[funsec] Mystisicm or real statistics?
AlexE at sunbelt-software.com
Fri May 9 17:18:29 CDT 2008
I think that W2k is inherently a different story. A) the user is likely
going to be a different level of expertise -- this is generally not the
average home user (who at the time was stuck with crap like Windows ME)
and b) The user is more likely to be in an enterprise environment.
With about 80% of attacks occurring through social engineering, does
this just mean that people are ignoring Vista's UAC to get their Pr0n
From: funsec-bounces at linuxbox.org [mailto:funsec-bounces at linuxbox.org]
On Behalf Of Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 6:03 PM
To: funsec at linuxbox.org
Subject: Re: [funsec] Mystisicm or real statistics?
Date sent: Fri, 09 May 2008 15:15:55 -0400
From: Alex Eckelberry <AlexE at sunbelt-software.com>
> Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s Vista operating system is more susceptible to
> malware than Windows 2000, and though it's 37% more secure than
> Windows XP, it's still too vulnerable.
I can see that, possibly, 37% more *current* malware uses functions that
don't exist in Win2K ...
====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade at vcn.bc.ca slade at victoria.tc.ca rslade at computercrime.org
We praise or fault, depending on which of the two provides more
opportunity for our powers of judgment to shine.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
More information about the funsec