Microsoft Says Vista More Secure Than XP, OSX and Linux

[hhhhhx]

microsoft, youve done it again ;)

http://gizmodo.com/348437/microsoft-says-vista-more-secure-than-xp-osx-and-linux

[bufsabre666]

no need to write viruses for something that crashes on its own

[insane_alien]

its only basing it on security updates. opensource gets updated more frequently, linux contains more bits of software as well and only reported updates are counted.

just because the rusty bucket has had a few patches welded on doesn't mean it's stopped leaking.

[Lord Illidan]

Indeed, this does look rather silly
Given that Linux is opensource, one would expect that a large number of bugs are discovered..however, what's important is how quickly they're fixed. This makes Ubuntu look quite good, imho.

[fatality_uk]

Not forgetting that some things like buffer overflows may well get left until Vista SP1. The HUGE gapping holes I guess they fix quick. The things that user wont "notice", will be in SP1/2. Any bets on how big THAT'S gonna be :lol:

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I find it funny how that same graph gives nearly opposite results for which systems have not fixed vulnerabilities. Ubuntu wins by a significant margin not just on percentage, but also for having fewer unfixed vulnerabilities in total. XP and Vista seem to be sharing last place.
Thanks, Microsoft!

I say we take this same graph, change the colours so green is more noticed as a bad thing (make it red, for example), then put it as positive information on the Ubuntu.com "Case Studies" section. Here is proof from the biggest company in the industry that Ubuntu does the best job of fixing vulnerabilities.

I also find it entertaining how much Microsoft loves to attack Red Hat Enterprise Linux. (Granted, even RHEL is looking good compared to XP. Seems to have a slightly smaller green bar than Vista, even...). Just about every statistic they release strangely contains a section on RHEL that makes it sound like utter garbage.
It makes me wonder... why did Microsoft take them so seriously when they tried to buy their soul?

[warrior24]

I believe when they did the study the counted all the packages that come with Ubuntu not just the basic stuff. And with windows since it does not come with anything but it self it had less. dam micshit

[p_quarles]

I also find it entertaining how much Microsoft loves to attack Red Hat Enterprise Linux. (Granted, even RHEL is looking good compared to XP. Seems to have a slightly smaller green bar than Vista, even...). Just about every statistic they release strangely contains a section on RHEL that makes it sound like utter garbage.
It makes me wonder... why did Microsoft take them so seriously when they tried to buy their soul?
Well, Sun is on a permanent rollercoaster ride, SCO is out of the picture, and Novell has agreed to play nice. That leaves Red Hat as pretty much the major threat to parts of the market that Microsoft currently dominates.

And of course, I agree with what everyone else said: measuring the security of an OS by the number of reported vulnerabilities is the very definition of security-by-obscurity.

[Dngrsone]

I like the "currently unfixed" vulnerabilities part... which orifice did they pull that number out from and when do they plan on actually fixing them, I wonder.

I agree, though, that it's pretty durn difficult to hack into and exploit an OS that crashes on its own to often to get anything done.

[swoll1980]

If you installed vista and LTS on a computer right now and installed the updates LTS would have less security vulnerabilities. So what is the argument here that Vista use to be more secure? Come MS get real!!

[Andrewie]

I find it funny how that same graph gives nearly opposite results for which systems have not fixed vulnerabilities. Ubuntu wins by a significant margin not just on percentage, but also for having fewer unfixed vulnerabilities in total. XP and Vista seem to be sharing last place.
Thanks, Microsoft!

I say we take this same graph, change the colours so green is more noticed as a bad thing (make it red, for example), then put it as positive information on the Ubuntu.com "Case Studies" section. Here is proof from the biggest company in the industry that Ubuntu does the best job of fixing vulnerabilities.

I also find it entertaining how much Microsoft loves to attack Red Hat Enterprise Linux. (Granted, even RHEL is looking good compared to XP. Seems to have a slightly smaller green bar than Vista, even...). Just about every statistic they release strangely contains a section on RHEL that makes it sound like utter garbage.
It makes me wonder... why did Microsoft take them so seriously when they tried to buy their soul?

Red Hat is one of Microsoft's biggest competitors

[Darkhack]

It's a bit of a stretch to say it's more secure than Linux, but Vista, for all its flaws, is more secure than its predecessor. Despite all the bloat and driver issues, security was a top focus for Vista and if you watch any of the Channel 9 videos, they explain all the different exploits which are no longer present in Vista. And when I say that I don't mean individual holes, I mean complete architectural changes that make the design inherently more secure.

I wouldn't say Microsoft is down for the count yet. Most of their problems lie in wanting to maintain backwards compatibility. I think if they were allowed to start fresh, they could create software just as good as anyone else. Microsoft Office and Visual Studio are both wonderful programs. I really think Microsoft has learned from Vista and I expect better quality out of MS in the future.

[karellen]

what would you expect Microsoft to say? what would you expect any commercial company to say? that its product is worse than the one of the competition?...

[Midwest-Linux]

Sounds like damage control.

[cprofitt]

I don't think that Open Source would equate to more bugs found vs. non-open source.

OS X is not open source... and it had a lot of bugs.

I do think that the installed base of an OS makes a difference as researchers will likel focus on a more installed OS rather than a less installed.

I don't want to put credence in what MS has said, but I likewise do not want to dismiss it as hogwash without really looking at the facts. Ad-hominem attacks just don't cut it in reality.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

...Oops :P

[andrewjoy]

What next will they say ME was more stable than OS9 ?

[snakeeyes]

I don't know whether Vista has had fewer security holes than Linux or not, but on my family's Vista machine they have not got any virus, spyware, trojan or anything since they upgraded to Vista. User account control and all those features for added security have really improved Vista a lot.

In Microsoft's security records I would say Vista really is an improvement. Plus on their pc I have never seen Vista take more than 700 mb of ram or 750 mb maximum.

[Dngrsone]

My wife's Vista machine crashes more than all the other half-dozen computers in my house combined...

In fact, I'm trying to ditch it and get something else on it, like Ubuntu.

[jrusso2]

Microsoft can say what they want but you just have to look around to see thats not right.

Vista users are still plagued by all manner of virus, spyware and adware and they still have to rely on constant updates to numerous protective programs.

I don't see those problems in Linux.