I think that W2k is inherently a different story. A) the user is likely going to be a different level of expertise -- this is generally not the average home user (who at the time was stuck with crap like Windows ME) and b) The user is more likely to be in an enterprise environment.
With about 80% of attacks occurring through social engineering, does this just mean that people are ignoring Vista's UAC to get their Pr0n codec? Probably... Alex -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 6:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [funsec] Mystisicm or real statistics? Date sent: Fri, 09 May 2008 15:15:55 -0400 From: Alex Eckelberry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArtic > le > .jhtml?articleID=207601217 > > Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s Vista operating system is more susceptible to > malware than Windows 2000, and though it's 37% more secure than > Windows XP, it's still too vulnerable. I can see that, possibly, 37% more *current* malware uses functions that don't exist in Win2K ... ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] We praise or fault, depending on which of the two provides more opportunity for our powers of judgment to shine. - Friedrich Nietzsche http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
