On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:24:16 PST, Roger Marquis said: > Can you site a reference? Can you substantiate "lots"? I didn't think so. > This is yet another case the rhetoric gets a little over the top, leading > those of us who were doing this before NAT to suspect a non-technical > agenda.
Some estimates say that Conficker has nailed over 9 to 16 million systems by now. Every single one was because somebody didn't apply a patch that came out back in October. I'm sure at least some of these were because of either: a) "I'm Joe Sixpack, and I'm safe because I'm behind my cablemodem" b) "I'm Joe McSE (want fries with that?), and I'm safe because of the corporate firewall". (Note that due to its design, Conficker *can't* spread through a properly configured firewall - almost by definition, *every single* firewalled network that got hit was because somebody forgot the difference between "firewall" and "security perimeter".
pgpLaiH09uL72.pgp
Description: PGP signature
