Windows Vista less secure than expected?

Posted on Tuesday, May 27 2008 @ 01:20 CEST by Thomas De Maesschalck
ComputerWorld writes an analysis from ThreatFire indicated 27 percent of all Windows Vista systems probed had at least one piece of malware:
According to analysis from the Australian company's ThreatFire user base, 58,000 PCs running Vista were compromised by at least one piece of malware over the six months to May 2008, equivalent to 27 percent of all Vista machines probed. Vista made up 12.6 percent, or 190,692, of the 1,513,502 machines running Windows in the user base.

In total, Vista suffered 121,380 instances of malware from its 190,000 user base, a rate of malware detection per system is proportionally lower than that of XP, which saw 1,319,144 malware infections from a user base of 1,297,828 machines, but it indicates a problem that is worse than Microsoft has been admitting to.

Only a week ago, PC Tools revealed that Vista was as likely to be hit with software vulnerabilities as Windows 2000, a claim that was denied by a Microsoft staffer in a blog.

About the Author

Thomas De Maesschalck

Thomas has been messing with computer since early childhood and firmly believes the Internet is the best thing since sliced bread. Enjoys playing with new tech, is fascinated by science, and passionate about financial markets. When not behind a computer, he can be found with running shoes on or lifting heavy weights in the weight room.

Loading Comments

Use Disqus to post new comments, the old comments are listed below.

Re: Windows Vista less secure than expected?
by Anonymous on Tuesday, May 27 2008 @ 05:31 CEST
Vista 32 only - they don't feel that little tidbit is worthy of detailing in this "marketing" press release...

64 bit Vista is the one that is lock tight. 32 bit is less airtight but more compatible. These aren't inside secrets, but things that have been known since, or even before, Vista's release.

So don't make too much of this little stunt by Threatfire.