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.
Top 5 Posts
More About 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.
-
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.
Post a Comment
Sponsored Links
Videos
Tech Close-Ups
The Nikon D80 is a pro-sumer camera that makes you feel like a real pro. The image quality on this 1 ...
Gadgets You Might Like
Also on Yahoo! Tech
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.