Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Microsoft Security Windows News

Windows 8 Defeats 85% of Malware Detected In the Past 6 Months 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by TaoPhoenix ( 980487 ) <> on Friday November 09, 2012 @09:55PM (#41938749) Journal

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

  • ... to those other similarly received OSs, Windows ME and Vista?
  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @10:03PM (#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.

    • 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

    • Yahbutbutbutbutbutbutbut.... XXX HOT RUSSIAN BABES!!!'t.....withstand....arrrrggggghhhhhhh......
  • by deweyhewson ( 1323623 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @10:04PM (#41938825)

    Since Windows 8 repurposed Microsoft Security Essentials as its new Windows Defender, which is built-in to the operating system [], would these statistics hold true for Security Essentials on all systems, or are they unique to Windows 8?

    Or is BitDefender just trying to stir up some business?

  • by Eightbitgnosis ( 1571875 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @10:08PM (#41938847) Homepage
    Why, not a single malware application can be installed on a banana! They too are immune.

    Therefore bananas are now the most secure OS
      • I would have gone with Panama Disease []
        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.

    • by donaldm ( 919619 )

      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. :)

    • Really? I've seen some pretty nasty looking, mold-infested bananas before. Hell, I can't even finish a bunch before at least one or two get soft and gross. I've been running Linux nearly exclusively for five years and it has never had the same problem, nor even one virus.
  • So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @10:12PM (#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.

  • by edibobb ( 113989 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @10:34PM (#41939087) Homepage
    How does an updated version Windows 7 with Microsoft Security Essentials compare? That information might make this article meaningful.
  • by AC-x ( 735297 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @10:47PM (#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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09, 2012 @10:50PM (#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.

  • 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?

  • 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
  • Rephrase the headline - Windows 8 allows 15% of previously-known malware to infect systems.

    • Windows 8 allows 15% of previously-known malware to infect systems.

      That's exactly what I got out of all this! 15% built-in fail, right off the shelf.

  • 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!


    • They don't fail to run because of incompatibility, they fail to run because win 8 includes defender by default which detects and blocks them.
      • by jamesh ( 87723 )

        They don't fail to run because of incompatibility, they fail to run because win 8 includes defender by default which detects and blocks them.

        oh come on. I wrote that I didn't read the article, or the summary, and even included a smiley at the end. Obvious Troll could be no more Obvious.

    • Many old apps won't run, not because they are detected as malware or are inherently inferior, but so you'll have to pay more money for new one. Typical MS.
  • 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?

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

  • by Original Cynic ( 677379 ) on Saturday November 10, 2012 @12:19AM (#41939703)
    Windows 8 now ranks in the same odds as having "Safe Sex" with an HIV positive individual. Thanks Microsoft.
    • Actually according to [] the riskiest activity is receptive anal sex which has a risk of 50 in 10,000. If you're not catching the risks are significantly lower.

    • Interesting analogy. To be safe, I will continue to refrain from having sex with whores, other dudes (especially the gays), and IV drugs users, and I will continue to avoid MS products as much as possible. Here's to Linux and safe, heterosexual sex!*

      * I do not believe or assert that using Linux is anything like having sex, nor do I live in my mom's basement
  • Somebody writes as it it's ok to be vulnerable to 15% of the malware on the internet. That's roughly the same as being vulnerable to 100%. Let me try to get this straight... 15% is the new 0%?

  • meaningless to me ... whats 7's score? how about XP sp3 not ran by a retard and or parent? or even... thats not impressive compared to linux invulnerability to malware.

    how about this, you have a 15% chance of being a victim of a crime ...

  • by Tom ( 822 ) on Saturday November 10, 2012 @06:31AM (#41941115) Homepage Journal

    Uh, isn't the actual news the other way around?

    The most current version of the OS still is vulnerable to 15% of known threats? That's a pretty damning track record if you ask me.
    It means that a billion dollar corporation that put security high on its agenda for several years now still can't create something that is secure against well-known attacks, and can't keep up with patches and let's not even talk about pro-active security.

    True, there is no such thing as 100% security. Even OpenBSD has had its 0-days. But we're not talking about 0-days here, we are talking about known threats that have been out there for months.

  • by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert&slashdot,firenzee,com> on Saturday November 10, 2012 @06:33AM (#41941131) Homepage

    Windows 8 is not "immune" to 85% of malware any more than Linux is... The malware was simply never written for windows 8 and is subsequently incompatible with it. Once malware is specifically written to target windows 8 the situation will change.
    Windows 7 also suffered very low malware infection rates when it was first released, it just took a little while for new malware to be written and for it to propagate.

  • by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Saturday November 10, 2012 @10:14AM (#41941941) Homepage

    Windows 8 Incompatible with 85% of the Most Widely Installed Software

  • Win 8 sucks (Score:4, Funny)

    by CapOblivious2010 ( 1731402 ) on Saturday November 10, 2012 @12:18PM (#41942775)
    Unfortunately, windows 8 also defeats 85% of users who attempt to use it do actually do something useful (as opposed to just oohing and aahing over the pretty tiles)

I've finally learned what "upward compatible" means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes. -- Dennie van Tassel