8Yr Old Win2K More Secure Than Vista
Source: Tom's Guide | Keywords: microsoft, windows, vista | Themes: Software
Security software vendor, PC Tools Software, has issued a report stating Microsoft Windows Vista is more susceptible to malware than Windows 2000, an operating system over eight-years-old. However, PC Tools Software reckons that Windows Vista is 37-percent more secure than previous generation Windows XP.
Data gathered from users of PC Tools’ ThreatFire security service indicated Vista allowed 639 threats per thousand computers, compared to 586 for Windows 2000 and 1,021 for Windows XP. According to PC Tools, with an infection rate of 639 per 1,000 PCs means 64-percent of Vista PCs have already been compromised.
"Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date," Simon Clausen, CEO of PC Tools, said in a prepared statement. "However, recent research conducted with statistics from over 1.4 million computers within the ThreatFire community has shown that Windows Vista is more susceptible to malware than the eight-year-old Windows 2000 operating system and only 37-percent more secure than Windows XP."
Despite the claims, PC Tools does not clearly indicate its methodology in its research. What constitutes as a threat is not defined, how threats were chosen, and whether the same threats were applied to all participating PCs. Since PC Tools gathered its data from its own crop of users, it is assumed the company only gathered statistics – something that is easily manipulated.
Microsoft fired back with their statistics and findings saying, “we appreciate independent studies and encourage researchers to help us make our products more secure; however, this is a study by a vendor of anti-malware products. ThreatFire vulnerability comparison numbers certainly don’t reflect our vulnerability findings from the malicious software removal tool, which ran on over 400 million machines in December 2007. From June 2007 through December 2007, the MSRT found malware on 2.8% of the Windows Vista machines it ran on, vs. 7.2% of Windows XP SP2 machines. It found malware on 5% of Windows 2000 SP4 machines and 12.2% of Windows 2000 SP3 machines. Note that for Windows 2000 this spans both client and server machines.”
-
Previous News Article
Civil Rights Groups Worried Over... -
Next News Article
Two Million Zunes Sold So Far
So what does 1,021 for Windows XP mean, 102% ??
I have seen both XP and Vista as I have owned and worked on both. I had Vista without any protection for 6 months and didn't get a thing. I used Spybot S&D, Adaware, Windows Defender and a few other programs after that 6 months and there wasn't anything besides tracking cookies. Oh no tracking cookies!!!!!!!!!!
I then got Windows Live Onecar just for kicks and still have yet to get anything. Don't believe this crap as you know its just for sales.
Nimda
Blaster
Sasser
Zotob
Wake me up when Vista has a massive non-email non-IE worm.
Personally, I haven't had ANY viruses on my machine that Norton Internet Security didn't catch or that were 'bad' viruses that made my machine do things I didn't want it to do, mainly because of the 'sandbox' methods of IE7 and IE8, as well as the UAC of Vista.
Rsud also has a point that most people don't bother to attack anything as old or older than Windows 2000, because it just isn't worth it (most machines have be upgraded from that).
Inexperienced users never bought Win2k systems. Experienced users who recognized the great opportunity to jump from NT4 to 5, or from 98 to 5 (5 being Win2k for you younger folks) instead of having to continue suffering through Win9x made the right choice.
Once these mature Win2k boxes were set up well they ran like a top for years. If the user had it working well there was no good incentive to change OS unless you had an OEM license and bought a new PC with a XP license, or later Vista.
What about Vista? It's lower than XP because the next generation of computer enthusiasts were more eager to try it, more frequenty hardware replacements too, people more technically inclined than the average person but less experienced than the Win2k owners on average (would not apply on a person by person basis but let's face the truth, the average also comes from people who no knowing about computers but bought a new one too with Vista on it).
XP is most infected because it is the most likely OS of the average joe or jane. Also because it's been around so long, more chances to become infected. Lower real security than VIsta too.
There you have it. Win2k users are simply more security savvy. They might be older and have more disposible income so they aren't pirating as much software too, or have wives so they don't have quite so much of a porn surfing habit either. It would help more if a study could pinpoint infection method.
rsud, you assume Win2k means an old system but it is the superior OS for the newest gee whiz bang PC too. It has a clean no nonsense interface, less annoying n00b help than xp or vista, a smaller footprint and higher performance. It supports the vast majority of things that run on XP, apps and hardware drivers, without the negatives of XP. It has slightly lower inbuilt security but it's mostly irrelevant because it is not OS that usually reveals a security flaw, it is a weak application like the browser, email client, or poor user choices. There is nothing different that needs to be targeted for 2K, someone writing an exploit for XP would almost always infect either 2k or xp. They are very similar except in some ways xp more secure, in others not as much also depending on service packs and patches applied, but in general they are the same for the purposes of a virus author wanting to maximize infections by writing for as many windows versions as possible.
dmacfour, XP is not particularly instable, either your drivers, system or applications are. Blame the right problem. If you get a virus regularly, you are doing something wrong and maybe that is why it is instable too. There are plenty of viruses out there that can't be detected by antivirus software yet, if ever. Maybe I should write that you are doing something right, it seems you need Vista to stay secure so for you the bloat at least adds some features you find useful for your online protection.
Malware authors are not targeting OS so much at all, they are targeting entry points with code that could run on windows in several versions. It is possible because windows has compatibility, that helps a virus writer as well as an application developer.
Basically the data didn't support the report conclusion. The information was that systems running win2k were less infected than vista, but that alone does not resolve why.