Slashdot Mirror


Worms Jack Up the Total Cost of Windows

rbrandis writes "Dealing with widespread worms like Sasser raises the cost of using Windows, a research analyst said Wednesday. "This is part of the carrying cost of using Windows," said Mark Nicolett, research director at Gartner. "The cost of a Windows environment has gone up because enterprises have to install security patches very rapidly, deal with outages caused by secondary problems with these patches, and deploy additional layers of security technology." "The Sasser worm attacks confirm our prediction that mass worm attacks against the multiple vulnerabilities disclosed by Microsoft on April 13 were likely," said Nicolett and his Gartner colleague, John Pescatore, in an alert posted on the Gartner site."

8 of 658 comments (clear)

  1. fucking zelaots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Can you count updating your kernel as an extra costs to linux as well? I know it takes me about 40 times longer to do that then download a freaking patch! You fucking fuckers are useless with your blinders on and the linux box dead smack in front of you.

  2. Bring on the FUD by BierGuzzl · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    1 - Create an OS with more holes than swiss cheese
    2 - Deny vulnerabilities as long as possible
    3 - Release Patches
    4 - Blame Security Vulnerabilities on Patches
    5 - ??
    6 - Profit!

  3. +5 INSIGHTFUL!!, PRAISING LINUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    An when Linux gets exploited, the people fix it for free and very quickly. Then the next person to download this FREE system is a-ok.

    Thats just plain sexy.

  4. What they imply but don't have the guts to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    The TCO is still less than Linux...

  5. Re:Antivirus subscriptions included in TCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Great,thanks for that unwarranted conjecture, it really contributed to the discussion at hand. Allow me to retort.

    I wonder if the cost of antivirus subscriptions has traditionally been included in the TCO studies out there comparing Windows and Linux. Somehow I bet so.

    I should get +5 too now, as my post has the same content information as yours, but espouses the opposite viewpoint.

  6. Re:no viruses for linux yet because.... by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    well my main point was is that these problems we are facing would be more even if the number of PC's running windows and linux were closer to 50/50. yeah you can log in as root but then someone will come up with a hack, just like everything else..someway someone would write something.

  7. Re:And the point is...? by NineNine · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh yeah, it'll be cheaper until Distribution X discontinues, then you're fucked. I haven't seen any studies here on /. about those millions and millions of users who used Red Hat on their desktop, and who are now fucked because little tiny Red Hat decided not to continue their product. I'm sure most had to re-install a new OS. If that's not expensive, I don't know what is.

    True, you won't have a monoculture, but if companies start using Linux on desktops, and the Linux companies fold (as they always do), then they're especially fucked. At least with MS, I know they're going to be around tomorrow, and if a problem crops up, they're gonna fix it, because they have millions of customers. If I were using Red Hat a year ago, I'd be fucked today.

  8. Re:I'll save money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Why don't people who make viruses give the viruses good names, like microsux or microsoftripsoff. Microft mentions Sasser on their website, but would they mention micros*@# ??? Sasser just isn't a cool name. Iloveyou was a cool one. myDoom was a lame name. I think Elvis would be a cool one. Another would be dontpressthisbutton.exe or goodbyeworld.scr
    In the history of virus names, putting the authors actual name was popular for a while until they realized they could be caught. AnsiiCwerked4ME_alloc; Chrisgainesaddiction; would be cool. Viruses seem pretty lame if they don't have good names. That kournikova one may have been famous but then the actual tennis star turned out to be disappointing when it came to tennis. Rhyming would be nice, Alsadr.scr. ore Letitbe.exe. oops! let_it_be.exe They won't even be catchy no matter how destructive it they don't have a cool name. People may even ignore viruses based on the lameness of the name.If people are going to annoy and disrupt world communication--They should at least have the consideration to put a good name on it. Bad writing is as bad as writing bad code. Someday computer viruses and c++ code will be turned into art like everything else. That is my critique of computer viruses. Microsft is coming out with "Longhorn". Something tells me I know where these viruses are coming from.