<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista. in Security</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20457322</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:48:55 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:48:55 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469039</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  bcastner <A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br> <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>Realize that by the time MSRT gets released, downloaded, and run; any anti-malware already running on PCs has very likely done its clean-up work, thus there is little for MSRT to find.<hr></blockquote></div>No where in that did I say people should stop running MSRT.  If you chose to read it as such, that is your problem.  The point was relying on statistical information from MSRT for the amount of malware infesting or that could possibly infect a PC was not reliable because anti-malware running on those PCs would block or remove most of the malware before MSRT would see it.<br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  bcastner <A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>You will be unable to find a single statement by me that the MSRT is "the definitive measurement standard" for malware.</div>Your prior post <A HREF="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20460461-">here</a> dismissing the results of Threatfire in lieu of MSRT sure alludes to the idea that one should accept MSRT numbers over the results from the Threatfire study.<br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469039</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 10:24:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468807</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><b>bcastner</b></A> :  <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>Show me where I said MSRT was unnecessary and that people should stop running MSRT.<hr></blockquote><br><br>Sure.<br> <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>Realize that by the time MSRT gets released, downloaded, and run; any anti-malware already running on PCs has very likely done its clean-up work, thus there is little for MSRT to find.<hr></blockquote><br><br>You will be unable to find a single statement by me that the MSRT is "the definitive measurement standard" for malware.<br><br>Stop lying.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468807</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 09:29:55 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468731</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  bcastner <A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>The original case you attempted to make:  that there was no reason for the MSRT as the antivirus used by folks made it unnecessary. This is still an absolutely untrue statement.<br></div>I never tried to make that case.  Show me where I said MSRT was unnecessary and that people should stop running MSRT.<br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  bcastner <A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>... your bashing of the MSRT  just ignorant.</div>What is ignorant is your stance that MSRT was the definitive measurement standard for malware on PCs, in spite of you knowing that <i>MSRT is not a comprehensive malware scanner</i>.<br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468731</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 08:59:38 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468702</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/566298"><b>PeteC2</b></A> : Oh cripes!  Do folks ever look at the source of some of this stuff, and at least pause to question if that there just <i>might</i> be some self-serving interest there?<br><br>I mean, it takes a quick glance to have this grab your attention: <i>"That's the contention of security vendor PC Tools Software, which has a financial interest in the vulnerability of Microsoft's software."</i><br><br>Gee-whiz...a <i>provider of security software</i> claims that the latest, most likely to be purchased, PC OS is "security threatened"...one would suspect in concluding that <i>their</i> products and services are therefore more relevant than ever...<br><br>Well, that does not mean that it can not be true, but to me?  Well, there is an old saying, and it did not get that way for no reason <i>"To a hammer, everything looks like a nail"</i>...to paraphrase: <i>"To a software security business, all OS's are virus-ridden"</i> <br><small>--<br>...something is happening here but you don't know what it is...do you, Mr. Jones?</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468702</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 08:50:24 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468625</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><b>bcastner</b></A> : You really are solidly in fanbois stuff now.<br><br>Nobody claimed that the Microsoft statistics were an enumeration  of all malware found.  Only an enumeration of what the MSRT found.<br><br>The original case you attempted to make:  that there was no reason for the MSRT as the antivirus used by folks made it unnecessary. This is still an absolutely untrue statement.<br><br>It is perfectly possible to defend the use of ThreatFire, or other tools, without the bashing of the MSRT. The ThreatFire study is just silly; your bashing of the MSRT  just ignorant.<br> <br><small>--<br><b>============</b><br><b>MS-MVP 2004 - -2008, ASAP Member</b><br><b><i>Users Helping Users</i></b><br><br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468625</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 08:22:10 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468145</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Link Logger <A HREF="/useremail/u/356416"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Pretty useless stat then as no one knows what it means, how convenient, a prime example of lies, dam lies and statistics.</div>I think its worth bearing in mind, the writer of the article appears to be the one who came up with the stat.  <i>At least the stat does not appear to be a quote.</i>  Which in fairness, should not be used to singular dismiss the results from PC-Tools' Threatfire testing.  There are other articles/writers that have reported on the subject.<br> <br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468145</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 02:07:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468031</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/356416"><b>Link Logger</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  astirusty <A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>The article said "should have" not that they actually were.  As for the numbers, you could also look at them and say only one of out those thousand PCs got infected 639 times or three out of the thousand got infected 213 times or ---- . This concept is mentioned in another article on the results: <i>It's worth bearing in mind that PCs infected with malware are likely to harbour multiple infections, so PC Tools' stats don't shed much light on the percentage of infected machines.</div>Pretty useless stat then as no one knows what it means, how convenient, a prime example of lies, dam lies and statistics.<br><br>I'd be a lot more convinced of the validity of this study if they were to include what types of behaviors they saw and perhaps a possible link to an infection or infection vector, but since they don't all you have to go on is some fluffy no meaning statement of statistics, which have no backup data to indicate what they mean or how they were derived (for example does it report file shares or USB drives as an attack when they are intentional and desired by the user with a trusted device?).<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/" >www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/</A><br><br>So has anyone tried Threatfire and if so what is your feedback as I've seen mixed reviews even on DSLRreports &raquo;<A HREF="/forum/r20430167-Anybody-using-Threatfire">Anybody using Threatfire?</A> for example.<br><br>Blake<br><small>--<br>Vendor: Author of <A HREF="http://www.linklogger.com">Link Logger</a> which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20468031</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 01:17:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20467979</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  bcastner <A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>The MSRT is not a comprehensive malware scanner.  It has a limited set of issues on which it focuses.  </div>Which means, the data on the amount of malware found on PCs by MS's MSRT is not accurately reflecting the amount of malware infecting PCs or having the potential to infect PCs.  <br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  bcastner <A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>The only possible valid claim you could make out of your supposition, would be that you could show specific examples of malware infectors claimed by the MSRT to be in its removal list, but subsequently found by ThreatFire</div>I disagree with your statement because your premise is that only MS can define what malware is via MSRT and you have already said "<i>MSRT is not a comprehensive malware scanner</i>".<br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20467979</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 00:55:19 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20467646</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><b>bcastner</b></A> : I agree, you are seriously misinformed.<br><br>The MSRT is not a comprehensive malware scanner.  It has a limited set of issues on which it focuses.  The issues that are  included are based on what Microsoft has seen from its antivirus clients (notably Forefront and OneCare), the Windows Defender participating community, and inter-industry discussions. <br><br>ThreatFire promises to be comprehensive.  And perhaps it is, I honestly do not know.  The only possible valid claim you could make out of your supposition, would be that you could show specific examples of malware infectors claimed by the MSRT to be in its removal list, but subsequently found by ThreatFire -- with the machine completely disconnected from the Internet between the two program runs.  I did not get the sense that this was a testing scenario in the study that is the topic of this thread.<br><br> <br><small>--<br><b>============</b><br><b>MS-MVP 2004 - -2008, ASAP Member</b><br><b><i>Users Helping Users</i></b><br><br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20467646</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 23:04:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20466159</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  bcastner <A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br> It finds tons.<br>...<br>You are seriously misinformed about the MSRT.<br> </div>If MSRT works as good as your making it out too and I am so seriously misinformed; then how do you explain "Threatfire" seeing the amount malware it did?   <br><i>Put another way if MSRT was finding and removing "tons" of malware first, then Threatfire should be seeing only a few "pounds" trickling through.</i><br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20466159</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 16:40:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20465694</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><b>bcastner</b></A> :  <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>Realize that by the time MSRT gets released, downloaded, and run; any anti-malware already running on PCs has very likely done its clean-up work, thus there is little for MSRT to find.<hr></blockquote><br><br>It finds tons.<br>It was, for example, singularly given credit for the defeat of a major BOT network recently by even its heaviest critics.<br><br>You are seriously misinformed about the MSRT.<br><small>--<br><b>============</b><br><b>MS-MVP 2004 - -2008, ASAP Member</b><br><b><i>Users Helping Users</i></b><br><br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20465694</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 14:43:51 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20465189</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Link Logger <A HREF="/useremail/u/356416"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>OK what kind of glue are these guys on? '64% of Vista users should have compromised machines', does anyone really believe that?<br></div>  The article said "should have" not that they actually were.  As for the numbers, you could also look at them and say only one of out those thousand PCs got infected 639 times or three out of the thousand got infected 213 times or ---- . This concept is mentioned in another article on the results: <i>It's worth bearing in mind that PCs infected with malware are likely to harbour multiple infections, so PC Tools' stats don't shed much light on the percentage of infected machines.</i> Link: &raquo;<A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/09/win_malware_survey/" >www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/09&middot;&middot;&middot;_survey/</A><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  Link Logger <A HREF="/useremail/u/356416"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>I guess if your trying to pedal FUD to sell your AV product then go for the big FUD ...</div>As for big FUD, not much different than MS's spin-control with their response on the percentages MSRT found.  Why do I say spin-control?  Realize that by the time MSRT gets released, downloaded, and run; any anti-malware already running on PCs has very likely done its clean-up work, thus there is little for MSRT to find.<br>Knowing everyone here LOVES car analogies.   ;)<br><i>Its like saying that a 72 car pile-up must have only involved 7 cars based upon viewing the accident scene 12 hours after wreckers have already hauled off 65 cars.</i><br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20465189</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 12:16:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20464083</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/356416"><b>Link Logger</b></A> : From the posted article:<br><br>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. <br><br>ThreatFire is an anti-malware system that tries to block malicious software based on its behavior rather than by signature matching. <br><br>Given an infection rate of 639 per 1,000 PCs, almost 64% of Vista users should have compromised machines. <br><br>OK what kind of glue are these guys on?  '64% of Vista users should have compromised machines', does anyone really believe that?  I guess if your trying to pedal FUD to sell your AV product then go for the big FUD or something as these guys are saying like 50% of all computers world wide are infected, I find that really really hard to believe, but I guess I'm not keeping up on my drugs or something.<br><br>OK so lets consider the size of some of the recently reported bot nets (Joe Stewart, director of malware research in &raquo;<A HREF="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9076278):" >www.computerworld.com/action/art&middot;&middot;&middot;076278):</A><br><br>1 Srizbi 315,000<br>2 Bobax 185,000<br>3 Rustock 150,000<br>4 Cutwail 125,000<br>5 Storm 85,000<br>6 Grum 50,000<br>7 Onewordsub 40,000<br>8 Ozdok 35,000<br>9 Nucrypt 20,000<br>10 Wopla 20,000<br>11 Spamthru 12,000<br><br>which is 1,037,000 machines, now given there are almost a billion computers on the internet lets be generous and say 14% are Apple and 7% are Linux so 79% of computers are running Windows, so if the top 11 bots only add up to 0.13% of computers are infected with Bots, but yet these guys are claiming like a 50% infection rate, so perhaps we should start ignoring bots and look for this uber nasty infection that these dudes are talking about and no one else has seen, or get the glue. I'm betting its the glue as these numbers are so far whacked its just goofy.<br><br>Blake<br><small>--<br>Vendor: Author of <A HREF="http://www.linklogger.com">Link Logger</a> which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20464083</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 02:08:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20463757</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/162762"><b>djrobx</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Its a Secret <A HREF="/useremail/u/1531837"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Perhaps it all comes down to the fact Win 2000 wasn't as popular as 95, 98, etc. In my mind, it was more of a 'geek' OS than the others, more functional and not as 'pretty'. But I may be wrong...<br> </div>I think you've got it exactly right.  General end users (the biggest group of malware magnets) mostly moved from 98SE/ME to XP.  2000 "Professional", as the name implies, was more of a business OS, which, if still in use, is more likely to be secured by policy/environment. <br><br> <br><small>--<br>Laser eye surgery rocks!  I love frickin' laser beams.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20463757</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 00:00:46 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: MSFT ruled a monopoly</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20462511</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/634007"><b>SUMware</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  astirusty <A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>    :</small><br><br>Oh man are you in it now! <br><i>Did you not read the EULA that came with the check?</i>   <br>:p</div>Oh yeah. Wanna read it? This is the complete and actual text (it took a long time to type it accurately) -<br><br>"<small>By cashing this check, I agree to the following release: On behalf of myself and those I represent, I agree to fully, finally and forever settle and release all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of action against Microsoft and/or its directors, officers, employees, attorneys, insurers or agents, whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, that any member of the --- Settlement Class ever had, could have had, now has or hereafter can, shall or may have, relating in any way to: any conduct, act or omission that was or could have been alleged in this case as the basis for any antitrust or unfair competition claims; or the purchase, use and/or acquisition of a license for a Microsoft Operating System and/or Microsoft Application and arising under or related to laws concerning or related to antitrust (including without limitation, the Sherman Antitrust Act), unfair competition, unfair practices, consumer protection, price discrimination, unconscionable or unfair pricing, trade regulation, trade practices, the Uniform Commercial Code, [<i>state statutes</i>]; or other federal or state law, regulation, or common law similar or analogous to any of the above; or special and general damages (including treble damages), costs or attorney's fees; or prejudgement or post-judgement interest.<br><br>The claims described above will be released as to the following Released Parties: Microsoft Corporation, and its current and former officers, directors, employees, attorneys, agents and insurers. Also included are any and all predecessors or successors, and/or shareholders of Microsoft and each of its subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions: provided, however, that any such person or entity shall be considered a Released Party only to the extent that such person or entity is sued in its capacity as a predecessor, successor, and/or shareholder of Microsoft or its subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions.<br><br>You may not sue any Released party for any Settled Claim in the future.</small>"<br><br>To my relief, no mention of <i>first born children</i>.<br>Unless I missed it...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20462511</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 18:06:30 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: MSFT ruled a monopoly</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20462377</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  SUMware <A HREF="/useremail/u/634007"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Microsoft lost the suits and paid out. And their check cleared!</div>Oh man are you in it now! <br><i>Did you not read the EULA that came with the check?</i>   <br>:p<br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20462377</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 17:28:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20462212</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1491176"><b>zed260</b></A> : windows 2000 was never as big an attack vector as vista or xp<br><br>win2k only had at most maybe 10 percent of the os marketshare and back then there were far fewer hackers and stuff<br><br>and how many service packs and secuity updates have been applied to windows 2000 at least 4 service packs and many secuity updates a lot of the bugs would have been fixed by now<br><br>in  comparison xp has had three service packs and vista only 1 so they have had less time to iron out secuity bugs]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20462212</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 16:42:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>MSFT ruled a monopoly</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20462094</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/634007"><b>SUMware</b></A> : From CNN:<br><A HREF="http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/05/technology/microsoft_finding/">MSFT ruled a monopoly</a><br>November 5, 1999 -  <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>A federal judge declared Friday that Microsoft Corp. possesses monopoly power in the market for PC operating systems and harmed consumers through its anti-competitive behavior, giving the government a pivotal victory in the long-running antitrust trial.<br><br>The findings represent a major setback to Microsoft, largely because U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson rejected the company's defense that its actions have not harmed consumers.<br><br>In his findings of fact, Jackson said Microsoft (MSFT), which holds more than 90 percent of the market share for PC operating systems, caused "consumer harm by distorting competition."<br><br>"Three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power," Jackson wrote. "First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.<br><br>"Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products," Jackson added.<br><br>"The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest."<br><br>Justice Department officials hailed Jackson's findings as a major victory.<br><br>"This fully supports the [Justice] Department's view that this case is about protecting consumers," U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said.<br><br>Joel Klein, head of the Justice Department's antitrust bureau, said the evidence proved that "Microsoft is a monopolist and it engaged in massive anti-competitive practices that harmed innovation and limited consumer choice."<br><br>For their part, Microsoft officials attempted to downplay Jackson's findings, noting that Friday's statements marked just the latest step in an ongoing process.<hr></blockquote><br><br><A HREF="http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm">U.S. DOJ Antitrust Case Filings - United States v. Microsoft</a><br><br><A HREF="http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm">Court's Findings of Fact</a><br><br>Edit -<br>FWIW: Several days ago I received my settlement check from Microsoft [as have many (tens of thousands/millions?) others], resulting from a class-action group of lawsuits, against Microsoft, brought by a number of U.S. states.<br><br>The lawsuits proved that the company violated state laws against unfair trade practices by artificially raising the prices of its products.<br><br>Microsoft lost the suits and paid out. And their check cleared!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20462094</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 16:08:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461996</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1254200"><b>Jean_22</b></A> : This monopoly thing is a vicious circle.<br><br>They don't want MS to integrate IE & WMP on Windows. <br>If they don't put them in, poeple will protest because they can't surf the net nor listen to muci/video out of the box.<br><br>Why could Apple integrate their multimedia software in OSX but not MS?<br><br>And OS vulnerability comes mainly from its user database. I mean, Linux & FF are "more secure", not because they are better built, but because they are less targeted.<br><br><A HREF="http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/mac_hack/"> MAC falls first </a><br><br>I don't have the article for the Vista-Ubuntu final in my hands but Vista got hacked through a flaw in Adobe Reader if I remember well. After, everyone said they had found an exploitable flaw in Linux right at the beggining, but the reward was not juicy enough for them to exploit in in the contest. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461996</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 15:33:18 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461970</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1393092"><b>Vista RTM</b></A> : here's a tip for Vista users<br><br> <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip6\Parameters]<br>"DisabledComponents"=dword:ffffffff<hr></blockquote><br><br>C:\Windows\system32>netcfg -e -u ms_ndiswanipv6<br><br>C:\Windows\system32>netcfg -e -u ms_pppoeminiport<br><br>C:\Windows\system32>netcfg -e -u ms_l2tpminiport<br><br>C:\Windows\system32>netcfg -e -u ms_pptpminiport<br><br>C:\Windows\system32>netcfg -e -u ms_sstpminiport<br><small>--<br>ASUS A8V 2.0-Deluxe 1018beta 2 AMD FX-60 OCZ PC3200 EL Platinum Edition 2GB 2-3-2-9-1T@400DDR Bank Interleaving Enabled Sapphire ATI HD3850 512GDDR3 AGP HT Omeaga Claro Windows Vista Ultimate non-SP1 ADSL 6Mbps APC Back UPS 900VA</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461970</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 15:21:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461945</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  MSeng <A HREF="/useremail/u/172037"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  astirusty <A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br>Second, at least I am up front about my sentiment towards a monopoly.<br> </div>...or your knowledge of the definition.</div>Care to elaborate?<br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461945</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 15:12:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461891</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  james <A HREF="/useremail/u/326902"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>I've always wondered, is it REALLY a monopoly if there are free alternatives that people just don't want to use? </div> The issue is MS is so entrenched that most of the time you are forced to use Windows to run Windows APs.  Yes, there are emulators, but often those cause instability and/or run to sllooowwww on non-Windows OSs.  Overall, it is kind of a herd thing.  You are pretty much forced to go along with the herd if you want to interact with the herd.  Yes, you can be a maverick, but you will be stuck interacting with only other mavericks.<br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461891</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 14:59:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461852</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1416736"><b>Siko</b></A> : Hackers would probably try to get the recent operating systems other than the ones that are 8 years old. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461852</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 14:50:30 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461839</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1215698"><b>mikenolan7</b></A> : There's no doubt that 2000 can be run very securely, I wasn't knocking it.   :)  I just didn't understand why it would be more secure than XP.  I think other posters are correct in that the data is contaminated with too many variables.<br><br>My only beef with any of the Windows NT releases is that I can download other OS's that are just as good for free, or purchase them for $40-$50, with all of the third party software I'll ever need in the same shrinkwrapped package.  But the kids gotta play the latest games, so there's usually a box or two with Windows running on it around here.  :)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461839</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 14:47:38 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461801</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Cheese <A HREF="/useremail/u/891765"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  Its a Secret <A HREF="/useremail/u/1531837"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</small><br><br>Perhaps it all comes down to the fact Win 2000 wasn't as popular as 95, 98, etc. In my mind, it was more of a 'geek' OS than the others, more functional and not as 'pretty'. But I may be wrong...<br> </div>Win2k was a business OS, so of course it would not have been as popular. </div>One could apply a similar argument as to why Vista was "<i>only 37% more secure than XP</i>"; in that if Vista had been out for the same amount of time as XP and had the same market share, Vista might well be the under-dog instead of being in the lead.<br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461801</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 14:37:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461729</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/195618"><b>rawwhide</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  mikenolan7 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1215698"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>For a home user, just follow the manual instructions.  And no, I never run as Admin, doesn't matter what OS.<br> </div>It is hard enough to get the average user to Update the OS. Before routers were common it was almost impossible to get the average "home user" to run software firewalls. I would guess that 99% of people just get in and drive without reading any manuals. Like with automobiles the average person will not want to read or do anything further than just sit down at the keyboard and, well, drive.  :D<br><br>edit: almost forgot, this response was typed on one of my two win2k boxes.  ;)<br><br><small>--<br>TinFoilers UFO Union of America!!<br>TinFoilers UFO Union Local 101...</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461729</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 14:14:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461676</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/634007"><b>SUMware</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  james <A HREF="/useremail/u/326902"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>   :</small><br><br>I've always wondered, is it REALLY a monopoly if there are free alternatives that people just don't want to use?</div><div class="bquote"><small>said by Momopoly   :</small><br><br>What monopoly?  maybe your take on monopoly is wayyyyyyyy different from the rest of us.</div>I'm no economist or attorney but these stories from today and yesterday are interesting:<br><br><A HREF="http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/business/Microsofts-Tokyo-office-raided-in.2506572.jp"><b>Microsoft's Tokyo office raided in anti-monopoly probe</b></a><br>10th May 2008 -   <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>MICROSOFT&#146;S Tokyo office has been raided by Japanese regulators on suspicion of violating anti-competition laws, following similar accusations against the United States software giant in Europe.<br><br>The investigation is only the latest for Microsoft, which has been plagued by accusations that it has abused its monopoly on PC operating systems to push prices higher or harm rivals. It is already in settlement negotiations with the European Commission, which has accused the company of trying to stifle competition for multimedia players by tying its Media Player programme to its Windows operating system.<hr></blockquote><br><br><A HREF="http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9940230-7.html?tag=newsmap"><b>Microsoft to appeal EC's $1.39 billion fine</b></a><br>May 9, 2008 -   <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>Microsoft sought to overturn the Commission's March 2004 order, but last fall the Court of First Instance upheld the Commission's order, which found the software giant had abused its market dominance in the operating system market.<br><br>The fine levied in February marked the largest penalty the Commission had ever imposed on a single company. To date, the Commission has imposed roughly $2.6 billion in its long-running antitrust dispute with Microsoft.<hr></blockquote>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461676</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 13:59:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461563</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/185348"><b>Just Bob</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  dave <A HREF="/useremail/u/156437"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>The alternative, I suppose, is a subscription arrangement: you pay every year for version N and you continue to use version N.  I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of paying money to someone for a product to stop them from 'enhancing' it, but it's a more difficult position to sell to the naive.<br>  </div>That would be my choice as long as the subscription is for updates only. I certainly would not want to see the system become nonfunctional if I happen to be short of cash when the subscription expired. I'm a happy camper as long as I can find third party security software and utilities that support W2K.<br><br>Now don't get me wrong, I can boot this system into XP Pro or LinuxOS as well as W2K. ;) If I'm feeling really adventurous I can even run LinuxOS on top of XP. Boredom is a terrible thing. :)<br><br>Perhaps this <b>old</b> man is simply more comfortable with the <b>old</b> software on my <b>old</b> system.<br><small>--<br>I have always noticed that whenever a radical takes to Imperialism, he catches it in a very acute form.<br>Winston Churchill, 1903</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461563</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 13:27:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461538</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : What monopoly?  maybe your take on monopoly is wayyyyyyyy different from the rest of us. Hmm  must be an NYT and Daily Kos reader.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461538</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 13:19:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461424</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/172037"><b>MSeng</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  astirusty <A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  almex <A HREF="/useremail/u/477379"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Nice sig: ...<br>No bias there.  ... </div>First, thanks.  Second, at least I am up front about my sentiment towards a monopoly.<br> </div>...or your knowledge of the definition.<br><small>--<br>If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461424</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 12:43:01 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461362</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/326902"><b>james</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  astirusty <A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>at least I am up front about my sentiment towards a monopoly.<br> </div>I've always wondered, is it REALLY a monopoly if there are free alternatives that people just don't want to use?<br><br>Just because I can't be bothered to put the extra time into getting comfortable with Linux, that doesnt mean the option isn't there.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461362</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 12:27:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461159</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1215698"><b>mikenolan7</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  rawwhide <A HREF="/useremail/u/195618"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  mikenolan7 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1215698"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>I was referring mostly to the controls available within the Microsoft Management Console.<br> </div>I maybe mistaken, but 99.9% of home users run as admin. Do you run threatfire on any of your companies/organizations machines? I am pretty sure that these results are from a home users perspective not an admins. I guess it is possible that some of the machines that were polled were in a business setting running threatfire, but I highly doubt it.<br> </div>I am a home user.  The Security Templates snap in is a very easy way to tighten security and monitor it over time, even for a home user.  I like to keep setup disks for my favorite OS's, and a customized Security Template is a good tool to put on one.  That way I never hesitate to wipe a machine and start over or install a different OS.  I found more detailed instructions in a book I have, but the basics can be found here:<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Baselining-Security-Templates.html" >www.windowsecurity.com/articles/&middot;&middot;&middot;tes.html</A><br><br>For a home user, just follow the manual instructions.  And no, I never run as Admin, doesn't matter what OS.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461159</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 11:39:29 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461155</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/156437"><b>dave</b></A> : Sure, there were people who always ran NT (3.5 onwards, in my case) at home in preference to that DOS-based nonsense.  I myself only retired the last Windows 2000 machine this year, in a fit of hardware consolidation (3 old servers out, 1 new one in).  But the fact remains that it was still not marketed at the home user; that makes it a 'business' OS.<br><br>I don't get this "better OS than XP" angle. Most of the OS is the same; we are after all talking about the difference between V5.0 and V5.1.  But you don't want to be comparing Win2000 with XP Home; you want to be comparing it with XP Pro, which is the upgrade from Win2000. They sawed off a bunch of control knobs in the Home version.<br><br>Perhaps XP had more fancy stuff in userland; and that, after all, is where most of the vulnerabilities (that actually affect people) have traditionally been.<br><br>As far as planned obsolescence: MS needs to make money. It's not going to make money by selling you software once in 1999  (for Windows 2000) and continuing to give you free upgrades for the next 20 years. Thus, version N of the OS is replaced by version N+1 of the same OS, and version N is no longer sold. Anyone that sells software does the same thing. <br><br>The alternative, I suppose, is a subscription arrangement: you pay every year for version N and you continue to use version N.  I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of paying money to someone for a product to stop them from 'enhancing' it, but it's a more difficult position to sell to the naive.<br> ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461155</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 11:38:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461017</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/185348"><b>Just Bob</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  zed260 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1491176"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>several reasons<br><br>1. its busniess only and as such it had a lower usage base<br><br>2.its been around longer and more fixes for bugs have been added to it<br> </div>1. I suspect there are many of us old folks still running W2K at home. Compared to XP it's a simple, direct, straight forward OS that does what I want an OS to do without needless fuss and bother.<br><br>2. Yes. After 8 years anyone who has made an effort will have found a stable and secure configuration that meets their needs.<br><br>3. I wish MS had continued development on W2K. IMHO it's a better home OS than XP Home and much more stable.<br><br>4. If you have a stable OS that does what you need, why would you want to spend hundreds of dollars for a new OS and all the associated software that goes with it? Planned obsolescence  is not the answer.<br><small>--<br>I have always noticed that whenever a radical takes to Imperialism, he catches it in a very acute form.<br>Winston Churchill, 1903</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20461017</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 11:00:20 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460965</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1491176"><b>zed260</b></A> : several reasons<br><br>1. its busniess only and as such it had a lower usage base<br><br>2.its been around longer and more fixes for bugs have been added to it]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460965</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 10:39:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460884</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/911165"><b>diver196</b></A> : Microsoft had a reply to this which was based on their statistics gathered from the malicious software removal tool.  Their stats showed much lower infection rates, showed Vista to be more secure than XP, and W2k less secure than either.<br><br>Vista does have an advantage due to UAC, however one may run XP from a user account, it's just more difficult.<br><small>--<br>Only those defenses are good, certain and durable, which depend on yourself alone and your own ability.  -The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460884</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 10:11:43 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460812</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/891765"><b>Cheese</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Its a Secret <A HREF="/useremail/u/1531837"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Perhaps it all comes down to the fact Win 2000 wasn't as popular as 95, 98, etc. In my mind, it was more of a 'geek' OS than the others, more functional and not as 'pretty'. But I may be wrong...<br> </div>Win2k was a business OS, so of course it would not have been as popular. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460812</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 09:48:08 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460740</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/156437"><b>dave</b></A> : How many of today's virus-writers are targetting Windows 2000, anyway?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460740</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 09:19:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460461</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693977"><b>bcastner</b></A> : If anyone can make sense of the claim that "Vista is.... only 37% more secure than Windows XP" then God bless them.  To me, it is a completely senseless statement.<br><br>The only sensible statements made by the Author of this Report are these two:<br><br> <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>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.<hr></blockquote><br><br> <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>vulnerability findings from the malicious software removal tool (MSRT), which ran on <b><u>over 400 million machines in December 2007</u></b>. From June 2007 through December 2007, the MSRT found malware on 2.8% of the Windows Vista machines it ran on, vs. 7.2% of Windows XP SP2 machines. It found malware on 5% of Windows 2000 SP4 machines and 12.2% of Windows 2000 SP3 machines.<hr></blockquote><br><br>1. Does ThreatFire have over 400 million observations per Month from which to draw its conclusions? They do not specify, but it seems improbable.<br><br>2. Is the ThreatFire Community a fair and representative sample of the Windows end-user Community?  There is no evidence provided that this is so.  My gut instinct would be that this Community is <u>very far</u> from being a representation of the entire end-user Community.<br><br>3. We are not told what constitutes a threat found.  I assume it is whatever the ThreatFire heuristics decided was a threat.  I see no evidence that adjustments were made for false positives. I know from reading the "ThreatFire Blog" that they frequently give themselves praise for their low amount of False positives.  And I know from reading the ThreatFire Forum that False Positives are common from the heuristics. But no adjustment was seemingly made for false positive reports by the application.<br><br>4. The conclusions from the study are based on the number of threats found per 1,000 computers.  For Vista, the number of threats found was higher than those found on Win2k, and lower than those found on XP. From this the Study draws a conclusion about the relative "susceptability" of each OS to infection. This is an absolutely outrageous assertion to have been made.  This attempts to exclude completely the browsing habits of the end-users as a factor in the average number of infections found; to normalize the ThreatFire Community with the entire potential universe of Windows users; and to impute any differences in average infections found to an inherent OS "susceptability" to infection.  An unbelievable and simply incredible leap of faith, logic and a conclusion to have drawn.<br><small>--<br><b>============</b><br><b>MS-MVP 2004 - -2008, ASAP Member</b><br><b><i>Users Helping Users</i></b><br><br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460461</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 06:30:31 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460418</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/195618"><b>rawwhide</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  mikenolan7 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1215698"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>I was referring mostly to the controls available within the Microsoft Management Console.<br> </div>I maybe mistaken, but 99.9% of home users run as admin. Do you run threatfire on any of your companies/organizations machines? I am pretty sure that these results are from a home users perspective not an admins. I guess it is possible that some of the machines that were polled were in a business setting running threatfire, but I highly doubt it.<br><small>--<br>TinFoilers UFO Union of America!!<br>TinFoilers UFO Union Local 101...</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460418</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 05:21:47 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460224</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/545873"><b>lawrence171</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  bcruze <A HREF="/useremail/u/1335310"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>your computer is as safe as the idiot in front of the keyboard.....<br> </div>That's so not true  ;)  Its ALWAYS Microsoft's fault.  When the same thing happens on other OSes, its the user's fault; however, when the user is using a Microsoft product, its always Microsoft's fault.<br><small>--<br>What I used to be I no longer am...  God, why can't you freeze time for my sake?</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460224</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 02:14:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460080</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1531837"><b>Its a Secret</b></A> : Perhaps it all comes down to the fact Win 2000 wasn't as popular as 95, 98, etc. In my mind, it was more of a 'geek' OS than the others, more functional and not as 'pretty'. But I may be wrong...<br><small>--<br>A triple espresso, please...</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460080</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 01:05:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460072</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1030204"><b>NetFixer</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Blackbird <A HREF="/useremail/u/1140294"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>In any case, to me it seems there's way too many variables and unknowns to draw too many hard conclusions from this data in the way it's presented.<br> </div>Or as Benjamin Disraeli and/or Mark Twain said:<br><br>"<i>There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.</i>"<br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://nature-pics.com">We can never have enough of nature.</a><br>We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.<br><A HREF="http://portscan.dcs-net.net">Test your firewall.</a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460072</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 01:02:19 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460033</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1140294"><b>Blackbird</b></A> : I wonder... wouldn't an older OS version have a longer window of malware exposure than a newer one? In which case, one might expect its odds of containing malware to be higher, all other things being equal. On the other hand, that reasoning doesn't take into account any recurrent clean-up efforts of users to remove previous infections. I suppose the only way to get an apples-apples comparison between OS versions would be to track the re-infection rates of the same set of computers over time and slice that up by OS version. <br><br>In any case, to me it seems there's way too many variables and unknowns to draw too many hard conclusions from this data in the way it's presented.<br><small>--<br>If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see...</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20460033</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 00:46:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20459634</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1215698"><b>mikenolan7</b></A> : I was referring mostly to the controls available within the Microsoft Management Console.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20459634</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 22:51:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20459470</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/195618"><b>rawwhide</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  mikenolan7 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1215698"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>I have found the 2000 security related controls available to the user to be somewhat limited when compared with XP.  <br> </div>Mind elaborating on what you call "security related controls". I certainly hope you are not talking about windows firewall.  :D<br><small>--<br>TinFoilers UFO Union of America!!<br>TinFoilers UFO Union Local 101...</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20459470</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 22:15:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20459407</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1215698"><b>mikenolan7</b></A> : Interesting statistics.  This indicates that Windows 2000 is significantly more secure than XP.  I have found the 2000 security related controls available to the user to be somewhat limited when compared with XP.  Anyone know why 2000 would fare so much better?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20459407</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 21:57:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20458103</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Vista RTM <A HREF="/useremail/u/1393092"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Windows 3.1 88% more secure.</div> Might have something to do with far less bloat, no IE, no Outlook Express, no Active X...  :o ;)<br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20458103</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 16:43:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457933</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  almex <A HREF="/useremail/u/477379"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Nice sig: ...<br>No bias there.  ... </div>First, thanks.  Second, at least I am up front about my sentiment towards a monopoly.<br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457933</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 16:11:30 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457651</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1393092"><b>Vista RTM</b></A> : Windows 3.1 88% more secure.<br><br>Hmmm....]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457651</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 15:12:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457557</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/477379"><b>almex</b></A> : Nice sig: "Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows."<br><br>No bias there.  Nope.  Definitely no bias.<br><small>--<br>"Careful, we don't want to learn from this!" --Calvin & Hobbes</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457557</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 14:51:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457369</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1335310"><b>bcruze</b></A> : your computer is as safe as the idiot in front of the keyboard.....]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457369</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 14:09:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457322</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/856374"><b>jester121</b></A> : Wow, I wish we could rely on the Malicious Software Removal tool to clean EVERYTHING bad off of PCs. Since it doesn't, their statistics are pretty meaningless.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457322</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 13:59:20 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457136</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1432955"><b>Cabal</b></A> : Vista isn't more secure than XP, it's just 37% slower at propagating malware. :D]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457136</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 13:29:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457121</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : The massive FUD campaign against Vista continues...  :hmm:]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457121</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 13:26:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Windows 2000 more secure than Vista.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457079</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/269961"><b>astirusty</b></A> : Say what?  <i>and only 37% more secure than XP?</i><br><div class="bquote">"However, recent research conducted with statistics from over 1.4 million computers within the ThreatFire community has shown that Windows Vista is more susceptible to malware than the eight year old Windows 2000 operating system, and only 37% more secure than Windows XP."</div>Hey how about a refund?  <i>Oops forgot about those pesky EULAs.</i><br><div class="bquote">"Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date," said Simon Clausen, CEO of PC Tools, in a statement. </div>Obligatory MS rebuttal...<br><div class="bquote">"ThreatFire vulnerability comparison numbers certainly don't reflect our vulnerability findings from the malicious software removal tool (MSRT), which ran on over 400 million machines in December 2007. From June 2007 through December 2007, the MSRT found malware on 2.8% of the Windows Vista machines it ran on, vs. 7.2% of Windows XP SP2 machines. It found malware on 5% of Windows 2000 SP4 machines and 12.2% of Windows 2000 SP3 machines. Note that for Windows 2000 this spans both client and server machines."</div>Link to article: &raquo;<A HREF="http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207601217" >www.informationweek.com/news/win&middot;&middot;&middot;07601217</A><br><small>--<br>Do yourself a favor, just say no to anything Windows.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457079</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 13:19:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
