> IOW, you took what Symantec's numbers were for one year, and guessed > they would be the same for this year, and then posted how you were > almost right.
You definitely misunderstand. AFAIK, Symantec do not publish the number 243%. I calculated it myself, using this sum: (0.92 + 3.67 + 1.64 + 1.24 + 4.44 + 2.65) / 6 I also calculated those numbers, using the general formula y(n+1) / y(n). This is all explained on the link I gave in my original post: http://www.cyberdelix.net/files/malware_mutation_projection.pdf Even in the most recent report, Symantec only refer to the growth rate by saying it was "more than double" (eg, 200+%) - although I haven't read it closely, they may well elaborate on that at some point. > You people really need to get your stories straight. There is only one of me, I assure you. > Then you blithe on about how people should "avoid any software that > locks them into a Microsoft Platform like the plague" and specifically > note .NET for businesses but of course fail to provide any examples of > where they should go, or any real advice on your "mitigation > strategy." I agree Windows needs mitigation, that is why I am posting. I didn't mention alternatives as that's not my purpose, to promote a specific product, and I wouldn't want my observations to be tainted by it. However, now you've asked, I'd recommend FreeBSD, without even seeing your spec. Desktops? PC-BSD. As for .NET, off top of head I'd suggest a .NET connector for PHP, running on FreeBSD of course. > What it is about .NET that should be avoided like the plague? Wait, Sorry but I already answered that. It's because it locks the customer into a Microsoft platform. > One must assume that you are an expert .NET developer You'd assume wrong - it doesn't take an expert to recognise a dependency. > Additionally, you've clearly performed migration engagements for these > people you "advise." Please let us know what the actual migration > plan was, and how you have so brilliantly created a one-off cost > migration path. I'm really interested in the details about that. I'm sure you are, and I'd be happy to oblige. My rates for that kind of work start at £120/hr. Please PM me for more info. > Details on your SDL process would be fantastic as well. Continuous incremental improvement (TQM). RERO. Prototyping. Agile is the word used nowadays I believe... revolution through evolution, as I said.... Stu > -----Original Message----- > From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk > [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of lsi > Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 1:07 PM > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows' future (reprise) > > Is that you, Bill? > > I think you misunderstand. 9 months ago, I measured the growth rate at 243%, > using Symantec's stats. 9 months ago I posted that number here, together > with a prediction of this year's stats. Recently, I got this year's stats > and compared them with that prediction. I found that this prediction was > 75.4% accurate. I am now reporting those results back to the group. And > this is trolling how? > > My point is that the prediction was not wildly wrong, and so that leads me to > wonder if anything else I said, 9 months ago, was also not wildly wrong. > > My main reason for claiming that Windows is inherently insecure is because > it's closed source. However it's also because of the sloppy, monolithic > spaghetti code that Windows is made of. If you're claiming Windows is in > fact inherently secure, I assume this means you don't use AV on any of your > Windows machines, and advise everyone you know to uninstall it? > > I never said migration would be free or easy. That is why I am posting this > data here, because I see it as a vulnerability, a very big vulnerability that > many companies have not woken up to. The very fact that migration is hard, > lengthy, and expensive, means that the vulnerability is larger than ever. > > Stu > > On 15 May 2010 at 14:40, Thor (Hammer of God) wrote: > > From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <t...@hammerofgod.com> > To: "full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk" <full- > disclos...@lists.grok.org.uk> > Date sent: Sat, 15 May 2010 14:40:29 +0000 > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows' future (reprise) > > > I am constantly amazed at posts like this where you make yourself sound > > like some sort of statistical genius because you were "able to predict" > > that since last year was %243, that this year would be %243. Wow. Really? > > > > And for the record, these claims of 'inherent insecurity' in Windows are > > simply ignorant. If you are still running Windows 95 that's your problem. > > Do a little research before post assertions based on 10 or 20 year old > > issues. > > > > This smacks of the classic troll, where you say things like "nothing that > > Microsoft makes is secure and it never will be" and then go on to say how > > easy it is to migrate, and how it's free, with only a one off cost, and how > > to move off of .NET. > > > > Obvious "predictions," ignorant assumptions, and a total lack of any true > > understanding of business computing. Yep, "troll." > > > > t > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk > > [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of lsi > > Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 6:12 AM > > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > > Subject: [Full-disclosure] Windows' future (reprise) > > > > Hi All! > > > > Just a followup from my posting of 9 months ago (which can be found > > here): > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk/msg37173.html > > > > Symantec have released "Internet Security Threat Report: Volume XV: > > April 2010". My posting from last year was based on the previous "Internet > > Security Threat Report: Volume XIV: April 2009". So I thought it would be > > interesting to check my numbers. The new edition of the Threat Report is > > here: > > > > http://www4.symantec.com/Vrt/wl?tu_id=SUKX1271711282503126202 > > > > You may recall that last year, the average annual growth rate of new > > threats (as defined by Symantec) was 243%. This enabled me to predict that > > the number of new threats in this year's Symantec Threat Report would be > > 243% of last years; eg. I predicted 9 months ago the number of new threats > > in this year's Symantec Threat Report would be 243% * 1656227, or > > 3840485.87. > > > > The actual number of new threats in this year's Symantec Threat Report is > > 2895802, an error on my part of 24.6%. > > > > This is quite a chunk, however it is not that far off. My excuses: > > > > - my number was based on averages, so it will never be exact. There will > > be a natural variance in the growth rate, caused by many factors. > > > > - in the new edition, Symantec have altered the raw data a little - the > > number of new threats for 2009, 2008, 2007 etc is slightly different to > > those same years, as listed in the previous version of the report. I have > > not updated my projection to allow for this. > > > > - Symantec note that "The slight decline in the rate of growth should not > > discount the significant number of new signatures created in 2009. > > Signature-based detection is lagging behind the creation of malicious > > threats..." (page 48). > > > > Am I retreating from my position? Absolutely not. I am now expecting the > > number of new threats in next years' report to be 7036798.86. This is > > 2895802 * 243%. This includes the error introduced by Symantec's changes > > to the raw data. I don't think it matters much. > > > > As this flood of new threats will soon overpower AV companies' > > ability to catalogue them (by 2015, at 243% growth, there will be > > 2.739 MILLION new threats PER DAY (over 1900 new threats per minute)), and > > as Symantec admits above that "signature-based detection is lagging", and > > as Microsoft are not likely to produce a secure version of anything anytime > > soon, I am not at all hopeful of a clean resolution to this problem. > > > > I continue to advise that users should, where possible, deploy > > alternatives; that they should, if they have not already, create and action > > a migration strategy; and that they should avoid like the plague, any > > software which locks them into a Microsoft platform. > > Business .NET applications, I'm lookin' at you. > > > > Those failing to migrate will discover their hardware runs slower and > > slower, while doing the same job as it did previously. They will need to > > take this productivity hit, OR buy a new computer, which will also > > eventually surcumb to the same increasing slowness. They will need to buy > > new machines more and more frequently. Eventually, they will run out of > > money - or, for the especially deep-pocketed, they will find they cannot > > deploy the new machines fast enough, before they are already too slow to > > use. The only alternative to this treadmill is to dump Windows. The > > sooner it is dumped, the less money is wasted buying new hardware, simply > > to keep up with security- induced slowness. > > > > Why spend all that time and money on a series of new Windows machines, > > without fixing the actual problem, which is the inherent insecurity of > > Windows? People can spend the same time and money replacing Windows, and > > then they won't need to worry about the problem any more. The difference > > is that sticking with Windows incurs ongoing and increasing costs, while a > > migration incurs a one- off cost. > > > > I don't think it takes a genius to see which approach will cost less. > > > > Notes: > > - see page 10 of the Volume XIV (2009) edition, and page 48 of Volume XV > > (2010) edition, for the relevant stats > > > > - since my post of last year, I have also noticed a similar exponential > > curve in the number of threats detected by Spybot Search and Destroy (a > > popular anti-spyware tool). This curve can be seen > > here: > > > > http://www.safer-networking.org/en/updatehistory/index.html > > > > - my projection of growth rates up to 2016 (written last year) is > > here: > > > > http://www.cyberdelix.net/files/malware_mutation_projection.pdf > > > > Comments welcome.. > > > > Stu > > > > --- > > Stuart Udall > > stuart a...@cyberdelix.dot net - http://www.cyberdelix.net/ > > > > --- > > * Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > --- > Stuart Udall > stuart a...@cyberdelix.dot net - http://www.cyberdelix.net/ > > --- > * Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2) > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ --- Stuart Udall stuart a...@cyberdelix.dot net - http://www.cyberdelix.net/ --- * Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2) _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
