same scenario as someone using a copy of software that was never paid for. ..."
Zombies/doppelgangers that are not of this Earth do not buy cars from Toyota. They arrive here, in cars they duplicated in the other worlds, having paid nothing for them, a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be totally fair, people who don't pay for their software (pirates) aren't actually customers, and Microsoft has no responsibility towards people who aren't their customers.
That's not totally true. If all those pirates were to dump Windows for some other O/S, then Microsoft's market share would drop, weakening their near monopolistic hold on the market which allows them to sell other things and force wretched terms on vendors.
To be fair, malware drives up linux use (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at it this way. You pirate windows, your box joins a botnet, and who suffers? Some other poor SOB. Somewhere there's a corporate site to DDOS, somewhere there's an account to brute-force, and Microsoft's reputation takes a fall. Remind me where's the genuine advantage in that again?
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that the people that are hurt by not giving out updates for free are not the freeloaders, they are the paying customers.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be meritorious and ethical for MS to patch every windows machine that comes knocking on their door.
But expecting MS to share the blame that is rightly entirely that of the pirates that are refusing to patch their boxes is unreasonable.
The pirates have no legitimate reason to demand that updates from MS not trash their windows installs. They have unclean hands and so on. By refusing to update their boxes they are aiding and abetting the damage done by malware authors. Whether said updates
Re: (Score:2)
That's not at all how I read TFA. To me, it came off as the infringer's fault, not Microsoft's. I didn't smell any insinuation otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, are there some serious byzantine MS inter-division politics behind the release of this statement that I don't know about? It's one thing to abdicate responsibility for security flaws in all-caps in your license agreement; it's another thing to be doing it while simultaneously cooking your studies to say "our licensing practices are acutally making vulnerabilities stick around longer".
WGA could be at fault (Score:4, Interesting)
Including Windows Genuine Validation is the likely culprit for this.
Re:WGA could be at fault (Score:5, Insightful)
The very same program that's well-known for marking valid copies as pirated and then holding people's data/work environment hostage until they cough up another $200+. Yeah, I'm leery of that kind of thing too. Why should I let them install a program that takes up a good 20MB of RAM when it's running to make me prove that I'm not a pirate?
patches break my other software (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not hesitant of MS patches because of piracy, I'm hesitant because i use this machine to do all my Photoshop work and the last 4 auto patches crash Photoshop roughly every 6 min rendering my computer completely useless for it's primary purpose.
Just suppose... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just suppose... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just suppose... (Score:4, Interesting)
Have security patches installed in redistributed form, they are available from MS or even torrent sites
Am I the only one who sees the problem here? Why do you think all those machines are infected with malware in the first place? :-D
Re:Just suppose... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about Service Pack 3? Does it contain WGA? If so then those who want to avoid WGA can't install SP3 at all, because it's one big bundle and you can't select individual components from it to install.
And SP3 is offered as a recommended security update by MS for SP2 users.
Re: (Score:2)
I have installed XP SP3 and WGA wasn't part of it. I think. No, it probably wasn't since windows update still tried to push it to me until I unselected it and chose to not be reminded about that update again. Anyway, my install passes WGA, that is, I can download the files that are "for genuine only". It all comes down to the quality of the crack.
Also, Windows 2003 does not have WGA so no crack was needed.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Suppose it was possible to apply security patches without installing Windows Genuine Advantage..
I think it is possible. According to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/892130 [microsoft.com]:
What if I decide not to use Windows Genuine Advantage to validate my copy of Windows?
If you have a genuine copy of Windows but decide not to complete the validation process, you can still obtain critical software updates by using the Automatic Updates feature.
I'm not sure if this is true because I stopped using pirated copies of XP long
Re:Just suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose it was possible to apply security patches without installing Windows Genuine Advantage (malware by anyone's definition except Microsoft's). Would that make a difference?
Quite likely, but Microsoft is definitely within their rights to insist that people pay for their software. You and I may find it to be unwieldy, intrusive and obnoxious, but that's our problem, not theirs.
If people don't want to deal with the mess and hassle of keeping their Windows machines clean and up to date, they have alternatives. They can pony up for a Mac or they can install Linux. Heck, if they're absolutely committed to using Windows without paying, they can run it in a snapshotted VM on Linux.
Just last week I wrote a newspaper column [imagicity.com] advocating Ubuntu Karmic over Windows 7, so I'm no fan of Windows whatsoever. But as someone who writes a fair amount of software, I fully respect Microsoft's right to license it - and enforce that license - as they see fit.
The fact that they're doing so in such a way as to drive the world away from them is just gravy, as far as I'm concerned. 8^)
Re:Just suppose... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I take it that you haven't actually bothered to read the EULA that comes with Windows because it's an absolute joke. Worse still is that it changes regularly when doing updates and I'm willing to bet that if I call them and say that I'm rejecting the new version that they won't let me have my money back for the copies I've paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see the Linux gaming community take over from Windows' dominance in PC games.
I don't think it will happen any time soon, here's why:
1. Since there are no good Linux games, gamers use Windows.
2. Since there are only a small number of Linux gamers, the game makers make games for Windows only.
Easily explained (Score:3, Interesting)
And the French refuse to install malware written in English.
Users are leery of applying patches because? (Score:3, Insightful)
And users (with both legit and pirated copies) are leery of applying patches because of Microsoft Genuine Advantage and its ilk. Does this come as a surprise to them?
Gee. I wonder why . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
. . . people would be "leery" of installing "security patches," MS having pushed down things like WGA as a "critical updates." Of fscking course the people running dodgy copies of Windows are going to assume that each new wave of patches might come with a copy protection trojan, in light of the fact they've done it before. So in fact, Microsoft has caused the problem they're bellowing about in the name of attempting to inhibit piracy of Windows.
Stands to reason. (Score:5, Funny)
They're pirates. Of course they're going to run malicious software.
What the hell else would pirates do with a computer, donate to charity and solve world hunger? No, they're going to use it to look up www.saucywenches.com [saucywenches.com] or download illegal treasure maps, or perform DDoS attacks on Royal Navy ships. They'd use a pirate version of Quicken to count their doubloons and inventory their treasure chest. They'd be looking up suspicious sites for syphilis treatments. They'd manually edit the Windows Registry with nothing but a cutlass and a corkscrew.
Re: (Score:2)
perform DDoS attacks on Royal Navy ships
It doesn't help that said navy ships are also running Windows.
safer users (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Brazil several computer stores sell PCs wirh a pirated version of windows pre-installed. So it's very likely that a lot of those 'computer pirates' are computer iliterates. Also, pirate versions of any popular application, movies and songs can be easily bought on the streets at broad day light -- not in dark alleys. So, if a person sees "Computer with genuine MS Windows XP" it's not unlikely that they would ask the salesman "can you make it cheaper if you sell it with a pirated version of windows?", even
Re: (Score:2)
> Wouldn't those pirating an OS be less likely to have infected computers
> simply because they would be more likely to be more computer literate
> than your average user?
No. They don't install it themselves: they don't even know what an operating system is. They just buy a pc from the shop that has the best prices, is conveniently located, and promises to include all the software they could need.
Always on Internet connections?.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't the rates of infections be severely affected by how long the machine stays online? Because that increases both — the opportunity to infect the machine, and its value for the hijacker (as a spam-relay)?
With many organizations simply blocking the entire A- and B-class networks from China, even an always-connected server in China is not as hot a target as the one in US.
Also, one would expect, the machine owners' expected wealth to be a factor — some viruses blackmail the owner by threatening to delete their files... The poor Chinese may not even have a Paypal account to pay off the scumbags, so why go after them?
Accounting for all this may change the published statistics quite a bit...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think botnet operators target their infections. It would cost them more to select their targets than to just put it everywhere, with the possible exception that they might try to avoid the equivalent of .mil or .mod.uk in their own country.
Re:Always on Internet connections?.. (Score:4, Informative)
Broadband speed might be more of an issue (Score:4, Insightful)
I just recently returned from a trip to India and found that many of the cyber cafes and family homes that I visited were not running the latest service-packs for Windows. I would attribute that to mostly being because although they had "broadband" their speed even during off hours were more around the range of 64 to 128 Kbps with high latency due to over subscription. Can any of you imagine downloading Windows XP SP3 over that kind of connection? (Setup a speed limiter on your next bit torrent download at about 5 KBs/40 kbps and see how long that file takes to transfer) Along with the problem that most computers are purchased as cheaply as possible so they frequently run with the minimum amount of ram possible, making the use of Antivirus software and the latest Service packs way too slow to even browse the web.
Security patches and Anti-virus updates that are several megabytes a piece are fine for someone with a lowly 512 kbps broadband connection, but understand that most people in these countries like China and India still have very large modem and slow DSL that is extremely over subscribed at the ISP.
Even here in the US there are many people that have dial-up even if other options are available because they don't feel the broadband options provide a good cost/performance ratio. $40 for 512kbps WISP connection or $10 for a cheap dial-up connection. $480 + install for the first year, or $120 for a year of dial-up over a phone line they already have...
Please keep in mind that although 5+ Mbps broadband is available in most Metro markets there are still a lot of people that have much slower connections making many online services out of reach (Steam, hulu, and to some security patches).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I just recently returned from a trip to India and found that many of the cyber cafes and family homes that I visited were not running the latest service-packs for Windows. I would attribute that to mostly being because although they had "broadband" their speed even during off hours were more around the range of 64 to 128 Kbps with high latency due to over subscription. Can any of you imagine downloading Windows XP SP3 over that kind of connection?
Yes. Download the file once, overnight. Proceed to install it on all machines. The full installation file download is a mere 316mb.
Penance? (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps these pirates just feel such extreme guilt for copying Windows that they are rejecting patches and virtually flogging themselves with malware.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or maybe the folks who don't give a shit about pirating windows also don't give a shit that their rooted machines are causing mayhem.
The solution... (Score:4, Interesting)
Williams said the link between PC infection rates and piracy is due to the hesitancy of users of pirated software to use Windows Update.
Make Windows free.
Re: (Score:2)
You can still run Windows 2000 if you want to pirate without cracking WGA... security patches will be provided for another 8 months or so. I suppose it probably won't install on a lot of newer hardware, though.
Cracking WGA is really a one-click affair with the current tools, so I don't see what the issue is for even causal pirates.
Slanderous (Score:2)
Liscensed but uneducated users really at fault (Score:5, Insightful)
People would often call in with viruses/malware they've just been living with on a 2 year old computer, and when you asked them about what they use for antivirus, they wouldn't have a clue. "I used that link that was on my desktop when I bought it," they would say. Well, that 30 day trial will get you into more trouble than not applying your windows updates, especially when they're opening up all those emails from disposed Nigerian dictators.
Re:Liscensed but uneducated users really at fault (Score:5, Interesting)
I know a guy that has Nod32 antivirus installed.
Unfortunately for him, he doesn't seem to understand how to activate it. Every year he buys a new code, and loses it, without activating. It's now about 900 days since his subscription ended.
I took pitty and installed avast, but he doesn't know what the little A is, or even care, because he has Nod32 (which a friend recommended), and he thinks he's protected.
I agree that uneducated users are the issue.
Seems to be what microsoft wanted (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches.
When you purposely push out "security patches" that only disable copies of Windows that are pirated, then yes, they are leery of using them, and rightly so (Assuming their goal is to run Windows without paying, and not buying Windows or using another OS)
This is the exact situation Microsoft has stated they wanted to happen.
And before anyone starts, I am not suggesting Microsoft change their rules on supporting pirated copies of Windows.
It's theirs to choose how to support how they want.
Just that this is the only conclusion one could expect from their current choice.
Re: (Score:2)
And before anyone starts, I am not suggesting Microsoft change their rules on supporting pirated copies of Windows. It's theirs to choose how to support how they want.
But shouldn't they also be liable somehow for the collateral damage they're causing, when they give traction to the spammers and botnets?
Re: (Score:2)
But shouldn't they also be liable somehow for the collateral damage they're causing, when they give traction to the spammers and botnets?
Well, there is should, and there is could.
Should, probably so.
Could, no. Unfortunately providing the means indirectly to criminals to do their thing is not illegal.
For it to be illegal, one would have to convince a judge that Windows is used primarily for botnets and scammers, and much less so for anything else.
Re:Seems to be what microsoft wanted (Score:5, Interesting)
When you purposely push out "security patches" that only disable copies of Windows that are pirated, then yes, they are leery of using them, and rightly so
Don't forget the legit copies they disable. Any of those OEM keys that shady computer repair shops have gotten their hands on.
Microsoft also disabled my legit key. Apparently if you activate Windows on 4 different motherboards with 3 different CPUs, 4 different types of memory, 3 different GPUs, 6 different HDD setups, from 3 different IPs/ISPs, they find it suspicious and refuse to give you a new key.
Of course, what actually happened was my PSU blew up my old board. It wasn't good for overclocking, so I got a different one. Then the new PSU blew up the new board(bad luck - never going Antec again) and some memory. After getting it fixed, I sold my CPU and upgraded that and my GPU. I was running out of space, so I also got an HDD upgrade. Then later I moved most of them over to a NAS. Eventually I wanted to upgrade again, so I gave a family member my old PC(after wiping Windows and installing Ubuntu, *gasp*) and tried to reactivate again on a new board with a new CPU + GPU + RAM + more HDDs.
Microsoft found it suspicious - too suspicious - and yet I'm in the right, because my XP key was only in use on a single machine. I believe a contributing factor was the ISP switching, and my IP geolocation resolving incorrectly. For a while it resolved to Ontario, then Alberta, then BC. Originally I could even watch Hulu (and I'm Canadian), so I know the geolocation software failed pretty badly.
Right now I'm using XP, but it's not the license key I originally bought. There's no way I'm letting a company force me to pay twice! Everyone I know buys a single license and uses it on every computer in their home, but here I am doing it the right way, and they screw me! Never again!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ummm.... If you've removed every single origional component and replaced them with new components how is that the same computer?
Same case? :P
I sold lots of parts, and moved old parts to a different computer. The Ubuntu PC I gave to my parents was made from old parts in a new case with a new PSU. Just because I did a total overhaul of my gaming PC doesn't mean it isn't the same rig. I have a gaming PC, and a work PC - I upgrade them both periodically, and I bought Windows licenses for both. I don't appreciate Microsoft disabling my key. :/
Legit, but still leery (Score:2)
Count me as one of those leery afraid to apply patches because there's never any indication in the update applet about whether they'll force a reboot or not.
So I can ignore useless (for me) "malicious software removal tool" patches and play it safe, or I can apply a patch and hope that I don't have to manually stop the Windows Updates service to prevent an undesired reboot.
Guess which one I pick?
(Posted from a legit win7 licensed box that gets rebooted when storms knock out my power..)
Correlation is not causation (Score:3, Funny)
but lets give MS the benefit of the doubt. After all, haven't they earned our trust? I'll take them at their word that stealing windows = malware. Fortunately, I don't have to steal windows anymore, a guy from nigeria says I'll be rich soon.
couldn't you legally force them to... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
car manufacturer who goes and cuts stolen cars' breaks
More like a manufacturer who won't replace (possibly shoddy) brakes on cars because the owners didn't bother to register with them.
What!?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
China's piracy rate is more than four times that of the US, but the use of Windows Update in China is significantly below that in this country. Same for Brazil and France. But Microsoft's own data doesn't always support William's contention that piracy, and the hesitancy to use Windows Update, leads to more infected PCs. China, for example, boasted a malware infection rate -- as defined by the number of computers cleaned for each 1,000 executions of the MSRT -- of just 6.7 per thousand, significantly below the global average of 8.7 or the US's rate of 8.2. France's infection rate of 7.9 in the first half of 2009 was also below the worldwide average."
How can Microsoft possibly conclude that Malware is a greater threat to pirated PCs from the previously quoted data? Obviously the US has a higher infection rate than China, with the US being at 8.2 per thousand and China only at 6.7.
If it were me analyzing the data I'm afraid I would have to conclude that users who use windows update more often and use official copies of windows(US users) are more likely to receive a malware infection than users on pirated copies without using windows update(China).
I guess
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If it were me analyzing the data I'm afraid I would have to conclude that users who use windows update more often and use official copies of windows(US users) are more likely to receive a malware infection than users on pirated copies without using windows update(China).
Except that those who don't use Windows Update aren't included in the statistics. (Well, unless they manually download and run the MSRT, but that can't be a statistically significant number.)
Re: (Score:2)
There is correlation for some countries but not for China.
So it'll be interesting to know why PCs in China that use Windows Update tend to have less infection than the US (or world average) ones that use Windows Update as compared to other countries with alleged similar Windows piracy rates.
should it be like giving clean needles to junkies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:should it be like giving clean needles to junki (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has a financial incentive to make people fear running unauthorized copies of Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just tired and sleepy - but your post makes me think that if Gate's daddy had used a dirty needle and a condom, we wouldn't be so worried about getting Bill's viruses today. Hmmmm. I'll sleep on that idea......
Re:should it be like giving clean needles to junki (Score:2)
You are absolutely correct if the goal is the public good.
Corporations, on the other hand, are not about the public good.
t would be nice if Microsoft cared, but Microsoft is a corporation. A publicly traded corporation, no less; publicly traded corporations are required, by law, to be self-serving and to maximize profit over other considerations. If they don't, they can be sued by shareholders for not doing it.
So, nice as it would be, unless you can come up with a way to convince Microsoft to convince Micro
Could the China anomaly have anything to do with.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Redefine Malware to include windows keygen (Score:2)
Problem solved. Link proven. That's what passes for innovation at Redmond these days.
Okay (Score:2)
Let other people beta test patches first (Score:2)
When I pick up clients I make sure their "licensing"[sic] is brought into compliance. It's amazing how many PCs are in small-to-medium-size businesses where IT folk install "pirated" ("Yar! yo ho ho and a bottle of rum") corporate editions. I bring them into compliance but I use policies and now WSUS to restrict patches for days to weeks after release to learn of reports of patches breaking systems. They're always behind firewall appliances and running some sort of antivirus and anti-malware software. Why I
Actually this is a logical fallacy (Score:2)
having the latest patches and updates do not protect you from all viruses just specific ones. Microsoft cannot code Windows updates to prevent all virus and malware infections as Windows is "defective by design" with security holes and bugs that allow malware and viruses to be installed even if the system has the latest updates and a few AV programs as well as a firewall.
Pirated Windows can still apply the Windows updates and pirated Windows have a way around the Microsoft WGA checks as they redirect WGA ch
Office Updates (Score:2)
A tad off topic but still relating to patching Microsoft stuff. We run WSUS at work to patch machines. I absolutely despise approving the Microsoft Office security updates and service packs, especially with OEM versions of Office. Every time I do so, it seems to screw up registration on Office XP and Office 2003 installations. I have a handful of users who can't get into office after the application of updates. Fantastic. In most of those cases when I try to do the internet registration it fails and I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand Windows 7 is MUCH harder to pirate
Nope, the process is exactly the same as with XP or Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
Slipstreamed installs are convenient... but you can't really tell what else might have been slipstreamed in.
Safer to use normal install media and get the keys separately.
Re: (Score:2)
Sofware "piracy" != theft