The British publisher of PC Tools antivirus has identified more threats on PCs running Vista with Windows 2000. The effectiveness of Window Vista is again being questioned, this time by the British publisher PC Tools. He has published the results of a study, saying that the latest Microsoft OS is less secure than Windows 2000. His analysis is based on figures collected over the last six months (since November 2007) from users of its software Threat Fire behavioral detection of threats. It appears that this time, Vista has been the target of 639 different threats, against 586 for Windows 2000.
"Microsoft introduced its latest OS as the version of Windows the most secure. "Yet, recent studies with statistics on 1.4 million computers with Threat Fire show that Vista is more susceptible to malware than Windows 2000, eight years, and only 37% more secure than Windows XP . "
An analysis that Microsoft has reacted, replying that the OS is not the only fault. He said that in many cases, users run necessarily at a given moment of harmful code on their machine, sometimes by lack of knowledge. "The amount of virus infections found by an antivirus publisher does not necessarily mean a poor safety. "
"The results published in the April 2008 edition, Security Intelligence Report show that Windows Vista is significantly less susceptible to malware than older operating system. To support its claims, PC Tools has released more accurate figures. 190 on 692 machines running Vista, 121 380 were infected by at least one type of harmful software and some up to 19 were identified, 74% were software cookies advertising (adware), and 17% of the Trojans.
"All systems used in the study using Threat Fire. As this technology examines the behavior, the data refers to threats that have alerted our detection tool because they had been executed on the client. Our data show that MSRT is not a complete anti-virus, but a tool to remove a certain type of harmful programs. "