http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6331959.stm

Seems that Vista alone isn't man enough to repel some 30-odd flavours of mal-ware out there - I'm actually surprised it was so many. I thought with bringing in proper user levels and not running as administrator all the time would really help. Can't say I know the details, but I'm sure some of you will find this interesting.

I wish that article would say which anti-virus programs do pass the test.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft themselves has said they aren't supposed to be the only line of defense from mal-ware.

If they have said that, then they've contradicted themselves, since they're not going to allow 3rd party programs to modify the Vista kernel to provide the extra layers of protection that you can get with XP and below.

No anti-virus program could pass such a test forever. There'll always be some new virus that it doesn't know of.

And they didn't test Vista security they just tested how many viruses Microsoft's scanner could detect.

And as long as there are still users who click on "[young female celebrity]-nude screensaver!!!!! (you have to be administrator to install it)" they won't be secure with any OS.

]

Kernel level hooks aren't necessary. By denying this ability, they also stop Rootkits almost dead in their tracks. Kernel hooks by 3rd party software can account for as much as 70% of Windows instabilities.

I still say that Win98se is the most secure and stable OS ever.
I have NEVER! had any problems with it.
But of course it's safety through abscurity.

According to the article:

"Live OneCare caught 99.91% of the known active viruses it was tested against. This left it vulnerable to 37 separate malicious programs."

I still think that's pretty good, but not really sure. I guess an extra program like AVG Free could take care of the rest.

You just copied something Jon`C said and then spelled it wrong.


Windows 98 is a vulnerable piece of crap.

That's pretty damned good.

That isn't good at all.

Probably true - the XP laptop I gave to Izzy runs AVG Free (and has done for 3 years) and has never got infected - probably also down to Spybot and Ad-Aware.

Stop posting about your outdated, crappy OS. Honestly, no one cares and it's not remotely humorous.

I think Tiberium was replying to me, but posted a bit late.

A brand new OS has a bunch of unclosed security holes that aren't yet fixed.

*gasp* SAY IT AIN'T SO! Who could ever imagine such a scenario!

They exposed the scanner to 3,697 pieces of malware and missing 0.09% is considered a failure?

That article is total trash.

That's funny, Live OneCare seems to do a good enough job without modifying the kernel.

Besides, the kernel was never meant to be modified in the first place. It was a hack, and AV companies built whole products around a hack that was never guaranteed to be present in future versions of Windows. It's not Microsoft's fault.

Didn't Symantec throw a hissy fit about OneCare because, if free and included with Vista, it would shove them out of the desktop market?

Oh Lord! Heaven forbid someone say they like windows 98!!

It's not really that, though. As Rob said, he just repeated something Jon`C said, in order to sound smart. But he misspelled the key word. And the statement was nonsensical to begin with since Windows 98 is not obscure.

The point I'm making is that now even admins runs as user (like unix) and as such I figured very few things would be able to install themselves - if any. I'm geniuinely surprised.

Oh, and Emon - I know the BBC isn't great at technology reporting, but it's not trash - it explains in plain English that the test requires a pass mark of 100% and says (although without reference or explanation) that Vista scored far worse than others taking the exact same test. If you look less at the 0.09% and more at the 37 it seems fairly damning.

In fact:

Linux FTW

---
However it sickens me to see how Mandriva and some other companies try making money w/ the aid of Linux.

Holy ****. An OS that occupies 99% of the marketshare (read: 99% of the malware/virus marketshare) didn't get as good of rating as OSX/whatever? You're kidding?

Wait. It has to pass 100%. Think about that. 100% That means it has to pass every conceivable piece of malware known to the digital world. ****, I don't know if ANY operating system can be protected against that. And quite frankly, I don't think Microsoft should busily spend resources on making Vista that secure. The real solution to malware is to solve PEBCAKs (problem exists between keyboard and chair).

People, please repeat after me:
They - did - not - test - the - OS.

The headline clearly implies that Windows itself has failed some test. It's blatantly sensationalism, intentional or not. All the headline needed was two extra words. Go from "Windows 'fails'" to "Windows security suite 'fails'" or similar.

Additionally, the article is far from objective. They lean towards these douchebags at Virus Bulletin and imply that Vista is not secure. The quote from Gates further implies that the promises of Vista's increased security are empty.

It's a technology article. They should do more than regurgitate crap from an obviously biased, or maybe incompetent, source.

I guess I'm just upset because I hold BBC in fairly high regards, at least compared to the majority of the US media. I would at least expect the journalists in their technology dept. to at least try not to spout crap.

Oh don't worry - I appreciate the BBCs tech reports are usually terrible - the mac community are up in arms at all the grief that comes its way from the bbc. (I can sort of see the point, they really seem to dislike them there).

It's a sign of definitely slipping standards