Microsoft Refutes Vista Malware Claim

A couple weeks ago, I posted a blog entry referring to a study by a security software vendor claiming that Windows Vista is actually weaker, or more prone to malware infection and compromise than Windows 2000. On the Windows Vista Security blog site, Austin Wilson refutes this claim, backing it up with some data of his own. The Microsoft data is collected from the roughly 450 million executions of the Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRT) each month. Wilson states in the blog post: "Using proportionate numbers, MSRT found and cleaned malware from 44% fewer Windows Vista-based computers than Windows 2000 SP4 computers and 77% fewer than from computers running Windows 2000 SP3." Now, both sides 'have a dog in this hunt' (I moved from Michigan to Texas and I have to practice my colorful Southern terminology) so you have to take the claims with a grain of salt. Statistics can say whatever you want them to say. PC Tools sells more software if you believe that Vista is insecure. Microsoft sells more operating systems if you believe that Vista is more secure than its predecessors. Take a look at the studies and the claims and make your own decision. My own two cents on the subject favors the Microsoft claims. I think that Vista is more secure and that the study by PC Tools was simply sensationalist FUD to drum up marketing.