The BBC is reporting that there has been a 50% increase in the number of viruses released in 2004; as many as 100,000 viruses were seen 'in the wild', many of them doing serious damage to their targets. Bot-nets, computers infected with remote control software featured largely in 2004; equally prominent was the use of viruses and these bot-nets for cyber-crime and sending spam.
2004 also saw the release of the first proper virus for mobile phones. For PC's, in first place on the top ten viruses of 2004 was the Netsky worm variant, Netsky-P. The worm exploited a vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Explorer and mailed itself to vulnerable Windows machines.
It's very easy to blame Microsoft for the security issues associated with their products; after all, 90%+ of people using a PC on the desktop run a version of Windows. However, Microsoft are continuing to make serious efforts when it comes to security, and Service Pack 2 was a massive step in the right direction. Yet Bruce Schneier, a security expert, believes that although the likes of SP2 were a good start, they aren't good enough. "Deep down, Microsoft still treats security problems as public relations problems. They are still not able to make the hard trade-offs of security and functionality. They still see features as their primary goal, and security secondary."
Security problems are here to say; sensible protection can help you avoid them. Stay patched up and only use secure and trusted programs. Recent company acquisitions by Microsoft could signal either the inclusion of basic anti-virus and anti-spyware with Windows in 2005, or the offering of a Microsoft anti-virus solution.
View: Windows Update | Microsoft
2004 also saw the release of the first proper virus for mobile phones. For PC's, in first place on the top ten viruses of 2004 was the Netsky worm variant, Netsky-P. The worm exploited a vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Explorer and mailed itself to vulnerable Windows machines.
It's very easy to blame Microsoft for the security issues associated with their products; after all, 90%+ of people using a PC on the desktop run a version of Windows. However, Microsoft are continuing to make serious efforts when it comes to security, and Service Pack 2 was a massive step in the right direction. Yet Bruce Schneier, a security expert, believes that although the likes of SP2 were a good start, they aren't good enough. "Deep down, Microsoft still treats security problems as public relations problems. They are still not able to make the hard trade-offs of security and functionality. They still see features as their primary goal, and security secondary."
Security problems are here to say; sensible protection can help you avoid them. Stay patched up and only use secure and trusted programs. Recent company acquisitions by Microsoft could signal either the inclusion of basic anti-virus and anti-spyware with Windows in 2005, or the offering of a Microsoft anti-virus solution.
View: Windows Update | Microsoft
Cont...
Whereas EA's Madden NFL series is unquestionably the dominant American football franchise in the US, despite strong competition from Take-Two/SEGA's budget-priced ESPN Videogames efforts this year, EA's NBA Live series doesn't enjoy the same degree of domination with strong competition from ESPN NBA, NBA Ballers and 989's basketball games on various formats, says IGN.
The effect of EA's deal with the NFL is still being felt this week, as rival sports publishers now find themselves not only worrying about EA's relative marketing power, but its newfound ability to pull the rug out from under them completely when forced to react to any genuine threat to its own sales.
As such, this rejection - if indeed it did happen - will be encouraging for EA's rivals, but perhaps only in the short term. If the NBA has rejected an initial offer, it's worth considering that a second, larger offer might find the organisation more agreeable. Only time will tell; EA and the NBA are unlikely to comment one way or the other until one or both parties become either contractually bound or intractably averse to the proposal.
Last week publishers, including Take-Two, voiced their concern over lack of choice for the consumer in light of the NFL deal, and Midway boldly announced that it will release an unlicensed, more brutal American football game called Blitz: Playmakers in 2005 despite the arrangement, which will effectively sew up any official statistics and data until some way into the next cycle of console hardware.
With *Windows 2000 Professional* I can get 12-24 months..... Customers of mine can go for years
(Somehow I think MS needs to address just a couple more bugs yet! lol)
But then again, it can't be all bad. If everybody was smart about the way they ran their computers, we few skilled operators out there wouldn't be worth nearly as much as we are now to the computing-centric world we live in. Here's to a bigger paycheck in 2005.
After I'm done with thier PC they rarely have any virus/spyware problems. I basicly tell them what to do and what not to do then install latest patches do some tweaks and put Firefox on there,
I never install a firewall/anti-virus on my PC I need all of my CPU.
Anyway it all comes down to the user 90% of the time.
You little ub3r hax0rrr !!!!elevenoneone!!!
word of advise if any of u major virus writers read this... KEEP YOUR MOUTH SEALED WHEN U MAKE A VIRUS!
but virus writers need a damn JOB this way they can help people instead of screwing em over.
Last edited by 46870 on 31 Dec 2004 - 00:24
The count of known viruses broke the 100,000
The Number of known viruses passed the 100, 000+ mark.
Get it? 100,000 "+"
As in more than 100,000
What are you talking about?
I agree. No matter what the subject in life, there will always be a positive and negative side. You can blame people for not being up to specs when it comes to operating a computer, you can blame writers of poor code selling it when they know it's vulnerable....or you can blame those that take advantage of the situation. Or, you can take an active role on your end to help educate as many people as you can about the reality of the situation...the more you help them, the more it helps you.
edit: in the sense of "don't unplug the router, fiddle with the FW, and don't touch IE"
Reminds me of the billboad that says: "If you can't read and write, there is help available! Call this number today!"
I think you mean the sort of folks for which copy'n'pasting other people's JavaScript code is equivalent to being a 1337 HAXX0R, but when they see something like an ordinary DOS prompt, they move the mouse and search for the "Start" button.
That's what I did http://davechalkconnected.ipbhost.com/inde...?showtopic=1802
For Example, When I went on Holiday to my Cousins in America, they managed (with NAV crap) to get over 17000 Internet Viruses..I ended up Formatting their C Drive
" You're as retarded as them if you think that something like a "C Drive" exists..." ... is just uncalled for.
Agreed
I too have made tons of money in 2004 disinfecting peoples computers.
Must be because I don't open most e-mail, don't click banner ads (never have), and use a browser that doesn't enjoy exploiting your every move. I also have a reuter installed, so I guess that helped.
Sometimes I think computer illiterate people deserve the viruses they get. The less stupid people on the net, the less "lol liek omg" on the net.
On a different note, 99% of the mistake occurs between the chair and the keyboard(or mouse)
I though always get Data Miner from some Tracking corporation (adware) and I am not able to get rid of it.
Ad Aware Personal SE v1.5
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This is a very common spin put up by M$ lackeys. They do not wish to admit that Windows is structurally unsound and thus all the related security problems. Instead they blame large market share as the reason for Windows being targeted. Good for fooling the IT ignorant, but definitely not people who have some general knowledge in OSs.
I suppose you consider your reply as "using facts for their arguments"!?
Fact
Fact
Fact
Blatant misfact
Narcissism
a general hatred of people using facts for their arguments
Ignorance of the obvious, why didn't you rebute this? Because it is a... Fact.
Happy Almost-Newyear.
Yes, every software has bugs, but it also matters how the software is designed.
Yes, all UNIX-derivates have bugs, but MS Windows' architecture is just insecure.
If you fix a security flaw in a UNIX-derivate mostly you really fix the bug, but
if MS fixes a security flaw in Windows they often just fix the bug's symptom(s) or make the exploit(s) unusable.
Okay, now flame me!
Last edited by 83966 on 30 Dec 2004 - 09:28
I do use Linux, and am aware that bugs will be found everywhere (though you don't seem to appreciate the speed with which fixes are distributed for Linux apps), but you are spinning the point out of context. It's not about whose got more bugs than who, but the possibilty of severe system compromise due to those bugs. Fact, Linux was built from the start, to deal with being in a hostile networked environment. Windows was not. Security is built into the very core of Linux. Security measures are patchy add-ons that sometimes break more than they fix in Windows. Windows doesn't have more holes simply because it is a bigger target, it has holes because it is essentially broken at a very deep level.
BTW, if by the Linux vs Windows security issues you're talking about the Forrester report, LOL don't make me laugh! If you believe the spin they put out, well, you really should keep that to yourself.
Last edited by 58940 on 31 Dec 2004 - 03:02
Windows as (in)secure as Linux or OSX !?
Windows as (in)secure as Linux or OSX !?
Pot meet kettle.
You STILL haven't rebuted the article posted at this very site, pot.
First it sends a copy of itself to every address in the computer's address book, and then it permanently disables or destroys all networking capability on that system.
Think about the consequences of that scenario for a minute!
A virus works best by leaving the network up, and using it to to seek out new hosts (or perhaps some of the same old hosts that have been reloaded and are once again vunerable).
Right. In that scenario, people who refused to protect their PCs would find themselves off-line and unable to spread viruses.
Last edited by 22045 on 01 Jan 2005 - 02:29