PC Tools reveals Vista is not so immune

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
snipped
Entire FUD he
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...4c9ce3dc451b46
( What's FUD?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C...inty_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/prof...AfM_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 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

jim wrote:
snipped
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

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....&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 nightma

Alluring MP3s, movies hit LimeWire, install malware instead
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/S...ts/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, 6:13*am, "jim" 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

Shenan Stanley wrote:
snipped
Entire FUD he
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...4c9ce3dc451b46
( What's FUD?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C...inty_and_doubt )

inline answers

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/prof...AfM_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 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 - 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

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
Read more | Open in browser

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1897


Notes... "Duh"... No one who ever made a computer disk operating
system said it
could operate without conventional
malware shareware softwares - except maybe the clowns about Apple/Mac
and Linux
OS. The term "third-party protection"
means antivirus and antispyware shareware programs. Gee, I can not
remember
getting a new computer running Windows
without a Norton Antivirus free 30 day trial in it, which means even
our
computer manufacturers (Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, etc)
believe this already like going back at least to my first in year
2001. Enough
of this spin city already - BUT - this article has some
good information bits in it about Vista OS.

The point of my comments is who ever said Vista OS could operate
without ever
getting infected with malware ? So like this means
what is this author's point of reference for the story ? Oh well.....
there you
are. This was a bit immature of a statement. Really !

On May 20, 4:06*pm, Gerald309BCPCNet
wrote:
More from PCTools about Vista Security ...... Article:
---cut---

Shenan Stanley wrote:

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

You say Vundo 'sucks' , but according to Symantec it has a very low risk level:
http://www.symantec.com/security_res...112111-3912-99

Most of the pages Google throws up about Vundo are at least 2 years old, like these:

http://www.computing.net/answers/sec...air/16663.html
http://wiki.castlecops.com/Talk:Vund...oval_Procedure
http://forums.techguy.org/malware-re...ndo-virus.html
http://ca.com/securityadvisor/virusi....aspx?ID=42097

When did you last see this Vundo have any effect on a Vista installation with all latest updates etc?

Dave wrote:
Shenan Stanley wrote:

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

You say Vundo 'sucks' , but according to Symantec it has a very low
risk level:
http://www.symantec.com/security_res...112111-3912-99

Most of the pages Google throws up about Vundo are at least 2 years
old, like these:
http://www.computing.net/answers/sec...air/16663.html
http://wiki.castlecops.com/Talk:Vund...oval_Procedure
http://forums.techguy.org/malware-re...ndo-virus.html
http://ca.com/securityadvisor/virusi....aspx?ID=42097

When did you last see this Vundo have any effect on a Vista
installation with all latest updates etc?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...ndo+vista+2008

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Dave wrote:
Shenan Stanley wrote:

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

You say Vundo 'sucks' , but according to Symantec it has a very low
risk level:
http://www.symantec.com/security_res...112111-3912-99

Most of the pages Google throws up about Vundo are at least 2 years
old, like these:
http://www.computing.net/answers/sec...air/16663.html
http://wiki.castlecops.com/Talk:Vund...oval_Procedure
http://forums.techguy.org/malware-re...ndo-virus.html
http://ca.com/securityadvisor/virusi....aspx?ID=42097

When did you last see this Vundo have any effect on a Vista
installation with all latest updates etc?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...ndo+vista+2008

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP

Here we go again.
You said Vundo 'sucks' . That implies that you have had some experience with this Vundo threat.
I asked you when YOU last saw Vundo have any effect on a Vista installation.

The Google search you posted contains three separate keywords - vundo vista 2008
Therefore every page Google finds with these three words on IN ANY ORDER or IN ANY POSITION
will count as a hit.

I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste of time trying to find a Vista installation that was
succesfully infected with Vundo.

Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of answering with a useless Google search.

That tells me you have no knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just repeating the usual rumours.

Dave wrote:
Here we go again.
You said Vundo 'sucks' . That implies that you have had some
experience with this Vundo threat. I asked you when YOU last saw Vundo
have any effect on a Vista
installation.
The Google search you posted contains three separate keywords -
vundo vista 2008 Therefore every page Google finds with these three
words on IN ANY
ORDER or IN ANY POSITION will count as a hit.

I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste
of time trying to find a Vista installation that was succesfully
infected with Vundo.
Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of
answering with a useless Google search.
That tells me you have no knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just
repeating the usual rumours.

Actually - no - it tells you I don't care about your search for ways to
"checkout [your] security settings". I never did. I was appalled that you
would ASK for someone to post links to sites that could infest a system -
that's it. No other motivation, no other reason for answering.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Dave wrote:

Here we go again.
You said Vundo 'sucks' . That implies that you have had some experience with this Vundo threat.
I asked you when YOU last saw Vundo have any effect on a Vista installation.

The Google search you posted contains three separate keywords - vundo vista 2008
Therefore every page Google finds with these three words on IN ANY ORDER or IN ANY POSITION
will count as a hit.

chuckle You would think that a poster who has "MS-MVP" as part of his
sig, would be more professional than to post results from a Google
general search than a Google Advanced search.



I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste of time trying to find a Vista installation that was
succesfully infected with Vundo.

chuckle........then why didn't you pop over to Advanced Search and do
your own? If you had you would have found entries such as the following:

http://www.virtumonde.net/blog/virtu...e-comments-10/

This was the first hit........didn't bother checking out any more of the
links 'cause I don't have the time or interest....I'll leave that chore
up to your level of interest on the subject.



Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of answering with a useless Google search.

That tells me you have no knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just repeating the usual rumours.


.............tells me that neither of you rascals took the time to do
your research properly.....seems to me that your more interest in
participating in a ****ing contest than providing real problem solutions.

Just ma .02 cents worth.

propman wrote:
snip
chuckle You would think that a poster who has "MS-MVP" as part
of his sig, would be more professional than to post results from a
Google general search than a Google Advanced search.

Why?

I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste
of time trying to find a Vista installation that was succesfully
infected with Vundo.

chuckle........then why didn't you pop over to Advanced Search
and do your own? If you had you would have found entries such as
the following:
http://www.virtumonde.net/blog/virtu...e-comments-10/

This was the first hit........didn't bother checking out any more
of the links 'cause I don't have the time or interest....I'll leave
that chore up to your level of interest on the subject.



Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of
answering with a useless Google search. That tells me you have no
knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just
repeating the usual rumours.


............tells me that neither of you rascals took the time to do
your research properly.....seems to me that your more interest in
participating in a ****ing contest than providing real problem
solutions.
Just ma .02 cents worth.

I believe you should have read my further response before answering. I had
nothing to research - so I did none.

Whta 'problem' was presented that needed research in this part of the
conversation?

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Shenan Stanley wrote:
propman wrote:
snip
chuckle You would think that a poster who has "MS-MVP" as part
of his sig, would be more professional than to post results from a
Google general search than a Google Advanced search.

Why?

Duh!



I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste
of time trying to find a Vista installation that was succesfully
infected with Vundo.
chuckle........then why didn't you pop over to Advanced Search
and do your own? If you had you would have found entries such as
the following:
http://www.virtumonde.net/blog/virtu...e-comments-10/

This was the first hit........didn't bother checking out any more
of the links 'cause I don't have the time or interest....I'll leave
that chore up to your level of interest on the subject.


Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of
answering with a useless Google search. That tells me you have no
knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just
repeating the usual rumours.

............tells me that neither of you rascals took the time to do
your research properly.....seems to me that your more interest in
participating in a ****ing contest than providing real problem
solutions.
Just ma .02 cents worth.

I believe you should have read my further response before answering. I had
nothing to research - so I did none.

Whta 'problem' was presented that needed research in this part of the
conversation?


Yeppers....more interested in a ****ing contest

plonk

propman wrote:
plonk

You use the phrases '****ing contest' and chuckle and I am
non-professional?
That's ironic - at least.

If you are going to accuse someone of being non-professional - it helps to
act that way yourself.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
jim wrote:
snipped
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.

You stated that PC Tools had something to gain by making accusations that
Microsoft's products are insecure. While that is certainly true of any
Windows based security software vendor, you inferred that they did so in a
less-than -honest manner ("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 OSs
are and what other protections may already be in place that prevent the
supposed issues from ever even reaching the OS...))".

IMHO, this is irrational considering the number of firms and people (both in
and out of Microsoft's pocket) that would call them on this. To do what you
suggested is irrational from a business point of view - considering the
stink that would surround the company once exposed.

Then, you go on to attack me - insinuating that I (for some reason only
known to you) would post articles with a less-than-genuine reason into
particular newsgroups. This too is irrational. What would be the purpose?
And, what has that got to do with the current post? If the current post's
logic or facts are in error, please point those things out without diverting
to personal attacks upon the poster.

You gave a link that listed many many articles to which I have no connection
whatsoever. And, you have given no valid reason that a person would waste
his/her time posting false warnings to a newsgroup - much less a reason,
that you can back up factually, for me doing so.

Please stick to the topic at hand if you want a response. If you would like
to start a separate thread concerning my postings to the newsgroup, please
do so.

Remember, the topic is that PCTools reveals Vista to be less secure than
Windows 2000 (but more secure than XP).

Best regards,

jim

"jim" wrote in message
...

You stated that PC Tools had something to gain by making accusations that
Microsoft's products are insecure. While that is certainly true of any
Windows based security software vendor, you inferred that they did so in a
less-than -honest manner

No, you inferred it. I believe the word you were looking for is "implied",
and having read this thread I don't feel that he implied anything of the
sort.