On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:06:33AM -0600, Bruce Ediger wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Nick FitzGerald wrote: > > > Nowadays the big, noisy, obvious, "own the net" type "outbreak" of > > yesteryear is not the model of choice for your typical cyber-thug (you > > know, those running virtually all malware these days).. > > > > In fact, _avoiding_ exactly that is pretty much top of their list of > > desiderata. > > How do we know this? > > I mean, it seems kind of circular to say "We haven't seen another Code > Red II for a while, so the malware writers are doing other things." Of > course they are off doing other things: we haven't seen another Code Red > II in years. > > What other evidence exists? >
Some evidence: Conficker was long ago in the past 2008. i heard script kiddie mentality changed so much they prefer to brag about XSS instead of pwning the interwebs :) stuxnet didn't target the interwebs either - this might mean Valdis' constant is more like 95.999%. strongly suspect all the 404 for cgis in my httpd logs are requested by hand :) -- joro _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
