John Pugh wrote:
>>>>On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 10:28 AM, in message
>
> <45C0B586.8050702@perennialwisdom.com>, Khepri <khepri@perennialwisdom.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Chad Perrin wrote
>>
>>>On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 01:35:59PM - 0500, Khepri wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>tom smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Interesting article about Vinton Cerf's finding.
>>>>>Smitty
>>>>>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070125- 8707.html
>>>>
>>>>That's intimidating.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's also a rather effective indicator of the continuing domination of
>>>the desktop computer operating system market by Microsoft.
>>
>>Good point. Am I correct in understanding that all these botnets are MS
>>product based?
>>
>>Chris C.
>>
>>p.s...I was ill for the last 9 months or so and am just now trying to
>>catch up on "things"...one of those being reveisiting this list...;)
>
>
> Glad you are back!
>
> I would not make the broad assumption that it's all windows. Certainly anything using Outlook is extremely high risk. There are many root-kitted Unix/Linux machines out there as well and many other compromised machines that don't fit either category.
>
> The point is that a TON of resources are unknowingly wasted on illicit activity. If the unknown compromised computers were known, it could be reduced substantially and eventually "prevented". However, short of not using Outlook or blocking all inbound/outbound comms, there is no easy way to combat or eliminate this issue.
>
> There are some great articles about renting/leasing time on botted nets for any reason whatsoever.
>
> JP
Thanks JP...
Ok, so in a round about way that answers my un-asked question...
As a Linux user I still need to be vigilant against rootkits and trojans
and whatnot...although maybe not as hyper-vigilant as when I use
windows...;D
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:22:44 EDT