PC Tools reveals Vista is not so immune

May 20, 2008

Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/

It reads in part "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by

Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date. 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," Clausen said. "

Just thought you'd like to know....

jim

May 20, 2008

Wonderful!

It does fix the dodgy serial buffer problem though, which I believe has been

in Windows since sometime in NT4.0.

I'm still not going to go for it until at least SP2 :-)

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

news:FtxYj.25236$C8.205@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>

> Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/

>

> It reads in part "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by

> Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date. 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," Clausen said. "

>

> Just thought you'd like to know....

>

> jim

>

May 20, 2008

Don't miss the discussion at http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93752 too.

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

news:FtxYj.25236$C8.205@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>

> Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/

>

> It reads in part "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by

> Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date. 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," Clausen said. "

>

> Just thought you'd like to know....

>

> jim

>

May 20, 2008

On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:13:19 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

>

>Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/

>

>It reads in part "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by

>Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date. 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," Clausen said. "

>

>Just thought you'd like to know....

Not really. There is enough nonsense floating around already.

What exactly does "37% more secure" mean?

And why is W2K considered more secure in these statistics? - Because

W2K is not operated by the same kind of people Vista is. And no OS can

ever be immune against human stupidity.

This is just yet another nonsense by numbers.

May 20, 2008

"Straight Talk" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:kl9534103i4k1n5btspp3gpb5s7a09mv3o@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:13:19 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

>

>>

>>Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/

>>

>>It reads in part "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by

>>Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date. 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," Clausen said. "

>>

>>Just thought you'd like to know....

>

> Not really. There is enough nonsense floating around already.

>

> What exactly does "37% more secure" mean?

That's what the links were for. Follow them.

> And why is W2K considered more secure in these statistics? - Because

> W2K is not operated by the same kind of people Vista is. And no OS can

> ever be immune against human stupidity.

>

> This is just yet another nonsense by numbers.

You can lead a man to truth. You cannot make him believe.

jim

May 20, 2008

> You can lead a man to truth. You cannot make him believe.

And some people are attracted to, and swayed by, FUD.

Dig deeper and read the wider argument online. It's far less black and white

than you're apparently desperate to believe.

Microsoft Refutes Windows Vista Vulnerability Report

http://www.informationweek.com/news/window...cleID=207603257

"So Vista is definitely much more secure than Win2000 and I don't understand

PCTools' attempt to overthrew this axiom by far-fetched conclusions in their

survey."

http://dkudin.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5AC...AF165!135.entry

--

Regards

John Waller

May 20, 2008

Hmmm.... let's see...

37% better than XP...

That means it is more secure than the most widely used home OS ever

released.

More susceptible than W2K...

It's more susceptible than my Tandy 1000 also which cannot run anything

anymore, much less connect to the internet.

But, then W2K is still used by most businesses, not home users and the

additional layers of protection provided by the company may get confused

with the OS.

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

news:FtxYj.25236$C8.205@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>

> Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/

>

> It reads in part "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by

> Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date. 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," Clausen said. "

>

> Just thought you'd like to know....

>

> jim

>

>

May 20, 2008

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

news:LRxYj.25251$C8.10572@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

> That's what the links were for. Follow them.

From the link you supplied>>>>

"It only takes one attack to destroy a computer or allow hackers to access

your personal and financial information."

There are no OSes that don't have at least one hole so there are no OSes

that don't need additional work/tools to keep them secure including all

windows variants and all unix/linux variants.

> You can lead a man to truth. You cannot make him believe.

This is true and I don't suppose you do.

>

> jim

>

May 20, 2008

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

news:LRxYj.25251$C8.10572@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>

> "Straight Talk" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:kl9534103i4k1n5btspp3gpb5s7a09mv3o@4ax.com...

>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:13:19 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/

>>>

>>>It reads in part "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by

>>>Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date. 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," Clausen said. "

>>>

>>>Just thought you'd like to know....

>>

>> Not really. There is enough nonsense floating around already.

>>

>> What exactly does "37% more secure" mean?

>

> That's what the links were for. Follow them.

>

>> And why is W2K considered more secure in these statistics? - Because

>> W2K is not operated by the same kind of people Vista is. And no OS can

>> ever be immune against human stupidity.

>>

>> This is just yet another nonsense by numbers.

>

> You can lead a man to truth. You cannot make him believe.

>

> jim

>

True, but corporate computer users are locked down way tighter than the

average home user..

--

Mike Hall - MVP

How to construct a good post..

http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...whelp&style=toc

Mike's Window - My Blog..

http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

May 20, 2008

Let's see PCTOOLS does what? They sell protection software. I wonder

if they might have a vested interest in those numbers?

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

news:FtxYj.25236$C8.205@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>

> Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/

>

> It reads in part "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by

> Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date. 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," Clausen said. "

>

> Just thought you'd like to know....

>

> jim

>

--

Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

May 20, 2008

"Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:ed1Z86muIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Let's see PCTOOLS does what? They sell protection software. I

> wonder if they might have a vested interest in those numbers?

Just an FYI : Those numbers happen to be from the tool that they give away

for FREE - Threatfire.

jim

May 20, 2008

"Uncle Marvo" <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote in message

news:69fn75F31r8opU1@mid.individual.net...

> Wonderful!

>

> It does fix the dodgy serial buffer problem though, which I believe has

> been in Windows since sometime in NT4.0.

>

> I'm still not going to go for it until at least SP2 :-)

>

> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

> news:FtxYj.25236$C8.205@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>>

>> Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/

>>

>> It reads in part "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by

>> Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date. 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," Clausen said. "

>>

>> Just thought you'd like to know....

>>

>> jim

>>

>

>

The opinions of PC Tools are nothing more than self-serving statements

meant to sell their products. I have no faith or interest in their opinions

and/or products.

C.B.

--

It is the responsibility and duty of everyone to help the underprivileged

and unfortunate among us.

May 20, 2008

jim wrote:

> Check out http://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/

>

> It reads in part "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by

> Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date. 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," Clausen said. "

>

> Just thought you'd like to know....

>

> jim

>

>

Hmm... let's see here. Any properly protected system can be kept clean

of spyware. I have had my installation running for a year and have had

only one instance of spyware. That instance was my fault and went

undetected by all anti-spyware except for my own eye. I have 2 years

experience cleaning spyware off of computers and know most if not all of

the tricks they try to get it in the computer and stay hidden. Alot of

the newer ones are very hard to detect.

P.S. - The last one I did loaded in as a non plug and play driver. I'd

like to see anti-spyware remove that one. I did it by hand.

--

Robert Pendell

shinji@elite-systems.org

"A perfect world is one of chaos."

Thawte Web of Trust Notary

CAcert Assurer

May 20, 2008

Entire FUD here:

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.p...c4c9ce3dc451b46

( What's FUD? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt )

Joseph Meehan wrote:

> Let's see PCTOOLS does what? They sell protection software. I wonder

> if they might have a vested interest in those numbers?

jim wrote:

> Just an FYI : Those numbers happen to be from the tool that they

> give away for FREE - Threatfire.

jim,

Seriously - look at what you just said and what you said it in response to.

Let's analyze it...

You seem to be saying that since they give away a version of their software

for free, the point that they also sell protection software for computers is

null and void and thus they have no vested interest in saying that one OS or

another is vulnerable to attack... And strangely - the latest version of the

OS, the one that is spreading in the consumer market quickly and will be

around for quite a while - is mentioned as the weakest. They won't benefit

at all from supposedly pointing out the fact that an OS is vulnerable - but

not so much if you use their product.

Picture it from their point of view... Free or not - they gain market

share. The more people see it - the more people start to believe they may

need something the 'for pay' version has. "$30? shrug No biggie - my

pictures and music and contacts and documents are worth that..." starts to

be heard echoing through the masses. 1 million sales at $30/sale - nice

tidy sum in short order. ;-)

While their product may be a fine one (don't know - have had no need to try

it - other free products have filled the gap prior quite nicely) - you

cannot deny that a company that sells (or even gives away) a product that

solves a problem would not benefit from making the problem seem larger than

it may actually be...

- PCTools sells protection software.

- They have a free version of a malware software available.

- They also sell a version of said software.

http://www.threatfire.com/download/

- Computers connected to the Internet are more vulnerable in general.

- Most percentages/statistics are made up to benefit those making up the

numbers. When confronted, it is usually difficult for those who made up the

numbers to present concrete facts backing them up and usually easy for

someone else to bend/make up numbers of their own to the contrary. This is

especially true when dealing with things that are difficult to quantify

because of the lack of reliable numbers (like the security of an OS versus

an older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSes are and what other

protections may already be in place that prevent the supposed issues from

ever even reaching the OS...)

It's very interesting to see where all you posted this:

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?en...VAfM_q59x2ZScCa

.... as well as what type of postings you seem to propogate.

--

Shenan Stanley

MS-MVP

--

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

May 20, 2008

Robert Pendell wrote:

>I have 2 years experience cleaning spyware off of computers and know

> most if not all of the tricks they try to get it in the computer and

> stay hidden. Alot of the newer ones are very hard to detect.

>

> P.S. - The last one I did loaded in as a non plug and play driver. I'd like to see anti-spyware remove that one. I

> did it by hand.

Can you give us some examples of these very hard to detect spyware ?

Where would I go to find them ?

Please post the urls here, I 'd like to checkout my security settings.

Thanks very much.

May 20, 2008

Robert Pendell wrote:

> I have 2 years experience cleaning spyware off of computers and

> know most if not all of the tricks they try to get it in the computer

> and stay hidden. Alot of the newer ones are very hard to detect.

>

> P.S. - The last one I did loaded in as a non plug and play driver.

> I'd like to see anti-spyware remove that one. I did it by hand.

Dave wrote:

> Can you give us some examples of these very hard to detect spyware ?

> Where would I go to find them ?

> Please post the urls here, I 'd like to checkout my security

> settings. Thanks very much.

You want someone to post URLs to places to get infested from? No...?

Vundo sucks - hunt that one down.

I have found - while cleaning up machines - you have better luck cleaning

them with tools like SuperAntiSpyware, Spybot Search and Destroy, SmitFraud,

MultiAV, etc if you do it in Safe Mode. This prevented them from loading

at startup and the deletion of the registry keys and dlss and registry files

it applies doesn't happen - allowing the tools to do their work.

--

Shenan Stanley

MS-MVP

--

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

May 20, 2008

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23rrYKBquIHA.4528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> <snipped>

> Entire FUD here:

> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.p...c4c9ce3dc451b46

> ( What's FUD?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt )

>

> Joseph Meehan wrote:

>> Let's see PCTOOLS does what? They sell protection software. I

>> wonder if they might have a vested interest in those numbers?

>

> jim wrote:

>> Just an FYI : Those numbers happen to be from the tool that they

>> give away for FREE - Threatfire.

>

> jim,

>

> Seriously - look at what you just said and what you said it in response

> to. Let's analyze it...

>

> You seem to be saying that since they give away a version of their

> software for free, the point that they also sell protection software for

> computers is null and void and thus they have no vested interest in saying

> that one OS or another is vulnerable to attack... .

Of course they have something to gain. But, in reality, MANY more people

use their free software than buy any of their tools. It is this way with

AVG and other vendors who give out free, diminished feature versions of

their software.

>And strangely - the latest version of the OS, the one that is spreading in

>the consumer market quickly and will be around for quite a while - is

>mentioned as the weakest.

Actually that isn't true. XP proved to be the weakest. Vista was approx

37% better than XP in the area of security according to the published tests.

>They won't benefit at all from supposedly pointing out the fact that an OS

>is vulnerable - but not so much if you use their product.

I tried Threatfire. But, like Vistas UAC, it blocked too much and was a

general hinderance to my PC use.....so I dumped it.

> Picture it from their point of view... Free or not - they gain market

> share. The more people see it - the more people start to believe they may

> need something the 'for pay' version has. "$30? shrug No biggie - my

> pictures and music and contacts and documents are worth that..." starts to

> be heard echoing through the masses. 1 million sales at $30/sale - nice

> tidy sum in short order. ;-)

If only it were that easy.....

>

> While their product may be a fine one (don't know - have had no need to

> try it - other free products have filled the gap prior quite nicely) - you

> cannot deny that a company that sells (or even gives away) a product that

> solves a problem would not benefit from making the problem seem larger

> than it may actually be...

Sure they could. But, in today's connected IT world, they would soon be

outed as not really knowing what they were doing or being outright

dishonest. I suspect the resulting negative press would do more harm than

good. I also suspect that they know that.

>

> - PCTools sells protection software.

> - They have a free version of a malware software available.

> - They also sell a version of said software.

> http://www.threatfire.com/download/

> - Computers connected to the Internet are more vulnerable in general.

> - Most percentages/statistics are made up to benefit those making up the

> numbers. When confronted, it is usually difficult for those who made up

> the numbers to present concrete facts backing them up and usually easy for

> someone else to bend/make up numbers of their own to the contrary. This

> is especially true when dealing with things that are difficult to quantify

> because of the lack of reliable numbers (like the security of an OS versus

> an older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSes are and what other

> protections may already be in place that prevent the supposed issues from

> ever even reaching the OS...)

We'll see. I'm sure somebody else will call them on this if they cannot

produce satisfactory data to back their claims.

>

> It's very interesting to see where all you posted this:

> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?en...VAfM_q59x2ZScCa

> ... as well as what type of postings you seem to propogate.

>

> Shenan Stanley

> MS-MVP

I tend to post articles where they will be acted upon by the most people.

As for the list of all of those articles in your link, the "Post Activity"

portion is bogus data. I am certainly not the author of all of those posts.

Perhaps you (and Google) should do a little digging into how newsgroups work

and the fact that not all jim@home.net users are the same person.

Then again, an MS-MVPs would have more to gain by shooting the messenger of

this topic than by discussing it rationally, wouldn't they?

jim

May 20, 2008

jim wrote:

> Then again, an MS-MVPs would have more to gain by shooting the

> messenger of this topic than by discussing it rationally, wouldn't

> they?

Let me address this seperately...

I do not care if Microsoft survives as a business past this second. They

could fade into oblivion for all I care. was granted the award because I

happen to help people in a Microsoft newsgroup. There is nothing nefarious

behind it nor does it keep me from saying anything I desire. Microsoft

sucks in a lot of things they do - and I express this whenever I feel the

need.

I thought I discussed things quite rationally. I would be interested in you

pointing out where my point-counterpoint approach was irrational if you feel

that way.

--

Shenan Stanley

MS-MVP

--

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

May 20, 2008

More from PCTools about Vista Security ...... Article:

Vista laid low by new malware figures (TechWorld)

PC Tools fires back with more stats. It looks as if Vista's reputation

for

improved security could be heading for the pages of history.

PC Tools has renewed last week's attack on the platform with new

figures that

appear to back up its claim that Vista is almost as

vulnerable as its predecessors. .....

5/19/2008 12:06 PM

Read more | Open in browser

http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=101536

Notes.... One thing missing perhaps in statistics is Users who have

hacked and

circumvented Vista's security settings such as UAC (User Account

Control)

and even simply turning that off or giving permission to malware

alerts - but

actually (them) going a lot further than that on any pc. In security,

which you

can find

at so many HiJackThis Logs forums for instance, are all these families

of

trojans that are just from bad adult sites mainly apparently. Of

course there

was the recent

"Sony rootkit" that was wrongly used as a protection for theirs. And

just

recently there was this nightmare:

Alluring MP3s, movies hit LimeWire, install malware instead

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Spy-Lerts/message/461

And of course in P2P swapping services as this - it is giving

permission to your

computer system and even the firewall is turned off by users so that

how many

of these persons are in these statistics ? They may do the "I don't

care, I just

turn off all security and download and then I get the free crap to

scan and

remove it" .

What about all those statistics. (In other words it is absurd to think

any

operating system can be run without commercial security softwares

safely).

Statistics like these do not appear to reflect that, and especially

talking

about just Vista OS (operating system) - because you will find a vast

amount of

users

parading this all over the net posting how "aggravating and annoying"

security

settings are and particularly with UAC and other features in Vista.

Going back

to the 'XP Years'

of course also involved a similar situation with DRM (Digital Rights

Management)

in Windows Media Player. When you consider the 'dark sides' of the

internet and

the "free stuff" crowds and adult oriented malicious content sites and

all the

Peer To Peer unlawful file swappings - well it does not take a genius

to realize

that

many of these persons shamelessly and openly discuss this and "work

arounds". So

my comment is for these statistics is to at least give a good "guess-

timate"

of a percentage that is as accurate as possible to disclude these

machines from

statistics. Obviously the percentage of these need that consideration

to

disclude them

with footnotes perhaps. I am sure everyone has heard of this by now -

stealing

copyrighted materials and trying not to get caught, which has not

really worked

at as unlawful.

The negative publicity is that PCTools is just pulling a "publicity

stunt for

sales" - but we all know better. PCTools is considered one of the top

security

products today. I am

just commenting here noticing there seems to be no mention of these

other stats

in this "breaking story" this past week. That can apply to any product

pubs.

SEE....

P2P Dangers (Peer to Peer file swapping)

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/BlueCollarPC/links

Digital rights management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

On May 20, 6:13Â am, "jim" <j...@home.net> wrote:

> Check outhttp://www.pctools.com/news/view/id/206/

>

> It reads in part "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by

> Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date. 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," Clausen said. "

>

> Just thought you'd like to know....

>

> jim

May 20, 2008

Shenan Stanley wrote:

> Entire FUD here:

> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.p...c4c9ce3dc451b46

> ( What's FUD?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt )

Joseph Meehan wrote:

> Let's see PCTOOLS does what? They sell protection software.

> I wonder if they might have a vested interest in those numbers?

jim wrote:

> Just an FYI : Those numbers happen to be from the tool that they

> give away for FREE - Threatfire.

Shenan Stanley wrote:

> Seriously - look at what you just said and what you said it in

> response to. Let's analyze it...

>

> You seem to be saying that since they give away a version of their

> software for free, the point that they also sell protection

> software for computers is null and void and thus they have no

> vested interest in saying that one OS or another is vulnerable to

> attack... .

jim wrote:

> Of course they have something to gain. But, in reality, MANY more

> people use their free software than buy any of their tools. It is

> this way with AVG and other vendors who give out free, diminished

> feature versions of their software.

Where do you get your numbers for the 'MANY more people use their free

software than buy any of their tools"?

Shenan Stanley wrote:

> And strangely - the latest version of the OS, the one that is

> spreading in the consumer market quickly and will be around for

> quite a while - is mentioned as the weakest.

jim wrote:

> Actually that isn't true. XP proved to be the weakest. Vista was

> approx 37% better than XP in the area of security according to the

> published tests.

I stand corrected. Actually - that was a complete mistake on my part. You

don't go for the latest OS that may be gaining market share - especially

with all the bad press surrounding it - you go for the one that already has

the market share (Windows XP.) The bad press around Windows Vista is

keeping some people at Windows XP at this point - so even for those who have

stuck with Windows 98SE/ME/2000 all this time - they are likely to move to

XP before going to anything else... Makes sense.

Shenan Stanley wrote:

> They won't benefit at all from supposedly pointing out the fact

> that an OS is vulnerable - but not so much if you use their

> product.

jim wrote:

> I tried Threatfire. But, like Vistas UAC, it blocked too much and

> was a general hinderance to my PC use.....so I dumped it.

Good to know...

Shenan Stanley wrote:

> Picture it from their point of view... Free or not - they gain

> market share. The more people see it - the more people start to

> believe they may need something the 'for pay' version has. "$30? shrug

> No biggie - my pictures and music and contacts and

> documents are worth that..." starts to be heard echoing through

> the masses. 1 million sales at $30/sale - nice tidy sum in short

> order. ;-)

jim wrote:

> If only it were that easy.....

Seems to be. While it is true they also have to deliver on their promise of

'safer computing' - they are also just playing the odds.

Many people I deal with would likely not get infested by anything just by

their own nature. They check email, go to a few select web pages and are

behind a Cable/DSL router and the Windows XP firewall. Their email provider

filters out a bunch of the spam already and they have had it drilled in

their head enough 'don't open the unknown' that they usually just delete it.

So even if their free product isn't any better than the rest - if the

marketing hit the person at the right time and they installed it and they

went a while without issues (whether they would have or not otherwise) -

they might attribute it to the software and recommend it. Word-of-Mouth

advertising - people are more likely to listen to that because it seems to

be coming from people 'just like them'. Basic psychology. ;-)

Shenan Stanley wrote:

> While their product may be a fine one (don't know - have had no

> need to try it - other free products have filled the gap prior

> quite nicely) - you cannot deny that a company that sells (or even

> gives away) a product that solves a problem would not benefit from

> making the problem seem larger than it may actually be...

jim wrote:

> Sure they could. But, in today's connected IT world, they would

> soon be outed as not really knowing what they were doing or being

> outright dishonest. I suspect the resulting negative press would

> do more harm than good. I also suspect that they know that.

True and not. As I discussed just prior to this and taking my quoted

statement as it is - I said they benefitted from making the problem seem

larger than it was... Nothin you said disputes that and if the problem isn't

really that large and the people therefore never experience an issue while

having said product installed - then they just might be asked, "What do you

use and do you like it?" and they would answer, "Product X and I haven't had

any trouble with it!" and the cycle continues. ;-)

Shenan Stanley wrote:

> - PCTools sells protection software.

> - They have a free version of a malware software available.

> - They also sell a version of said software.

> http://www.threatfire.com/download/

> - Computers connected to the Internet are more vulnerable in

> general. - Most percentages/statistics are made up to benefit those making

> up the numbers. When confronted, it is usually difficult for

> those who made up the numbers to present concrete facts backing

> them up and usually easy for someone else to bend/make up numbers

> of their own to the contrary. This is especially true when

> dealing with things that are difficult to quantify because of the

> lack of reliable numbers (like the security of an OS versus an

> older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSes are and what other

> protections may already be in place that prevent the supposed

> issues from ever even reaching the OS...)

jim wrote:

> We'll see. I'm sure somebody else will call them on this if they

> cannot produce satisfactory data to back their claims.

I believe that is what is happening in this thread right now...

Shenan Stanley wrote:

> It's very interesting to see where all you posted this:

> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?en...VAfM_q59x2ZScCa

> ... as well as what type of postings you seem to propogate.

jim wrote:

> I tend to post articles where they will be acted upon by the most

> people.

> As for the list of all of those articles in your link, the "Post

> Activity" portion is bogus data. I am certainly not the author of

> all of those posts.

>

> Perhaps you (and Google) should do a little digging into how

> newsgroups work and the fact that not all jim@home.net users are

> the same person.

Acted upon - or cause the biggest flame? ;-)

As for your identity and all those being by you - Never said they were - how

about I dig deeper...

Looking at the headers (of the articles that would be in the same trend as

this one) - I see most of them are coming from bellsouth.net.

bignews#.bellsouth.net to be specific. Using Microsoft Outlook Express

6.00.2900.3138...

While you are probably not the only jim@home.net - I do not believe that is

the only criteria being used. ;-)

jim wrote:

> Then again, an MS-MVPs would have more to gain by shooting the

> messenger of this topic than by discussing it rationally, wouldn't

> they?

Responded to seperately - as this seems to be sopmething better dealt with

away from the topic at hand.

--

Shenan Stanley

MS-MVP

--

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

May 20, 2008

Furthermore...

Does running Vista make you feel safe from malware? (ZDNet)

Another day, another report casts doubt on Vista's immunity to

malware. Do you

feel safer running Vista?

"PC Tools maintain that Vista is not immune from online threats.

Further

research and analysis has confirmed

our contention that additional third-party protection is absolutely

necessary

for all Windows Vista users" said...

5/20/2008 9:42 AM

Sign In

PC Tools reveals Vista is not so immune

Recommended Posts

Guest jim

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Uncle Marvo

Guest jim

Guest Straight Talk

Guest jim

Guest John Waller

Guest Mark H

Guest dennis@home

Guest Mike Hall - MVP

Guest Joseph Meehan

Guest jim

Guest C.B.

Guest Robert Pendell

Guest Shenan Stanley

Guest Dave

Guest Shenan Stanley

Guest jim

Guest Shenan Stanley

Guest Gerald309BCPCNet

Guest Shenan Stanley

Guest Gerald309BCPCNet

Guest Dave

Guest Shenan Stanley

Guest Dave

Guest Shenan Stanley

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Support