> Actually, the attacks will be targeted at the product that has the > highest product of (weakness)*(profit per break).
Not quite: the highest *perceived* product, and with the additional note that "profit" is not necessarily purely monetary. > RSTS/E won't be attacked much, even though it's pretty weak, because > there's no money to be made at it. ...and little to no profit of any other kind (egoboo, demonstration of ability, etc - there are probably a few still doing it just for the challenge, even). I know someone who until recently (~1yr ago?) was running Windows 3.1. For all its lack of inherent security, it was substantially stronger against today's carpet-bombed attacks than lots of more modern stuff, simply because most malware wouldn't run on it at all. > Financial services will be targets, even though they're *hopefully* > tough targets, because the profit side is big. Tough? When "all" of them run Windows on their internal LANs?? Whenever I hear of a bank or government site being hit with the latest "virus", I think "xkcd #463".... > And then in the middle, somebody is getting rich hitting consumer > systems in the millions at $5-$10 average a pop... Yeah. Ethics are so *damn* inconvenient.... /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ 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.
