Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zombie Networks On The Rise

Posted by Hemos on from the that-might-be-high-but-still dept.

A reader writes " According to Symantec via the BBC online, Zombie PC nets are growing very fast. Of course, it should also note that Symantec may want those numbers to be as scary as possible. " ITMJ is part of OSTG, like Slashdot. There's also a NY Times story on the article as well.

4 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Re:NAT !!! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of good that will do when the trojan goes through your NAT/Firewall through that big hole we call "email."

    Only a comprehensive approach will make a big enough difference. That includes patching, being skeptical of email attachments, firewalling, and virus scanning.

    PC hygiene goes a long way too. People are slowly learning that you just can't install the "newest c00lest blah-blah of the day" anymore as it will be 99% spyware and 1% app. It will be poorly written and cause all sorts of problems.

    These are just growing pains and even though the stats dont look good right now at least I can talk about spyware and viruses and have people understand what I'm saying.

  2. Windows 95 and Windows 98 the biggest risk?? by daveewart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To quote the fine article:

    "The key challenge for Microsoft is not XP users, it's the Windows 98 and 95 machines. Getting those people to upgrade and improve their security is going to make the difference."

    Don't think so. There are *far* fewer exploitable services running on Windows 95 and Windows 98, as compared to Windows 2000 and XP. I'd *much* rather use Windows 98 online than Windows 2000 or XP, in security terms. Most of the recent worms use exploits in services that never existed prior to Windows 2000 ...

    --
    "If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
  3. Re:NAT !!! by tialaramex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That makes no sense. If you would normally receive a packet (e.g. because you provide web service, or have an IM port open or whatever) then the NAT router will rewrite the packets so that you still receive the trojan.

    OTOH if you wouldn't normally receive something (e.g. it's an HTTP attack and you don't run a web server) then the NAT makes no difference, you still won't receive it. Big deal.

    NATs are not magical protective charms. They're just a desperate hack to get around running out of IP addresses. If you want a firewall, install a firewall, not a NAT.

  4. Re:Is there any way... by Gumph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can you make that determination when neither has been accomplished?
    What do you call OS X then?

    --
    'By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes'