The results of the analysis show that Windows Vista continues to show a trend of fewer total and fewer High severity vulnerabilities at the 6 month mark compared to its predecessor product Windows XP (which did not benefit from the SDL) and compared to other modern competitive workstation OSes (which also did not benefit from an SDL-like process).
This is a report by a Microsoft employee which will surely raise all sorts of instantaneous doubt from those who don't bother to download and read the full report.
Could it be possible that Vista is more secure than these other operating systems?
Agreed. I can tell everyone that my company is the best company there is and has the best prices and is the most friendly and accomodating and the best to our employees. I could write a 400 page report about how fantastic my company is. Does this make it true?
I browsed through the report, it's really a big difference between Vista/XP and RedHat. The difference between Vista and Ubuntu is smaller though.
As far as I know the report did not state how long it took Microsoft/RedHat/Ubuntu to correct the security errors once they were discovered.
It might be the case that Vista is more secure when it comes to vulnerabilities than the other operating systems in the report. Or fewer problems were discovered in Vista, but they are still lurking around.
Anyhow security isn't only about number of vulnerabilites during the first six months of use.
As Mac users grow, I would suspect viruses and exploits will become a problem. I think their percentage of users is now up to around 7%. Compared to just a few years ago it was 2%. As you can see, there is certainly growth there. Linux is another issue. Until it becomes more user friendly and widely supported, the security issues would be minimal. If Apple drops the ball, they will have the same problems as MSFT.