__/ [ [H]omer ] on Wednesday 25 April 2007 21:45 \__
> Verily I say unto thee, that William Poaster spake thusly:
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6591183.stm
>>
>> Sophos says that 70% of affected websites are *legitimate* sites, hijacked
>> by malware writers.
>>
>> Now I wonder how all those "I've used windoze for x years, & never needed
>> an AV because I don't visit dodgy sites...etc" know which sites aren't
>> affected? Crystal ball? ESP, perhaps?
>> And without an AV, how do they *know* that they're not affected?
>
> Even *with* AV, how do they know:
>
> "[AV industry analysts] say signature-based checking can?t keep up with
> the flood of virus variants manufactured by a criminal underworld that
> is beating the antivirus vendors at their own game."
>
> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/mgmt/0047A206FF40A92ECC2572C3000FD867
Just yesterday -- the elixir that doesn't work.
,----[ Quote ]
| "It's the beginning of the end for antivirus," says Robin Bloor, partner
| at consulting firm Hurwitz & Associates, who adds he began his
| "antivirus is dead" campaign a year ago and feels even more strongly
| about it today. "I'm going to keep beating this drum. The approach
| antivirus vendors take is completely wrong. The criminals working to
| release these viruses against computer users are testing against
| antivirus software. They know what works and how to create variants."
`----
--
~~ With kind regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | http://debian.org
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:05am up 11 days 2:33, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.15
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
