Got Worms? Conficker or con-foolery?
I think we’ve already seen the worm–in the form of all the hype oozing its way into our media outlets. I checked a couple of IT departments in Australia where it’s already 4.1 and don’t see much activity. So perhaps this is much ado about very very little. At my staff meeting this a.m. we had two votes for “hoax/social engineering attack; two undecided, and one person freaking enough for all of us. We’ll see…
cec said:
Mar 31, 09 at 7:15 pmFWIW, I’ve been here before… several times. The hype is always worse than the reality. My money is on nothing particularly dangerous happening on 4/1. I don’t think it’s a hoax or a social engineering attack, I suspect it was something that was added, maybe in an early phase of the code development, to ensure that infected machines could receive updates at least once.
Caveat lector, I haven’t been paying as much attention to Conficker as I would have a couple of years ago.
admin said:
Apr 01, 09 at 4:36 pm“Caveat lector”–nice use of the phrase… So far, so good. No worms here! You’re right, it makes more sense that it’s just a lot of hype around a particular aspect of the virus which, by now, many if not most people have already removed from their systems.
cec said:
Apr 01, 09 at 6:28 pmCongratulations on surviving the non-existent worm threat. And yeah, ‘caveat lector’ is one of my favorite Latin phrases. Up there with ‘in vino veritas.’ Which may have also been applicable here seeing as it means both: ‘in wine, truth’ and ‘your Symantec backup system has fallen down drunk.’