PC Tools reveals Vista is not so immune

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Security' started by jim, May 20, 2008.

  1. jim

    jim Guest

    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, May 20, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. jim

    Uncle Marvo Guest


    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 :)
    Uncle Marvo, May 20, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. jim

    jim Guest

    jim, May 20, 2008
  4. 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, May 20, 2008
  5. jim

    jim Guest

    That's what the links were for. Follow them.
    You can lead a man to truth. You cannot make him believe.

    jim, May 20, 2008
  6. jim

    Dave Guest

    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
    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 :
    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.
    Dave, May 20, 2008
  7. jim

    John Waller Guest

    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

    "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
    John Waller, May 20, 2008
  8. jim

    Mark H Guest

    Hmmm.... let's see...

    37% better than XP...
    That means it is more secure than the most widely used home OS ever

    More susceptible than W2K...
    It's more susceptible than my Tandy 1000 also which cannot run anything
    anymore, much less connect to the internet.
    But, then W2K is still used by most businesses, not home users and the
    additional layers of protection provided by the company may get confused
    with the OS.
    Mark H, May 20, 2008
  9. jim

    dennis@home Guest

    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.
    This is true and I don't suppose you do.
    dennis@home, May 20, 2008

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

    Mike Hall - MVP
    How to construct a good post..
    How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
    Mike's Window - My Blog..
    Mike Hall - MVP, May 20, 2008
  11. Let's see PCTOOLS does what? They sell protection software. I wonder
    if they might have a vested interest in those numbers?
    Joseph Meehan, May 20, 2008
  12. jim

    jim Guest

    Just an FYI : Those numbers happen to be from the tool that they give away
    for FREE - Threatfire.

    jim, May 20, 2008
  13. Well duh... there's a lot of crap in this newsgroup. Much of it comes
    from idiots like Frank, Bill, Spankdemonkey and assorted fanboys that
    don't know any better.
    There is NOTHING not factual about the above statements.

    Now contrast that will the deliberate lie often repeated here that UAC
    protects you. It does no such thing. UAC's purpose to is NAG you that
    you're about to do something that MAY be harmful. The vast majority of
    the time the warning is completely bogus, unfounded and quickly gets
    highly annoying since UAC is too stupid to learn from it's experience
    thus it will repeatedly nag about the same things over and over
    totally defeating the intended purpose to educate users. The reason
    why that is true is the cry wolf scenario. When somebody first screams
    wolf, the warning gets it's due attention. However when the same
    person repeatedly screams wolf he gets less and less attention and
    soon is ignored. That is what has happened to UAC. Most of the time
    it's nag warnings are without merit, so nobody pays attention.

    Soon most either turn off UAC or simply click through the warnings
    without paying the slightest attention to them. Either way, Microsoft
    totally failed in it's implementation of so-called User Account
    Control because most view UAC as a nag, an annoyance and just another
    poorly thought out Microsoft boondoggle that makes Vista more sluggish
    and interferes with how YOU the user controls HIS computer.

    Somewhere in the recent past Microsoft adopted the foolish notion that
    it, not you should control your computer. The implemention of UAC,
    file permissions and the concept of ownership is another step closer
    towards Big Brother taking even full control of what is YOUR computer.
    Obviously Microsoft will run into severe resistance from such a
    bone-headed, poorly thought out decision. My computers are MY
    computers, I paid for them, I own them. Clearly any thinking person
    agrees, only dolts and fools would willing give control of their
    computers to Microsoft to let them do as they wish with them. So far,
    thankfully you still can take control. The question is what about
    Adam Albright, May 20, 2008
  14. jim

    C.B. Guest

    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., May 20, 2008
  15. Hmm... let's see here. Any properly protected system can be kept clean
    of spyware. I have had my installation running for a year and have had
    only one instance of spyware. That instance was my fault and went
    undetected by all anti-spyware except for my own eye. I have 2 years
    experience cleaning spyware off of computers and know most if not all of
    the tricks they try to get it in the computer and stay hidden. Alot of
    the newer ones are very hard to detect.

    P.S. - The last one I did loaded in as a non plug and play driver. I'd
    like to see anti-spyware remove that one. I did it by hand.

    Robert Pendell

    "A perfect world is one of chaos."

    Thawte Web of Trust Notary
    CAcert Assurer
    Robert Pendell, May 20, 2008
  16. <snipped>
    Entire FUD here:
    ( What's FUD? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt )


    Seriously - look at what you just said and what you said it in response to.
    Let's analyze it...

    You seem to be saying that since they give away a version of their software
    for free, the point that they also sell protection software for computers is
    null and void and thus they have no vested interest in saying that one OS or
    another is vulnerable to attack... And strangely - the latest version of the
    OS, the one that is spreading in the consumer market quickly and will be
    around for quite a while - is mentioned as the weakest. They won't benefit
    at all from supposedly pointing out the fact that an OS is vulnerable - but
    not so much if you use their product.

    Picture it from their point of view... Free or not - they gain market
    share. The more people see it - the more people start to believe they may
    need something the 'for pay' version has. "$30? *shrug* No biggie - my
    pictures and music and contacts and documents are worth that..." starts to
    be heard echoing through the masses. 1 million sales at $30/sale - nice
    tidy sum in short order. ;-)

    While their product may be a fine one (don't know - have had no need to try
    it - other free products have filled the gap prior quite nicely) - you
    cannot deny that a company that sells (or even gives away) a product that
    solves a problem would not benefit from making the problem seem larger than
    it may actually be...

    - PCTools sells protection software.
    - They have a free version of a malware software available.
    - They also sell a version of said software.
    - Computers connected to the Internet are more vulnerable in general.
    - Most percentages/statistics are made up to benefit those making up the
    numbers. When confronted, it is usually difficult for those who made up the
    numbers to present concrete facts backing them up and usually easy for
    someone else to bend/make up numbers of their own to the contrary. This is
    especially true when dealing with things that are difficult to quantify
    because of the lack of reliable numbers (like the security of an OS versus
    an older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSes are and what other
    protections may already be in place that prevent the supposed issues from
    ever even reaching the OS...)

    It's very interesting to see where all you posted this:
    .... as well as what type of postings you seem to propogate.
    Shenan Stanley, May 20, 2008
  17. jim

    Dave Guest

    Can you give us some examples of these very hard to detect spyware ?
    Where would I go to find them ?
    Please post the urls here, I 'd like to checkout my security settings.
    Thanks very much.
    Dave, May 20, 2008
  18. You want someone to post URLs to places to get infested from? No...?

    Vundo sucks - hunt that one down.

    I have found - while cleaning up machines - you have better luck cleaning
    them with tools like SuperAntiSpyware, Spybot Search and Destroy, SmitFraud,
    MultiAV, etc *if* you do it in Safe Mode. This prevented them from loading
    at startup and the deletion of the registry keys and dlss and registry files
    it applies doesn't happen - allowing the tools to do their work.
    Shenan Stanley, May 20, 2008
  19. jim

    jim Guest

    Of course they have something to gain. But, in reality, MANY more people
    use their free software than buy any of their tools. It is this way with
    AVG and other vendors who give out free, diminished feature versions of
    their software.
    Actually that isn't true. XP proved to be the weakest. Vista was approx
    37% better than XP in the area of security according to the published tests.
    I tried Threatfire. But, like Vistas UAC, it blocked too much and was a
    general hinderance to my PC use.....so I dumped it.
    If only it were that easy.....
    Sure they could. But, in today's connected IT world, they would soon be
    outed as not really knowing what they were doing or being outright
    dishonest. I suspect the resulting negative press would do more harm than
    good. I also suspect that they know that.
    We'll see. I'm sure somebody else will call them on this if they cannot
    produce satisfactory data to back their claims.
    I tend to post articles where they will be acted upon by the most people.

    As for the list of all of those articles in your link, the "Post Activity"
    portion is bogus data. I am certainly not the author of all of those posts.

    Perhaps you (and Google) should do a little digging into how newsgroups work
    and the fact that not all users are the same person.

    Then again, an MS-MVPs would have more to gain by shooting the messenger of
    this topic than by discussing it rationally, wouldn't they?

    jim, May 20, 2008
  20. jim wrote:
    Let me address this seperately...

    I do not care if Microsoft survives as a business past this second. They
    could fade into oblivion for all I care. was granted the award because I
    happen to help people in a Microsoft newsgroup. There is nothing nefarious
    behind it nor does it keep me from saying anything I desire. Microsoft
    sucks in a lot of things they do - and I express this whenever I feel the

    I thought I discussed things quite rationally. I would be interested in you
    pointing out where my point-counterpoint approach was irrational if you feel
    that way.
    Shenan Stanley, May 20, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.