Eight-Year-Old Operating System is More Secure Than Vista

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
"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

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2007
61
0
18,580
Huh? Seems like dumb research. What hacker bothers to attack win 2000 systems? Nothing interesting and no glory on old system.
 

rsud

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2007
61
0
18,580
Huh? Seems like dumb research. What hacker bothers to attack win 2000 systems? Nothing interesting and no glory on old system.
 

Auriacan

Distinguished
May 12, 2008
1
0
18,510
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2007
551
0
19,010
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.
 

Christopher1

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2006
197
0
18,640
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

Distinguished
Aug 6, 2007
16
0
18,560
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2006
56
0
18,580
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.
 

I

Distinguished
May 23, 2004
20
1
18,560
The reason is not inherant security, it's the users.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.