__/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Tuesday 06 February 2007 02:27 \__
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:58:06 +0000
> <3075961.7aPHX53Fhi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> __/ [ Richard Rasker ] on Monday 05 February 2007 21:03 \__
>>
>>>
>>> This is so pathetic, it's almost cool:
>>>
>>> http://www.webroot.com/company/pressroom/pr/vista-weaknesses.html
>>>
>>> "Windows® Defender fails to block 84% of a testing sample-set that
>>> included 15 of the most common variations of existing spyware and
>>> malware."
>>>
>>> And to think that Microsoft not only bought several renowned anti-virus
>>> outfits in the past years, have more resources and money than any other
>>> software company, have had five years since Gates' hypocritical
>>> "Trustworthy Computing" memo to create something really good
>>> security-wise, but also have unlimited access to the sources of what
>>> they're trying to protect - and still *this* is what they come up with?
>>>
>>> This is unbelievable. I mean, having a "security application" that's only
>>> 16% effective isn't just bad. It's much, much worse than bad, because it
>>> conveys a false sense of security. "Yessir, our locks 'n bolts stop 15%
>>> of all burglars!" No-one in their right mind would want to use such
>>> crapware.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well mr. Funkenbusch, as I'm completely at a loss for words over this
>>> one, it's over to you, to explain more about this latest feat in computer
>>> security by those utterly incompetent morons in Redmond.
>>
>> OneCare is equally bad, FWIW, so the last think we need is security that
>> becomes a monopoly. Just look at the state of IE a couple of years ago.
>> The Net was in a miserable state (to many, it still is).
>>
>
> Well, I still get lots of spam. :-) Part of it is my
> fault, of course; the harvesterbots glom onto my sig below
> faster than one can say "Upsidaisyium". And MSNBC and BBC
> still refuse to serve me video clips because I don't know
> the proper proprietary magic woids and phrases.
>
> (Not that I care all that much, but it's an annoyance. To
> any 'bots who can actually read past an at sign....you're
> not going to sell me pharmacoepia, lottery tickets,
> long-dead African national figures with supposedly huge
> bank accounts, or various pictures with supposedly huge --
> erm, I'll leave it at that. I'm not interested. :-P
> I will save the more amusing ones, such as the attempt from
> a bank which I've never had an account in. :-) )
It's not about you personally though. It's a brute-force thing. There are
100-150 million Windows zombies out there... and around 0.1 trillian SPAM is
being sent every single day. Some estimate and foresee a rise that's weighed
in orders of magntitude next year. Something's got to give and we currently
disconnect many people on the network (suspension and fines included).
There's no reason why networking today should be slower than it was 6 years
ago (at the least).
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Reversi for Linux/Win32: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 5 Jan 23 00:41 last=S
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
