Malware Surveys Tarnish Vista Security Credentials

Senior Microsoft official lowering security expectations

[incrediBILL]

Despite the other rosy reports of superior security for Vista [webmasterworld.com], a study done by Australian anti-virus firm PC Tools claims that although Vista is better than XP, that it's easier to infect than Win 2K.

"...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 per cent more secure than Windows XP,"

[theregister.co.uk...]

Additionally, a Sr. Microsoft official claims the malware is adapting to Vista:

Despite all the anti-malware roadblocks built into Windows Vista, a senior Microsoft official is lowering the security expectations, warning that viruses, password-stealing Trojans and rootkits will continue to thrive as malware authors adapt to the new operating system.

[blogs.zdnet.com...]

Doesn't sound like Vista is much of an improvement in the security department and has been getting kudos for being less vulnerable simply because some of the old vulnerabilities didn't work on the new operating system.

Hackers are adapting, keep your virus scanner current.

[zafile]

The free and open source advocates were pretty slow to come up with good arguments against the Windows Vista One Year Vulnerability Report.

While the title of the security report centers on Windows Vista, the numbers on FreeBSD (Mac) vs Linux are quite staggering.

So no wonder a well-known publication such as www.theregister.co.uk is now late to inform about a study from an unkwown Australian anti-virus firm.

The Windows Vista One Year Vulnerability Report numbers are hard to put to rest.

[incrediBILL]

I think you missed the quote from the Sr. MS official.