8Yr Old Win2K More Secure Than Vista

By Kevin Tu, published on May 12, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Source: Tom's Guide | Keywords: , , | Themes: Software
Syndication: Add to your Google homepage Add to My Yahoo!

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.”

Comments | Print | Send to a friend

Google Ads

Comments


Deleted profile 05/12/2008 6:43 AM
Hide
-2+
"639 per 1,000 PCs means 64-percent of Vista PCs have already been compromised"

So what does 1,021 for Windows XP mean, 102% ??
rsud 05/12/2008 6:51 AM
Hide
-3+
rsud
Huh? Seems like dumb research. What hacker bothers to attack win 2000 systems? Nothing interesting and no glory on old system.
rsud 05/12/2008 6:52 AM
Hide
-0+
rsud
Huh? Seems like dumb research. What hacker bothers to attack win 2000 systems? Nothing interesting and no glory on old system.
nukemaster 05/12/2008 7:02 AM
Hide
-1+
nukemaster
By that right half this stuff does not even run on windows 98. lets all roll on back to 98SE.
Auriacan 05/12/2008 7:37 AM
Hide
-2+
Auriacan
I just noticed that it indicates the total number of threats found, not the actual number of machines infected. As malware tends to install other malware these numbers can't actually judge the security of a system. As I have personally seen Windows XP machines with over 800 threats on the one system, I can't trust these numbers for anything. At best it's just an indication that malware producers are targeting Vista more then Win2k. Which in all honesty makes sense.
Deleted profile 05/12/2008 7:51 AM
Hide
-2+
Shouldn't the title of this article be something like "Independent Study Claims that 8 Year Old Win2000 is more secure than Vista"? I'm not a MS fanboi but journalism isn't exactly what it used to be...The statement from MS is awesome though...lol.
jimmysmitty 05/13/2008 5:42 AM
Hide
-1+
jimmysmitty
Lets see..... Anti-malware company says the newest OS is more vulnerable than an older one....I wounder why. Could it be sales? More than likely they want to make sales for Vista machines.

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.
bounty 05/13/2008 5:14 AM
Hide
-0+
bounty
Code Red
Nimda
Blaster
Sasser
Zotob
bounty 05/13/2008 5:17 AM
Hide
-0+
bounty
blaster, sasser, zotob, code red, nimda

Wake me up when Vista has a massive non-email non-IE worm.
Christopher1 05/16/2008 7:50 AM
Hide
-0+
Christopher1
Yeah, I have to agree with Bounty here. Most of the 'viruses' that Vista gets, it isn't really Vista itself, it is Windows Mail or Internet Explorer.
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).
retro77 05/16/2008 10:40 AM
Hide
-0+
retro77
This company only spewed out these numbers to try to sell some crappy software. Their website looks like one of those that sells malware software that really does nothing. Who pays $29 for products like this when there are free stuff like Spybot and Ad-Aware, just to name a couple.
Deleted profile 05/17/2008 6:20 AM
Hide
-0+
People claim to "see through" an anti-malware company stating Vista isn't secure, but these people seem to think that the company that actually built the OS with security problems is just shooting from the hip. Come on people - of course Microsoft is going to come out against this... FOR SALES. Good grief.
dmacfour 05/19/2008 8:26 AM
Hide
-0+
dmacfour
Never have gotten a virus with Vista, Never had a BSOD. WTF is everyone complaining about. XP is far less stable on all of my machines. I have to do regular virus scans under XP.

Note You are going to post a comment as anonymous.



Google Ads