WPA2 hack: How secure is your Wi-Fi?
Dispellls the thought that nobody is interested in attacking home PC's.
Particularly that "86% of all targeted attacks on computers are aimed at home users"
There are two distinct issues
1. Are you likley to be subject of an attack? To which the answer seems to be Yes
2. Do you have anything on the computer which will be of value? To which only the individual user knows the answer.
There is nothing worth having on the majority of Home PCs.
its the use of the unprotected PC as a staging post for other crime that makes it worth attacking.
I.E. leaving your PC unprotected is like allowing your home to be used as a hideout for the local hoodlums.
Firewall, Antivirus and Antispyware is freely available.
I spend a large part of my time clearing out spyware and viruses from other peoples PCs.
I agree with Fruit Bat /\0/\'s comments - there's (usually) nothing of interest on a home PC, but it's the risk of it being used as a slave for the use of phishers, spammers & other associated 'pond life' that is the area of concern.
OTOH, a keylogger monitoring your banking transactions WOULD be a worry...
interesting item on the same subject but I think MR Dave Horton, Stockport England needs to find the PCA webb site.
Sorry bad link Noldi
I wouldn't dream of going on to the net naked! Firewall, AV and various antispyware is on my pc as standard (in my view). I read an article (in PCA I think) some years ago by Steve Gibson on how his website fell off the net (subjected to a DOS attack) and he, with some help tracked down the culprit who was controlling zombies all over the place. Steve eventually confronted what turned out to be a pimply faced youth with a serious attitude problem.
To go about the net without protection is just asking for trouble!
Just this morning on Radio Five Live the Microsoft guy was asked why was'nt the Vista kernel open to McAfee nor Norton and other Anti-Virus companies?
He said it was.
When asked again he simply gruffed that he had already answered that question!
Me thinks that he was fibbing.
If he is ,is he a liar thus showing MS to be acting in a thugish way ?As said above we all need online protection.
I listened carefully, and with interest to the five-live broadcast, and in fact the Microsoft man didn't say they had allowed anti-virus companies access to the Vista kernel.
What he said was "we've provided them with the information they need", which could be an entirely different thing. I suspect that what we have here is an example of a company wanting to protect its prime asset - the Windows operating system - from being compromised. The Windows code is worth billions of dollars to Microsoft, and it's closely guarded. I can't see the company allowing outsiders free rein inside its most valuable property - hence the wording of Microsoft's reply. The wording was carefully chosen - "we've provided them with the information they need" means "We decide what they need, not them".
I don't think we'll start suggesting that senior Microsoft executives are liars - it would be exceedingly foolish to lie about this on a prime-time radio broadcast - but they'll certainly act to protect the company's position, and there's nothing wrong with that; I would do the same thing.
Related BBC link to Monument's initial post click here. G
"Tracking down hi-tech crime
If every hour a burglar turned up at your house and rattled the locks on the doors and windows to see if he could get in, you might consider moving to a safer neighbourhood.
And while that may not be happening to your home, it probably is happening to any PC you connect to the net...."
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.