InterviewSolution
| 1. |
Solve : Latest Conficker worm gets nastier? |
|
Answer» Linux users and Mac users are.. (or should I say were) completely safe from this worm. it's a Win32 program. 1. Link broken Link works fine for me.Pretty good overview of monitoring Conflicker throughout April 1st. http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2009/04/tracking_conficker_so_far_its_a_snoozer_1.htmlI think that is were in lined some of the joke, ha , that its supposed to get us thinking attack and not happen.Quote from: squall_01 on April 04, 2009, 05:44:28 PM I think that is were in lined some of the joke, ha , that its supposed to get us thinking attack and not happen. I was thinking that as well. i wasnt the only one then more or lessI think that conficker is definatly not a joke. Think about it: Why would someone go to ALL that work, just for nothing to happen (other than what we already know)?Quote from: Helpmeh on April 07, 2009, 05:49:05 PM I think that Y2k is definatly not a joke. Think about it: Why would the media go to ALL that work, just for nothing to happen (other than what we already know)? see the similarity? LOLQuote from: BC_Programmer on April 07, 2009, 05:54:36 PM see the similarity? LOL Because it's the media...they want to milk us for all we're worth. Think about all the money people SPENT on bottled water alone in the month before that happened. But this is different.you're right that it is different- but you have to agree that it's been blown out of proportion. I couldn't help laughing at the news here, it said it "burrowed deep into the core of windows"... that's what ALL viruses try to do, this one isn't any better at concealing itself then any other. The only reason it's such a big issue is that they technically don't have the payload; currently it's just a trojan downloader- basically VICTIMS are at the MERCY of the authors as to what exactly happens. It's really no more difficult to remove then conventional infections, though.Quote from: BC_Programmer on April 07, 2009, 06:15:50 PM you're right that it is different- but you have to agree that it's been blown out of proportion. I couldn't help laughing at the news here, it said it "burrowed deep into the core of windows"... that's what ALL viruses try to do, this one isn't any better at concealing itself then any other. Exactly. Y2K didn't really happen. Conficker did.true, conficker most assuredly does exist- and it definitely is more dangerous then programs that store years as two digits, if only potentially.Quote from: BC_Programmer on April 07, 2009, 06:35:41 PM true, conficker most assuredly does exist- and it definitely is more dangerous then programs that store years as two digits, if only potentially. lol but thinking about the people who are useing norton were do you think that money goes to stay most recent? All the more reason for a free antivirus. |
|