It says 'vulnerable to malware'. Here are the stats from PC Tools in the article:
"According to statistics gathered from users of PC Tools' ThreatFire security service, Vista let 639 threats per thousand computers through, compared with 586 for Windows 2000, 478 for Windows 2003, and 1,021 for Windows XP. " So XP systems have more malware on them than Vista according to PC Tools. I think it's just a common issue of a correllation vs. causal. Perhaps folks running 2K these days are better at protecting their systems? Or Vista is generally used by folks with new computers who may also be new to learning how to avoid malware or downloading special codecs for their new 'puters. -John On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Alex Eckelberry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm still trying to get my mind around this one. Is this a confusion > between malware and vulnerabilities? > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle > .jhtml?articleID=207601217 > > Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s Vista operating system is more susceptible to > malware than Windows 2000, and though it's 37% more secure than Windows > XP, it's still too vulnerable. > > Alex > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. > _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
