While going through my feeds earlier today, I noticed links to a couple of reports about how Vista has been doing so far in terms of security. I haven't had a chance to research the claims presented, so I thought it would be interesting to discuss and dissect them here. Symantec study - Windows security, in general: The first is from a study conducted by Symantec, and as we all know, they've had their fair share of disputes with Microsoft. Surprisingly, even under such circumstances, this is what they had to say about Windows in general (not Vista specifically): [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201 Windows Vista - 90 Day Vulnerability Report: [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]More interesting to me, however, is this 90 day vulnerability report, comparing Vista to XP as well as Linux and Mac OS X. Here's a chart displaying the results, but I would suggest skimming through the full PDF report as well:[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Bear in mind that this report was compiled by a [/SIZE][/FONT]Security Strategy Director at Microsoft, so there's good reason to take it with a grain of salt, but no reason to dismiss it completely unless there are glaring factual flaws. Thoughts? So what do you guys think? It seems quite interesting to me, but as I said, I haven't had the chance to look for contradicting evidence yet. Does anyone want to try to contest the findings, especially from the second report? I realize that I might be opening a big can of worms with this thread, so I ask, in advance, that you remain civil and respectful, even if your opinions differ from someone else's. No personal attacks, please. Fire away.