Lately, Microsoft has been trumping the myriad of new security measures that have been included in Windows Vista. However, IT techs have been screaming their guts out that between the lack of any substantial changes (aside from a circular start bar), the forced User Account Control, and big brother like computing- That everyone should stay with XP. Well, now we have actual basis for this. Notice how that Microsoft is quick to shift ALL the blame to the incompetent user.
The claim that Vista is less secure than Windows 2000 was made last week by security vendor PC Tools, which said that over the past six months Vista had suffered 639 unique threats, whereas Windows 2000 has suffered 586. PC Tools's research was conducted by collecting data from customers using its ThreatFire behavioural detection software. "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date," said Simon Clausen, the chief executive of PC Tools last week. "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," Clausen said.
However, Microsoft strongly hit back at the claims, blaming users for executing malicious code on their machines. On Tuesday, Technet blogger and Microsoft evangelist Michael Kleef said the number of infections found by PC Tools was an indication of poor user behaviour
639 unique threats? This coming from the billion dollar brain-trust that spent four years to develop a circular start bar? I am truly, truly stunned.
-
2 comments:
I would agree that the holes in Windows Vista are a problem and that Microsoft might be a bit quick to hail Vista as a wonderfully secure operating system, however; the comparison to Windows 2000 by PC Tools I consider a bit poorly supported.
The tests done on the two machines were using more current attack mechanisms and viruses that Windows 2000 may not be vulnerable to because it cannot run software such as Internet Explorer 7.
Another point I would like to make is that under Windows 2000 most processes run as Administrator with full privileges giving even a small hole the potential to be disastrous, Windows Vista provides the UAC, which though annoying does provide protection against this. I am not some Microsoft fan boy, in fact I'll pick Linux any day over Windows and I agree that Windows Vista did a very poor job on the security front, among other things, but less secure than Windows 2000... I think not.
The issue was that 2000 had ~140 known vulnerabilities IN 2002. While Vista had almost 167 not even a year after it's release. It was not a benchmark test, rather a comparison of Security Issues at the time. Now I believe there is validity to the claim that Hackers are more advanced now than in 2000. However, I stick to my guns saying that 2000 is (Security Wise) Superior to Vista. But if you would rather have a circular start bar with a nanny computer( "Do you REALLY want to do that?")- You go right on ahead.
Post a Comment