Security software vendor: Vista less secure than Windows 2000

Mon May 19, 2008 11:33AM EDT

See Comments (17)

In stark contrast to previous research commissioned by Microsoft, security software company PC Tools (which develops the exceptional Spyware Doctor, a tool I commonly recommend) has blasted Vista in a series of reports saying that Vista is hardly as secure as Microsoft claims it to be.

After analyzing 1.4 million computers it says it's found that computers running Vista contain 639 infections per 1,000 machines running the OS. That's worse than the ancient Windows 2000, where 586 infections impact every 1,000 computers. The bright spot: It's better than Windows XP, which features 1,021 infections per 1,000 computers.

There are some obvious reasons behind Windows 2000's good showing, of course: As an old operating system with only a tiny market share, malware developers aren't likely to be actively targeting Windows 2000 any more, instead setting their eyes on Vista, the up and coming prize for those looking to compromise PCs. But the numbers are nonetheless troubling, considering Microsoft's claims about Vista's rock-solid security.

One Microsoft evangelist's response to PC Tools' claim was a baffling post implying that users are probably at fault for going to "probably dodgy" websites and allowing spyware to be installed on their machines, but that Vista was nonetheless more secure than Windows 2000. The official response from Microsoft points to the "success" of Microsoft's near-worthless Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRT) as evidence of Vista's superior security while pointing to some other, genuine improvements in Vista's architecture.

On Friday, PC Tools released additional data backing up its claims and slamming the MSRT as "not a comprehensive anti-virus scanner," and it's right. In fact, all PCs in the PC Tools test were running security software already.

The fight is likely to continue, but whether or not Vista is "less secure" than Windows 2000 is not really of much importance in the end. The bottom line is that no matter what version of Windows you're running, you have to protect yourself with up-to-date antivirus and anti-spyware software, period.

POLL: Do you use antivirus software? 

Comments on Security software vendor: Vista less secure than Windows 2000

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 1 Posted by shlomoavanade on Mon May 19, 2008 12:42PM EDT Report Abuse

    I would argue this is an apples-oranges comparison. Windows 2000 exclusively targeted professional corporate environments which are much more likely to have good protection, or even strict policies against installing software/network traffic. Even without security policies, you will be much less likely to try installing p2p file sharing software at work than at home. Vista in contrast is for both home and business use.

  • 2 Posted by kupriaa1 on Mon May 19, 2008 12:50PM EDT Report Abuse

    Outstanding point (shlomavanade)- this point alone should invalidate all of the compiled data this company has put together. Futhermore, the releasing of tainted and biased statistics like this by a "security company" reveals that this company should not be trusted.

  • 3 Posted by rogueist on Mon May 19, 2008 1:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    LOL, amazing how quickly the detractors line up to defend Vista! From the beginning Vista has had many security problems. Why would it have none now? The more tightly you try to integrate the operating system and the tools, and have back doors inside every application and DLL for the mfg's own apps to use that they hide from everyone else, the more likely it is for it to be exploited. That coupled with bad programming practices (tons of memory leaks everywhere in every windows product out there - most of them caused by the lower level OS itself) leads to a very exploitable environment.

  • 4 Posted by kupriaa1 on Mon May 19, 2008 2:10PM EDT Report Abuse

    Rogueist- Huh? Where is you proof for this? Backdoor tools? Huh? Memory Leaks?

  • 5 Posted by agustin2489 on Mon May 19, 2008 7:33PM EDT Report Abuse

    Quoted: "The bottom line is that no matter what version of Windows you're running, you have to protect yourself with up-to-date antivirus and anti-spyware software, period." Amen. rogueist, mind putting up a link explaining what sort of backdoor tools are there? I'm interested.

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment

 

Sign In to see your profile information, saved products and more...

Register Sign In

My Favorite Gadgets

 

Recent Activity

 

Recently Viewed

on | off on | off
 

Recent Searches

on | off on | off
 
 
 

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.