Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Preston Gralla's picture
Preston Gralla

Seeing Through Windows

Microsoft: XP is far more vulnerable than Vista, Windows 7

Microsoft has released data from one week of people using  Microsoft Security Essentials anti-malware, and the results are clear: XP machines are far more vulnerable than Vista PCs, and Vista PCs are more vulnerable than those with Windows 7. And Brazil, for unknown reasons, is a hotbed for worms.

In the first week after the release of Microsoft Security Essentials, Microsoft says, the software was downloaded 1.5 million times. The software detected nearly four million security problems on 535,752 different PCs.

According to the company, there were far more problems detected on Windows XP machines than on Vista or Windows 7. You can see the results below.

Microsoft said this is in keeping with the general trend that less malware is found on newer operating systems and service packs.

Some of the more interesting findings come from an analysis of threats by country. In the U.S. Trojans are the most-common malware, while in Brazil it's worms, notably Conficker and Taterf.

For more information, check out the findings from the Microsoft Malware Protection Center.

What People Are Saying

Pie chart above means

Pie chart above means nothing. Windows 7 was only just released for real world users.

Check this:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/windows7

So Windows 7 is yet another piece of eye candy.
My Unix based Mac Leopard OS performs without Anti virus software supremely well.
My Windows XP OS system (gaming rig) currently works as a doorstop.
When will the anti Mac gang get it?
It’s not a question of which is a better, PC or Mac?
It’s a question of which OS is more reliable and productive, Windows or OSX?
No wonder thousands of users of moving to the Apple system……

Interesting data

While some will no doubt argue that this Microsoft-gathered data simply serves the company's interest in organizations upgrading to Vista or Windows 7, it echoes countless other reports that XP is just not as secure as the newer versions of Windows.

Organizations need to realize that keeping XP means throwing good money after bad: fighting and dealing with security issues.

Who cares about Microsoft

Who cares about Microsoft security? That is why we have third party products. Microsoft has totally worthless. Bad security and Microsoft are Synonyms!
That is why we have third party products. I would never trust 7's security. 25 years of flaws should have taught all of us that.

Anti-MS Bigots Always See What They Want to See

If you read the study parameters you will see that the rates are per machine, so market share of the various Windows versions is irrelevant. Vista and Windows 7 are far far more secure than XP, and than Linux and Mac OSX. I know this statement negates the anti-MS religion's very foundation, but it is true (check CERT). If you want the most secure OS available, run either Vista, Windows 7, or Windows 2008/R2.

Widows 7 - Russian Roulette or Just Cursed?

Why didn't you have one compelling reason why you even need to replace your operating system?

Them Microsoft fanboys always "pushing" software even when blinded by their own brainwashing propaganda!

Nobody thinks Vista was better!

Nobody wants Widows 7, either! Because it offers no advantage or benefit worth giving your hard earn money!

Oh, Linux is FREE, I'm NOT broke as you can tell i got time to waste here, writing back! For you "Widows 7" lovers, enjoy the crack of the whipm back to work for you!

Life is better with Linux, NOT Widows 7!

the most secure OS available ... Vista, Windows 7 ...

By default? Or hardened? 32-bit or 64-bit? With or without 3rd party security software?

32-bit Defaults:
o administrator account with User Account Control (UAC)
o IE protected mode
o Windows Firewall
o Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR)
o Data Execution Prevention (DEP) enabled for Windows programs
o Microsoft AntiSpyware real-time protection

64-bit Defaults:
o same as 32-bit
o PatchGuard

Hardening?
o setting UAC protection to maximum (Windows 7)
o creating a *real* standard user account and running in the standard user account for day-to-day use
o enabling application whitelisting in folders C:\Windows and C:\Program Files with Software Restriction Policy (SRP) via gpedit.msc or Parental Controls
o enabling DEP for ALL programs

3rd party security software:
o Anti-virus/Anti-spyware

For reference, the author of the Blue Pill runs Vista 64-bit from a *real* standard user account. Here's more:
http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2007/02/running-vista-every-day.html

What if one is running 3rd party software that requires administrator privileges to run? Do all your family members run from an Admin account? Or do they run from standard user accounts and enter the Admin password to run this 3rd party application?

From that pie Win7 seems

From that pie Win7 seems pretty vulnerable, for sure we will see confiker-to-the-100 kind of virii targeting the new OS. I'll keep my XP as it has lot of AV support and already known pests.

I'd like to see a pie comparing Win, Linux and MacOS.

Misusing statistics

The pie chart could represent market share although Windows 7 seems a litle high for a just release OS, which would indicated that Windows 7 was less secure or that peopel with infections upgraded thinking it would solve their comptuer's problems.

In other words, the article doesn't provide enough evidence to prove its case.

Time to catch up!

I'm sure as more and more cracked and broken copies of Vista and Seven hit the P2P and warez nets and saturate Asia and South America, they'll catch up and surpass XP.

UAC and x64 Patch Guard = Good Things

People love to whine about Vista's UAC, but it's a Good Thing that keeps your system more secure; even if it is a tad intrusive.

x64 Patch Guard is also a Good Thing that improves security.

And IE8 includes a number of nice security features.