____/ BearItAll on Tuesday 10 July 2007 16:04 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Microsoft Windows Vista Kernel Unspecified Remote Denial Of Service
>> Vulnerability
>>
>> http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/24816/info
>>
>> How big is the botnet problem?
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Gigantic. Watchdog organization Shadowserver Foundation monitors the
>> | number of detected command-and-control servers -- which indicates how
>> | many individual botnets are out there -- and the number of clients these
>> | servers control.
>> `----
>>
>>
>
http://www.networkworld.com/research/2007/070607-botnets-side.html?fsrc=rss-security
>>
>>
>> Related:
>>
>> Botnet 'pandemic' threatens to strangle the net
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Cerf estimated that between 100 million and 150 million of the
>> | 600 million PCs on the internet are under the control of hackers,
>> | the BBC reports.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/26/botnet_threat/
>>
>>
>> Microsoft Patches Not One, But Three Vista Holes
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Microsoft today released an update for the recently popular 'animated
>> | cursor' vulnerability. The update was originally scheduled for April
>> | 10th, but due to recent exploits, was rushed out today. The update
>> | wasn't just for this one vulnerability though, in Vista, it addressed
>> | two others, and in all covered seven vulnerabilities in Vista, XP and
>> | 2000.
>> `----
>>
>>
> http://itsvista.com/2007/04/microsoft-patches-not-one-but-three-vista-holes/
>
>
> So, Win-Lovers, can you tell us please what compelling reasons they are for
> keeping MS Windows?
For a moment I though you had typed Win-Losers. I swear it looked like it when
I read the text quickly. This isn't quite your character though.
> It is out of control, MS, Symantec and McAfee can not control it. Do you
> think any of these bots might be used for criminal or terrorist purposes?
> Seems pretty obvious to me that they would make use of them.
There are examples in China. I could pull the references, but I'm on a
different PC at the moment, so I don't have convenient access to them. Last
year, I think it was Korea that brough the Internet down to its knees by
hitting DNS in the US. It was only a /test run/. The spammers had a test run
last Christmas. They are testing the waters. Meanwhile, the Chinese government
apparently sponsors cyberweapons. It has actually been confirmed. In a recent
shocking talk, someone said the terrorists may have that too. The solution?
Some said "an Internet driving licence". Puh-leese!
> What greater hit is there for a terrorist group than to hit the finacial
> centres, what quicker way is they for them to bring down governments or
> even countries. What better way is they for making money for terrorist
> activities. Have you looked at Forbes billion aires lists lately, have a
> look where the vast majority of new billionairs live and concider who owns
> most of the bots.
>
> MS are responsible for all of this. That is a sweeping statement isn't it,
> but it is absolutely true. Because they could have done something about it
> long ago, they had many opertunities and a lot of financial resources that
> they could have put back into the system and got it sorted out, they did
> nothing, in all the time of XP MS did not contribute to their user's
> security. I wish that Symantec, McAfee and the others had not been
> available, because then MS be long gone, they simply could not have
> survived the onslaught.
>
> But that time is coming isn't it, with the third party security systems all
> telling us that they are struggling to make Vista safe. MS deliberately
> kicked these companies out because they misguidedly thought that they could
> do the job themselves. But they can't do it, they attempts are pathetic.
> Dare they allow Symantec in at the core? Would Symantec dare to touch the
> core when we all know how delicate it is now, ready to spring apart if it
> is touched in the wrong place.
It's the conflict of interests. Thompson talked about it. Microsoft kicks
security vendors out of its turf and at the same time it has incentive to have
some vulnerabilities (selling point for Live OneCare).
> All of this is down to MS. So tell me MS-Lovers what is there really
> anything to attract anyone to MS Windows, is it really right for
> governments to allow MS Win free reign when we all know they is an
> alternative to this situation and it is already with us.
>
> Linux doesn't have these problems, it affects us, but it is a problem that
> is out of our hands, we are dependant upon a bunch of amatur programmers
> who seem to have a limited knowledge on security and are distinctly lacking
> when it comes to good quallity code.
>
> I really find it difficult to come up with a compelling argument to advocate
> Microsoft as a distributer of operating systems. As their failings hit the
> financial sector more and more someone somewhere with a loud enough voice
> in the world has to shout 'STOP, WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH'.
>
> No one seems to be shouting at the moment, but there are a lot of people
> talking.
Some are already shouting/complaining/worrying.
What about the Kremlin/Estonia affairs? That was Windows botnets. Some blame
the Russian government for hiring botmasters (Windows puppeteers is what I
like to call them).
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows leaves me peckish
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 515500k total, 444520k used, 70980k free, 1248k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
