lol, better not be another one just seems like this wannacry thing is way blown out of proportion, I haven't seen anything to indicate its any more virulent or invasive than the standard malware, just happens it did a targeted phish of known unprotected targets
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Jay Weekley <par...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote: > Is this a new way of announcing your wife is having a baby? > > Steve Jones wrote: > >> I not an absurd lack of hype over this on this list when every other list >> is popping off >> Am I the only one that sees this as similar to the whole UBNT mishap? >> don't follow standard practices, pay the price? >> I'm inclined to block the ports as a mechanism of being a good steward of >> the interwebs, but shouldn't I have already been dropping those? as an ISP >> I'm tempted to push OS migration, but shouldn't I have already been doing >> so as an IT services guy. >> I'm tempted to keep current patches, but shouldn't I have already been >> doing so? >> I have no expectation that none of my contact customers will not be >> impacted... by choices they made in our contract. >> This doesn't seem like its a NEW thing >> >> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_ >> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> >> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-sign >> ature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig- >> email&utm_content=emailclient> >> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> > >
