I dont have anything I can refer to in terms of statistics, but in my support and personal use of XP and Vista; Vista has hands-down had less intrusions on systems of people that visit less than scrupulous sites. I see people visit the same sites. I see the XP system infected, but the Vista system not. I make comparisons. and I judge Vista the winner. And, NOD32 and Malwarebytes couldn't help the situation.
I'm not going to try and say I'm a security expert here, because I'm not. But I can tell you that in my real-life experiences, and in personal isolated comparison testing: Vista was more resistant to Internet-based attacks - which is my main area of concern due to a lack of control on the foreign end. Again, in my experiences, these exploits usually come via rogue advertising content. "Significantly more secure" or not, I still find it a more secure solution - and I would not intentionally choose a less-secure option. -- ME2 On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Ben Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Even with the Vista faux pas' (which can clearly be mitigated with > > well-published know-how), XP is not what I would consider a "secure > > solution". > > I haven't really seen anything that makes me believe Vista is > significantly more secure than XP in a properly managed environment. > Maybe "out of the box" Vista is more secure. (I'm not even sure about > that, but I don't have sufficient data.) But if you've got things > locked down the way you should on XP, it doesn't seem like Vista's > much different to me, in terms of real-world better security. > > I suppose if you've got an application that absolutely will not run > without more access than it really needs, FRV means the overall system > will be more secure. So it that's what you mean, I'll give you that. > > I find the feature where Vista will prompt for admin credentials > (username/password) when it needs them, rather than requiring me to > invoke RUNAS ahead of time, is a significant convenience, which is > good, but I wouldn't call that the difference between a "secure > solution" and a non-secure one. > > -- Ben > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
