On BNET: Why should anyone hire you?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

June 2nd, 2008

Debunking yet another bogus malware study

Posted by Ed Bott @ 2:05 pm

Categories: Security

Tags: Adware, OECD, Malware, Computer, Badware, Spyware, Adware & Malware, Cyberthreats, Spyware, Productivity, Viruses And Worms

Here we go again, with yet another round of bogus reporting about the extent of malware infections in the United States. This morning I read a report by Nick Farrell of The Inquirer, which was accompanied by the screamer headline One in Four US computers infected. It links in turn to a much longer story in the Sydney Morning Herald, headlined A quarter of US PCs infected with malware: OECD. Here’s the lede from that story:

An OECD study into online crime says that increased activity by cyber criminals has left an estimated one-in-four US computers infected with malware.

And a bit later in the story the reporter shows his math:

“It is estimated that 59 million users in the US have spyware or other types of malware on their computers,” the OECD report said.

According to Nielsen/Netratings, the US internet population stood at an estimated 216 million at the end of 2007.

NewScientistTech (UK) swallowed the story. So did the AFP wire service. In every single one of the press reports I’ve referenced, the discussion quickly turns to zombies and botnets and Trojans and keyloggers.

[Update 3-June: In the credit-where-credit-is-due department, Joel Hruska at Ars Technica deserves props for an excellent report on the OECD study that captures its good work and completely ignores the bogus statistics. I highly recommend reading his post, OECD on malware: it's all about the economics.]

[Update 9-June: The OECD has added the following note to the introduction of its report:

Note (9 June 2008): The following sentence p. 37 "Furthermore, it is estimated that 59 million users in the US have spyware or other types of malware on their computers" should read "After hearing descriptions of 'spyware' and 'adware,' 43% of internet users, or about 59 million American adults, say they have had one of these programs on their home computer." The original source can be found in Pew/Internet, "Spyware" July 2005, p.3.

Kudos to the authors of the OECD report for responding to this report and correcting the record.]

The OECD report is wrong to use these numbers, and the reporters who wrote these stories didn’t even do any rudimentary fact-checking to see whether the statistics in question were correct. I went back to the original documents and followed the footnotes. This is literally a fourth-hand report from a three-year-old study, and the original research doesn’t support anything remotely like the conclusion that’s being reported today. It illustrates what is so horribly, horribly wrong with our media in general and our technical press in particular.

Here’s the real story: In a study conducted three years ago, in 2005, one organization found that roughly 43% of the American computer users they surveyed had experienced at least one go-round with spyware or adware, which they defined as the kind of programs that produce pop-up ads on users’ computers. The experience had been so annoying and frustrating for the users they spoke with that 90% of them had changed their behavior dramatically, doing things that would specifically protect them from this sort of infection. From those results, this organization extrapolated that their findings at that time would have equaled 59 million computer users who were being annoyed by adware and spyware programs.

So how did we get from that old study to a screaming headline claiming those numbers indicate current infections by malicious software? It took a lot of sloppy work by a lot of people. In this post, I’ll break it down for you.

Let’s start with the report itself. Entitled Malicious Software (Malware): A Security Threat to the Internet Economy (pdf here), it is identified as a Ministerial Background Report for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy, to be held in Seoul, South Korea on June 17-18, 2008. The report was produced by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy of the Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, which is in turn a subgroup of the OECD.

So where does that magical 59 million number come from? You’ll find it on page 37, in the middle of a boilerplate section rattling off various statistics from around the world, to illustrate that consumers and businesses “are increasingly exposed to a new range of complex, targeted attacks that use malware to steal their personal and financial information.” The quote in question reads as follows:

Furthermore, it is estimated that 59 million users in the US have spyware or other types of malware on their computers. (106)

In the original, that “106″ is in superscript, which I can’t easily replicate in this post, so I’ve used parentheses. But anyone who’s ever prepared a term paper will recognize that it’s a footnote. Let’s follow it, shall we? At the bottom of page 37 is this not-so-helpful citation:

106 Brendler, Beau (2007) p. 4.

A perusal of the endnotes finds the full source of this citation:

Brendler, Beau; “Spyware/Malware Impact on Consumers”; APEC-OECD Malware Workshop; April 2007 (Source: StopBadware Project); available online at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/55/38652920.pdf (last accessed 13 December 2007).

So, well over a year ago, in April 2007, the group that produced the OECD report invited an American expert to give them a briefing on the extent of malicious software. Page 4 of his PowerPoint presentation includes this sentence:

59 million Americans have spyware or other malicious badware on their computers. (Source: StopBadware Project).

“Badware”? What the hell is that? Well, for starters, it includes a lot more than Trojans, rootkits, and viruses. According to the Stop Badware Project’s own definition:

What is badware?
There are several commonly recognized terms for specific kinds of badware - spyware, malware, and deceptive adware. Badware is malicious software that tracks your moves online and feeds that information back to shady marketing groups so that they can ambush you with targeted ads. If your every move online is checked by a pop-up ad, it’s highly likely that you, like 59 million Americans, have spyware or other malicious badware on your computer.

In fact, software doesn’t have to be malicious to be labeled “badware” by the self-appointed sheriffs of the StopBadware Project. Last month, the organization was prepared to apply the label to Apple’s Safari browser for Windows. From the StopBadware Project blog:

A few weeks ago, the blogosphere raised concerns about the Windows version of Apple Software Update for offering new software installations (e.g., Safari) disguised as product updates. At the time, we blogged about it and said we were looking into it. It turns out that we were prepared to release an alert today identifying the product as badware. I’m glad to report, however, that we don’t have to, as Apple yesterday released an updated version that addresses the concerns that bloggers and StopBadware.org raised with them.

And how about that 59 million number? It turns out that it doesn’t even come from the StopBadware project itself. The source is actually …

Continue reading on next page –>

Pages: 1 2

Ed BottEd Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

Email Ed Bott

Subscribe to Ed Bott's Microsoft Report via Email alerts or RSS.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 149 Talkback(s)
Your experience leads to wrong conclusions...
As you correctly write, well over 50% of the computers that come to you for repair are infected with some form of malware. Yeah, right - that's why they come to you. And it reflects the fact t... (Read the rest)
Posted by: cgdams Posted on: 06/15/08 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Excellent analysis  LB75 | 06/02/08
THANK GOD FOR A GOOD REPORTER!  JABBER_WOLF | 06/03/08
Ed; You're Not Doing Your Part In Propagating The Paranoid!  Kromaethius | 06/02/08
Good point....  cgdams | 06/03/08
Thanks, I was just being funny...  Kromaethius | 06/03/08
Just another example of the circular "proof" used...  ye | 06/02/08
RE: Debunking yet another bogus malware study  hserus | 06/02/08
Not nitpicking  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/02/08
Did you read the title of that report, Ed?  hserus | 06/02/08
Not only did I read the title...  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
Sturgeon's Revelation  fairportfan | 06/03/08
Original was "crud"  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
Damn!  Dr_Zinj | 06/05/08
Leaving aside this debate on numbers ..  hserus | 06/05/08
But then doesn't OECD have an agenda?  Pliny the Elder | 06/03/08
Sorry to say...  John L. Ries | 06/02/08
The security experts I've spoken with disagree with you  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/02/08
Hehe, nice one  NonZealot | 06/02/08
Overoptimistic  klumper | 06/02/08
Overoptimistic PS  klumper | 06/02/08
I can't say never for myelf, but...  brble | 06/03/08
You're too squeaky clean to believe  klumper | 06/03/08
Yes, all systems are on the 'net...  brble | 06/04/08
You're a ray of hope  klumper | 06/04/08
I don't know that I'm doing anything special  brble | 06/04/08
Well now you know  klumper | 06/04/08
But apparently you don't know.  brble | 06/04/08
Keep hugging your illusion  klumper | 06/04/08
UAC means...  cburkitt2 | 06/04/08
Ha. True, but....  klumper | 06/04/08
...and where's the data supporting your estimations?  cgdams | 06/03/08
daily experience  klumper | 06/03/08
Again where are the facts?  ye | 06/03/08
Misreading Klumper Post  chessmen | 06/03/08
Don't give Klumper the benefit of the doubt  jvenezia | 06/03/08
Who's yelling?  klumper | 06/03/08
Now THERE'S some science!  Ethical_Loner | 06/09/08
The thing is...  John L. Ries | 06/02/08
Older (2005) zombies paper from Joe St.Sauver (UOregon)  hserus | 06/03/08
2005 is not 2008  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
Re: Sorry to say...  none none | 06/02/08
Myopia is more rampant than you know  klumper | 06/02/08
Hmmm  cgdams | 06/03/08
Someday you may get your chance  klumper | 06/03/08
Telling you your business....  cgdams | 06/04/08
Studying "defective" PC is not statistically accurate  mombo | 06/05/08
You're presuming that  klumper | 06/05/08
Thanks Ed  tonymcs@... | 06/02/08
I have to say I tend to agree with the report  marks055@... | 06/02/08
Security is a racket.  osreinstall | 06/03/08
Question  klumper | 06/03/08
The security vendors mainly.  osreinstall | 06/03/08
Agreed in many ways  klumper | 06/03/08
It is a PEBCAK issue.  osreinstall | 06/03/08
Don't forget PICNIC either  klumper | 06/03/08
Security is mainly behavior.  osreinstall | 06/03/08
Try tell the doddling fools  klumper | 06/03/08
I wouldn't call them doddling fools.  osreinstall | 06/04/08
We're all fools  klumper | 06/04/08
At times we can be.  osreinstall | 06/04/08
Back to point one  klumper | 06/04/08
Ok.  osreinstall | 06/04/08
Let's meet halfway  klumper | 06/04/08
I thought I did.  osreinstall | 06/04/08
It's a matter of complacency  klumper | 06/04/08
I give you that.  osreinstall | 06/04/08
Yet another reason to always question statistics  CobraA1 | 06/03/08
Bump to ZDNet scripters  klumper | 06/03/08
Bump again  klumper | 06/03/08
Even at 10% of that figure, it's still bad  ejhonda | 06/03/08
The point is people spout off numbers they no nothing about.  ye | 06/03/08
How can I dispute the numbers?  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
Facts matter indeed  klumper | 06/03/08
Note to ZDNet scripters  klumper | 06/03/08
I'll pass your feedback along  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
Thanks  klumper | 06/03/08
They also made some changes to the Feedback page  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
I don't care about studies, or whether this is wrong or right...  BitTwiddler | 06/03/08
Journalists don't know math or science  scott1329 | 06/03/08
Ars got it right, Inky was wrong  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
Can I suggest you apply same drill down into ZDnet stories?  whisperycat | 06/03/08
Wow  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
Wow indeed  whisperycat | 06/03/08
Ha!  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
Ha?  Harry Bardal | 06/03/08
re: Ha?  Badgered | 06/03/08
SMBs  Harry Bardal | 06/03/08
re: SMBs  Badgered | 06/03/08
Simple  Harry Bardal | 06/03/08
You're really missing something here...  dkawalec | 06/03/08
Forum For Self Congratulation  Harry Bardal | 06/03/08
You're the one who seems overly-pleased with himself ...  dkawalec | 06/04/08
You're completely blind and raving mad if you don't see what is now  Mikael_z | 06/04/08
The Apple Monopoly Myth  Harry Bardal | 06/05/08
Come on Harry  klumper | 06/05/08
No, have to correct ya there.  TripleII | 06/03/08
Sounds like the wrong combination ...  dkawalec | 06/03/08
Sorry Mr. Elitist  jasonp@... | 06/03/08
Anecdotes  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
Anecdotes?  klumper | 06/03/08
One more ED, c/o Vint Cerf  klumper | 06/04/08
Consequences  Harry Bardal | 06/03/08
Just Curious  brble | 06/03/08
Users  Harry Bardal | 06/03/08
Such Vitriol  brble | 06/03/08
The Larger Economy  Harry Bardal | 06/04/08
Harry,  brble | 06/04/08
This is Tiresome  Harry Bardal | 06/05/08
I Agree  brble | 06/05/08
RE: Debunking yet another bogus malware study  CMHeywood | 06/03/08
RE: Debunking yet another bogus malware study  ramnet@... | 06/03/08
RE: Debunking yet another bogus malware study  Mel-M | 06/03/08
More Issues  Harry Bardal | 06/03/08
reply from StopBadware  EricaGeorge | 06/03/08
Thanks, Erica  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
I'll let Google know  EricaGeorge | 06/04/08
Oh, you mean like the over the top and wrong security stories about Flash?  TtfnJohn | 06/03/08
I'm not their editor  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
I'm not asking you to...  TtfnJohn | 06/03/08
Say it again  klumper | 06/03/08
One out of four..what..computers  beoz | 06/03/08
Note to Ed  klumper | 06/03/08
I'm still doing the reporting  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/03/08
Excellent investigation Ed...  lawryll@... | 06/03/08
Debunking The Debunker  chessmen | 06/03/08
Heresay  beoz | 06/03/08
Have a Drink, Relax!  chessmen | 06/04/08
yeah, right...  cgdams | 06/04/08
it's a comon tactic,  rtk | 06/04/08
He he! Ole man is watching  Ole Man | 06/05/08
Oh, I like reading the talkbacks  beoz | 06/04/08
Google Warning  seanferd | 06/03/08
RE: Debunking yet another bogus malware study  windjammer_z | 06/03/08
Thanks Ed, its the Best of times, the Worst of times...  bill_abbott_iv | 06/03/08
Any hints to where Vint Cerf's estimations are based on?  cgdams | 06/04/08
...and may i bump ZDNets scripters, too?  cgdams | 06/04/08
So perhaps I'm not such a fool, eh wink  klumper | 06/04/08
PS re Cerf + final word  klumper | 06/04/08
Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question...  cgdams | 06/05/08
Come on now, how much clearer need it be?  klumper | 06/05/08
Facts are tricky things  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/05/08
Ok, let's see what you uncover  klumper | 06/05/08
Again, facts are tricky things  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/05/08
Fair enough  klumper | 06/05/08
It wasn't a speech  Ed BottZDNet Moderator | 06/04/08
Thanks, Ed,  cgdams | 06/05/08
Those figures are probably fairly accurate  YeaiBetYouDo | 06/13/08
Ha! Glad I checked back in on this one  klumper | 06/13/08
Your experience leads to wrong conclusions...  cgdams | 06/15/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Click Here

Recent Entries

advertisement
Click Here

Archives

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here