Allegedly, Windows Vista is more secure then it’s predecessor, Windows XP. I dispute this as simply a manipulation with statistics and PR from Redmond.Of course, this comparison is over a period of 21 months, but I strongly believe Windows Vista is still insecure due to their closed-source activity.
If one horse’s ass smells better than the other, you’re still smelling a horse’s ass.
I’ve found it increasingly easy to still obtain viruses, rootkits and malicious software (malware) when running Vista and IE7. All it takes is a way to goad users to click OK and “Grant Permission.” Vista has a knack for coercing users to lose respect for their security mechanisms — so much so they’ll happily install questionable software and video codecs.
Apple, though closed-source, is secure because they only have a finite number of hardware and software configurations to code for. Anyone with a Mac is secure, even if they are total newbies to security.
Ubuntu and other Linux distributions are inherently more secure with frequent security updates and patches. Users learn to respect the equivalent of Windows’ “User Account Control” because it will only appear when performing administrative functions. No worms, no exploits and users can still carry on their happy lives by means of Mozilla Firefox.
So maybe Vista might be more secure than XP; great; but not many organizations or users have adopted it yet. As more organizations are held at gunpoint by Microsoft Sales to upgrade to Vista, I anticipate more sophisticated phishing and exploits targeted against Microsoft Office, Outlook and other “Office”-like groupware.
[Found via Techmeme]
