Security software vendor: Vista less secure than Windows 2000
Mon May 19, 2008 11:33AM EDT
See Comments (16)
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.
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 Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM 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 Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:49PM 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 Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse
Rogueist- Huh? Where is you proof for this? Backdoor tools? Huh? Memory Leaks?
-
5 Posted by agustin2489 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:47PM 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.
-
6 Posted by quad.core4 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:24PM EDT Report Abuse
hey! warezkid1 this isnt about politics and second no matter what operating system you have if its windows 95 or 98 or even XP ect... hackers will always hack anything nothing is "rock solid secure" hackers will always find a way for example bill gates made this windows vista to what he sees is safe everyone has a different idea of safe on the topic of computers hence everyone thinks differently which is prolly true people who visit bogus sites dont know whats out there on the internet its like going out to a war zone blind and deaf not knowing the risks there will always be hackers out there and yahoo will not lose in this fight to stop microsoft taking over and warezkid1 " how can you know if you have a virus or malware if theirs no antivirus to tell you thats true" well anyways god bless you all and good luck yahoo and great Job microsoft with windows vista " it has a very stable good future" and thanks for service pack 1 keep up the good work
-
7 Posted by jczippay on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:31PM EDT Report Abuse
When I first read the article, I thought it would be about the operating system's vulnerability to attack. It isn't; it's about an unprotected computer being attacked, with no statistics about the status of the computer's virus protection and no information about how security-minded the users were. The article was nearly useless, since it completely omitted the effects of the security breaches, where they occurred, and what could be done to prevent them.
-
8 Posted by metallica101987 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:16PM EDT Report Abuse
What I have a question about is what AV program were these vista machines tested with?
-
9 Posted by xlt3zz on Tue May 20, 2008 12:09PM EDT Report Abuse
I've made the switch to Mac! No anti-virus, no firewall, no PROBLEMS! With still a relatively small market share and a rock-solid UNIX foundation I compute with no worries.
-
10 Posted by deviousrosie2000 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:42PM EDT Report Abuse
I don't think this is totally true. Iam running Vista Home Premium on all my desktops and laptops and have had no different problems with it than I had with XP,2000,98,95. Everything be said Vista has given me more stability than the other and so far no problem with security.
1 Posted by shlomoavanade on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:20PM 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.