Microsoft lies about Vista being the most secure Windows ever
Windows Vista is more susceptible to malware vulnerabilities than its eight-year-old predecessor Windows 2000, according to a recent independent study conducted by PC Tools.
However, it turns out Vista is still 37% less vulnerable than XP which many hail to be the most popular Windows ever. It would make sense the more popular the OS the more malware available for that platform, hence Apple’s argument their OS is more secure than Microsoft’s. That does raise an interesting point; does that mean Vista is slightly more popular and secure than Windows 2000 was?
PC Tool’s study involves analyzing the number of malware threats per thousand computers. Their results indicate Vista lets 639 threats through in contrast to 586 for Windows 2000, 437 Windows 2003, and the heavily malware riddled XP coming in at 1,1021 threats.
According to Information Week, Simon Clausen, CEO of PC Tools took a stab at Microsoft recently by stating:
“Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date.”
“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% more secure than Windows XP.”
Microsoft recently countered this analysis by citing their own studies which they indicate Vista having a 2.8% infection percentage in contrast to 7.2% on XP, and a 5% on Windows 2000. Microsoft’s own study was conducted using data gather from their MSRT (Malicious Software Removal Tool). Microsoft also took a stab at PC Tools, questioning their method and their motive.
In an email sent by Microsoft spokesperson stated:
“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 (MSRT)”
However much Microsoft seems to want to question PC Tool’s motives, one can argue Microsoft’s own analysis is just as bias considering it’s their product they are defending. Also using MSRT as their analysis tool compared to ThreatFire is even more ludicrous when in fact Microsoft has disclaimed that MSRT is in no way an anti-virus tool, but a basic virus removal tool and still recommends purchasing a real anti-virus tool. When MSRT first was released a couple years ago it only detected and removed 8 specific viruses/worms in contrast to the hundreds to thousands full fledged anti-virus applications were capable of.
Related Posts:
May 14th, 2008
Most Windows 2000 computers run behind heavily guarded corporate firewalls, are set-up in a very secure state (meaning users can’t change much) and are guarded by very strict Internet & filtering policies preventing contact with malware.
This probably explains it. I’d have difficulty believing that the average home user might be more secure with 2000.