PC Tools reveals Vista is not so immune

"Uncle Marvo" <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote in message
news:69fn75F31r8opU1@mid.individual.net...

> Wonderful!
>
> It does fix the dodgy serial buffer problem though, which I believe has
> been in Windows since sometime in NT4.0.
>
> I'm still not going to go for it until at least SP2 :-)
>
> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
> news:FtxYj.25236$C8.205@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>>
>> Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/
>>
>> It reads in part "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," Clausen said. "
>>
>> Just thought you'd like to know....
>>
>> jim
>>

>
>

The opinions of PC Tools are nothing more than self-serving statements
meant to sell their products. I have no faith or interest in their opinions
and/or products.

C.B.


--
It is the responsibility and duty of everyone to help the underprivileged
and unfortunate among us.

Don't miss the discussion at http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93752 too.

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
news:FtxYj.25236$C8.205@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>
> Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/
>
> It reads in part "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," Clausen said. "
>
> Just thought you'd like to know....
>
> jim
>

On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:13:19 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

>
>Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/
>
>It reads in part "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," Clausen said. "
>
>Just thought you'd like to know....

Not really. There is enough nonsense floating around already.

What exactly does "37% more secure" mean?

And why is W2K considered more secure in these statistics? - Because
W2K is not operated by the same kind of people Vista is. And no OS can
ever be immune against human stupidity.

This is just yet another nonsense by numbers.

"Straight Talk" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kl9534103i4k1n5btspp3gpb5s7a09mv3o@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:13:19 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:
>

>>
>>Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/
>>
>>It reads in part "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," Clausen said. "
>>
>>Just thought you'd like to know....

>
> Not really. There is enough nonsense floating around already.
>
> What exactly does "37% more secure" mean?

That's what the links were for. Follow them.

> And why is W2K considered more secure in these statistics? - Because
> W2K is not operated by the same kind of people Vista is. And no OS can
> ever be immune against human stupidity.
>
> This is just yet another nonsense by numbers.

You can lead a man to truth. You cannot make him believe.

jim

> You can lead a man to truth. You cannot make him believe.

And some people are attracted to, and swayed by, FUD.

Dig deeper and read the wider argument online. It's far less black and white
than you're apparently desperate to believe.

Microsoft Refutes Windows Vista Vulnerability Report
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=207603257

"So Vista is definitely much more secure than Win2000 and I don't understand
PCTools' attempt to overthrew this axiom by far-fetched conclusions in their
survey."
http://dkudin.spaces.live.com/blog/c...F165!135.entry

--
Regards

John Waller

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
news:LRxYj.25251$C8.10572@bignews2.bellsouth.net.. .

> That's what the links were for. Follow them.

From the link you supplied>>>>

"It only takes one attack to destroy a computer or allow hackers to access
your personal and financial information."

There are no OSes that don't have at least one hole so there are no OSes
that don't need additional work/tools to keep them secure including all
windows variants and all unix/linux variants.

> You can lead a man to truth. You cannot make him believe.

This is true and I don't suppose you do.

>
> jim
>

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
news:LRxYj.25251$C8.10572@bignews2.bellsouth.net.. .

>
> "Straight Talk" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kl9534103i4k1n5btspp3gpb5s7a09mv3o@4ax.com...

>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:13:19 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:
>>

>>>
>>>Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/
>>>
>>>It reads in part "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," Clausen said. "
>>>
>>>Just thought you'd like to know....

>>
>> Not really. There is enough nonsense floating around already.
>>
>> What exactly does "37% more secure" mean?

>
> That's what the links were for. Follow them.
>

>> And why is W2K considered more secure in these statistics? - Because
>> W2K is not operated by the same kind of people Vista is. And no OS can
>> ever be immune against human stupidity.
>>
>> This is just yet another nonsense by numbers.

>
> You can lead a man to truth. You cannot make him believe.
>
> jim
>

True, but corporate computer users are locked down way tighter than the
average home user..



--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

jim wrote:

> Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/
>
> It reads in part "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," Clausen said. "
> Just thought you'd like to know....
>
> jim

More crap ' research ' from antivirus software vendors.
This is the bullshit from the Threatfire website:

"PCs are under constant attack from viruses, spyware and identity theft.
Every day you hear about a new threat to your PC. They're coming faster than ever before,
they're getting harder to stop and traditional antivirus products are not able to keep up."


Yes, we hear about a new threat every day because these liars spread fear to make you
spend your money.
Symantec put out a 6 monthly ' report ' on the latest virus threats. This is a quote from their
"b-whitepaper_internet_security_threat_report_xiii_04-2008.en-us.pdf".
The data is for the last half of 2007.

"The most widely reported new malicious code family during this reporting period was the invadesys worm."

Go to the Symantec website to see how serious this threat is :
http://www.symantec.com/security_res...111215-5430-99
and it tells us the risk is " very low ".

Yet we have the clowns at Threatfire telling us that "antivirus products are not able to keep up".
If this rubbish was true, then the internet should grind to a halt under all these constant threats.

The last virus I got was the KAK worm, running XP pre SP1 days.