Data Shows Vista More Secure Than XP

*-In XP machines, Microsoft's own software contained 42 percent of th
vulnerabilities attacked, while 58 percent were in third party software
For Vista machines, Microsoft's software had 6 percent of th
vulnerabilities attacked, with third-party software containing 9
percent of the flaws
'PC World - Microsoft: Data Shows Vista More Secure Than XP
(http://www.pcworld.com/article/15319...tk=nl_dnxnws)-

They should do a 64-bit focused study. I wonder what that would loo
like

--
rasmasyea

Cure diseases with your unused processor power
You can make a difference
'Folding@Home' (http://folding.stanford.edu/) - Distributed Computing

Properly patched, XP will be very secured.

--
Amnon Feiner



"rasmasyean" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> *-In XP machines, Microsoft's own software contained 42 percent of the
> vulnerabilities attacked, while 58 percent were in third party software.
> For Vista machines, Microsoft's software had 6 percent of the
> vulnerabilities attacked, with third-party software containing 94
> percent of the flaws.
> 'PC World - Microsoft: Data Shows Vista More Secure Than XP'
> (http://www.pcworld.com/article/15319...k=nl_dnxnws)-*
>
> They should do a 64-bit focused study. I wonder what that would look
> like.
>
>
> --
> rasmasyean
>
> Cure diseases with your unused processor power!
> You can make a difference!
> 'Folding@Home' (http://folding.stanford.edu/) - Distributed Computing

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:38:50 -0600, rasmasyean
<> wrote:

>
>*-In XP machines, Microsoft's own software contained 42 percent of the
>vulnerabilities attacked, while 58 percent were in third party software.
>For Vista machines, Microsoft's software had 6 percent of the
>vulnerabilities attacked, with third-party software containing 94
>percent of the flaws.
>'PC World - Microsoft: Data Shows Vista More Secure Than XP'
>(http://www.pcworld.com/article/15319...k=nl_dnxnws)-*
>
>They should do a 64-bit focused study. I wonder what that would look
>like.

0. I don't trust MS to provide non-subjective data when they have a
self-interest in promoting Vista.

1. Might simply be evolutionary since Vista has not been around as
long.

2. "The highest number of exploits were released for Windows 2000 and
Windows Server 2003 operating systems, Microsoft said." Vista is wound
off the 2003 platform.

3. There's no discussion of the root data in the article. Therefore
it's impossible to assess whether the "vulnerabilities" are OS holes
that Vista's default (unworkable) UAC and file protection scheme
prevent or whether the holes are not there to start with.

Vista's dynamic relocation of sware will help... but it's likely just
a matter of time before there are more exploits.

+Bob+ wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:38:50 -0600, rasmasyean
> <> wrote:
>
>> *-In XP machines, Microsoft's own software contained 42 percent of the
>> vulnerabilities attacked, while 58 percent were in third party software.
>> For Vista machines, Microsoft's software had 6 percent of the
>> vulnerabilities attacked, with third-party software containing 94
>> percent of the flaws.
>> 'PC World - Microsoft: Data Shows Vista More Secure Than XP'
>> (http://www.pcworld.com/article/15319...k=nl_dnxnws)-*
>>
>> They should do a 64-bit focused study. I wonder what that would look
>> like.
>
> 0. I don't trust MS to provide non-subjective data when they have a
> self-interest in promoting Vista.

Fair enough.
>
> 1. Might simply be evolutionary since Vista has not been around as
> long.

Could be.
>
> 2. "The highest number of exploits were released for Windows 2000 and
> Windows Server 2003 operating systems, Microsoft said."

Vista is wound
> off the 2003 platform.

Where did you get that little piece of misinformation from?


>
> 3. There's no discussion of the root data in the article. Therefore
> it's impossible to assess whether the "vulnerabilities" are OS holes
> that Vista's default (unworkable) UAC and file protection scheme
> prevent or whether the holes are not there to start with.

Hummm..."unworkable UAC"? Personal opinion huh?

>
> Vista's dynamic relocation of sware will help... but it's likely just
> a matter of time before there are more exploits.

Very possible.