64-bit malware threat may be itty-bitty now, but it's only set to grow

The volume of 64-bit malware in the wild remains low even though computers running 64-bit operating systems became ubiquitous years ago. The vast majority (93 per cent) of new computers sold worldwide operate on 64-bit Windows but most nasties were written to infect 32-bit systems, according to a new study by security firm …

[Anonymous Coward]

So I just keep running 32-bit XP, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be ridiculous, you should be running CPM or OS2!

[hellwig]

Obviously...

The solution is 65-bit computers.

Just put my check in the mail. Thanks.

[Korev]

Re: Obviously...

Sadly I think the virus writers will just byte back with a new version

[UncleNick]

Re: Obviously...

It's probably better putting it in the code...

if OS.env.bits > 64 then dont_run_malware();

[Anonymous Coward]

That answers a question

One of the striking things about an anti-malware course I did three years ago was that it completely ignored 64-bit environments.

I think I now know why.

[Pascal Monett]

"Linux and macOS systems are also potentially at risk"

Yes, objectively they are.

However, those being systems built on a strong foundation that includes security from the get-go, I seriously doubt that they will be submitted to the same havoc Windows systems have been in the past.

Of course, there is no defense against a user who knows the root password and blindly clicks YES on everything . . .

[John Smith 19]

"no defense against a user who knows the root password and blindly clicks YES on everything"

Or the core business application that cannot run as anything else.

[njtrout]

Older research on this issue

I recommend that you go back (way back) to research done by Sarah Gordon on why early on viruses only appeared on DOS machine and not Windows machines. The Wired article is pretty good as are her other papers.

Check her Wikipedia page for the references; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Gordon