Some extra resources: J. Oquendo takes a cold, clear look on Infosec Island at some of the hype that surrounds the Stuxnet story: Cyberterrorism – As Seen On TV While Visible Risk, while by no means entirely negative about the Vanity Fair Stuxnet story (see http://blog.eset.com/2011/03/02/more-on-stuxnet), makes an entirely reasonable point about Irresponsible Sensationalism. I
Kurt Wismer posted a much-to-the-point blog a few days ago about the way that purveyors of scareware (fake/rogue anti-virus/security products) mimic the marketing practices of legitimate security providers. You may remember that a while ago, I commented here about a post by Rob Rosenberger that made some related points. If you’re a regular reader of
Of course, most vendors use in-house testing as a tool for monitoring and improving the capabilities of their own products. However, it’s also being used increasingly as a vehicle for showcasing a company’s own AV products in the best possible light.
It will likely come as no surprise to regular readers of ESET's Threat Blog that we are somewhat gadget aficionados here in the Research Department. Our focus, however, is usually on issues such as malware, spam and privacy so we do not spend a lot of time discussing gadgetry. Every once in a while, though,
So, nothing happened? Well, yes. Our labs, who’ve been monitoring carefully, note that Conficker changed communication protocols, just as the code said it would. No doubt in the fullness of time, the botnet will start doing what botnets do: it would be bizarre to put this much effort into a project and then not try