On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:53:41 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Google: Attack code more likely on Microsoft IIS
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Modadugu didn't draw any conclusions about whether this means that
> | Microsoft servers are more likely to be hacked. "It is important to
> | note that while many servers serve malware as a result of a
> | server compromise... some servers are configured to serve up
> | exploits by their administrators," Modadugu wrote.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=417467652&rid=-50
>
> Chinese user sues Symantec over dodgy updates
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In standard configurations on Norton Anti-Virus these files are
> | deleted, resulting in problems subsequently booting systems.
> | Fixing systems involves copying these files from backup CDs.
> `----
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/05/chinese_av_lawsuit_symantec/
>
> Some people argue that if you spend $50 on AV subscription, Windows will be
> relatively secure...... Until million of Chinese people have their PCs
> rendered useless. Why not just use an O/S that is secure by design and does
> not devour resources unnecessarily?
I recently removed Norton from a 1.5GHz P4 machine because it was running
slooooooowwwww.....
Installed Avast! just so it'd be protected and moderately usable.
|
|
