<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Myths and Market Share and Malware</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mrpogson.com/2012/04/22/myths-and-market-share-and-malware/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/04/22/myths-and-market-share-and-malware/</link>
	<description>One man. Closing, all the windows.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 10:01:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Pogson</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/04/22/myths-and-market-share-and-malware/#comment-88578</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Pogson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:18:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=11639#comment-88578</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That&#039;s not what he wrote at that link. He was advising people how to check for rootkits, quite a different matter. We still don&#039;t know what happened at kernel.org but my guess is someone had a weak password or it was an &quot;inside job&quot;, not malware. It&#039;s also possible someone was using that other OS...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s not what he wrote at that link. He was advising people how to check for rootkits, quite a different matter. We still don&#8217;t know what happened at kernel.org but my guess is someone had a weak password or it was an &#8220;inside job&#8221;, not malware. It&#8217;s also possible someone was using that other OS&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ivan</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/04/22/myths-and-market-share-and-malware/#comment-88577</link>
		<dc:creator>Ivan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:47:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=11639#comment-88577</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;b&gt;The malware artists have no trouble finding GNU/Linux targets but the bullets are not penetrating.&lt;/b&gt;

That&#039;s because you have selective memory gaps.  Even &lt;a href=&quot;http://lwn.net/Articles/461237/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Greg Kroah-Hartman&lt;/a&gt; says Linux users need to run anti-virus software.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>The malware artists have no trouble finding GNU/Linux targets but the bullets are not penetrating.</b></p>
<p>That&#8217;s because you have selective memory gaps.  Even <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/461237/" rel="nofollow">Greg Kroah-Hartman</a> says Linux users need to run anti-virus software.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oiaohm</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/04/22/myths-and-market-share-and-malware/#comment-88488</link>
		<dc:creator>oiaohm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=11639#comment-88488</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ernest  I have a volume of machines.

-Possibly, Robert, but the probability of encountering “a malware,” as you put it, is 1.0 on the Internet.-

I would say the number is not 1.0  but around 0.9 to 0.99.  I have that odd machine that in it life time never gets infected and never hit a bit of malware  on the Internet.  This person friends are virus clean.  They use email and stick to a limited number of sites and don&#039;t end up on spam mailing list.  So remain clean.

Yes to most people it would appear 1.0.  Now pirating software your machine is basically 100 percent for getting infected sooner or latter.

Yes you could say the ones that don&#039;t get infected are the lucky ones.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ernest  I have a volume of machines.</p>
<p>-Possibly, Robert, but the probability of encountering “a malware,” as you put it, is 1.0 on the Internet.-</p>
<p>I would say the number is not 1.0  but around 0.9 to 0.99.  I have that odd machine that in it life time never gets infected and never hit a bit of malware  on the Internet.  This person friends are virus clean.  They use email and stick to a limited number of sites and don&#8217;t end up on spam mailing list.  So remain clean.</p>
<p>Yes to most people it would appear 1.0.  Now pirating software your machine is basically 100 percent for getting infected sooner or latter.</p>
<p>Yes you could say the ones that don&#8217;t get infected are the lucky ones.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ernest</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/04/22/myths-and-market-share-and-malware/#comment-88476</link>
		<dc:creator>ernest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=11639#comment-88476</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;It’s high but not that high or oldman’s PC would have fallen over long ago.&quot;

No, you&#039;re confusing &quot;susceptibility&quot; with &quot;encountering.&quot;

These are your terms: not mine, nor anybody else&#039;s.

The probability of &quot;encountering&quot; is, indeed, as close to 1.0 as makes no difference.  Luckily, Oldman seems to be unique amongst Windows users in that he is in possession of both Magic Pixie Dust &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; the Blessing Of God, and consequently he can ignore that pesky 1.0 multiplier.

Lucky man!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It’s high but not that high or oldman’s PC would have fallen over long ago.&#8221;</p>
<p>No, you&#8217;re confusing &#8220;susceptibility&#8221; with &#8220;encountering.&#8221;</p>
<p>These are your terms: not mine, nor anybody else&#8217;s.</p>
<p>The probability of &#8220;encountering&#8221; is, indeed, as close to 1.0 as makes no difference.  Luckily, Oldman seems to be unique amongst Windows users in that he is in possession of both Magic Pixie Dust <i>and</i> the Blessing Of God, and consequently he can ignore that pesky 1.0 multiplier.</p>
<p>Lucky man!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Pogson</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/04/22/myths-and-market-share-and-malware/#comment-88463</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Pogson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2012 17:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=11639#comment-88463</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ernest wrote, &lt;em&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;green&quot;&gt;&quot;the probability of encountering “a malware,” as you put it, is 1.0 on the Internet.&quot;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/em&gt;

It&#039;s high but not that high or oldman&#039;s PC would have fallen over long ago. Theoretically, one could stick to a single site with text-only on a read-only site and be pretty safe, not that many do that... There are ~100million websites out there and a moderate percentage are spreading malware. It is quite possible to have a lot of fun while missing the bad sites. The port-attacks are usually stopped by any modern fire-wall. Even at the schools where I worked and that other OS was riddled with malware there were some machines not being infected even though they had the identical hard drive image. I think the biggest factor is the energy of the user to visit more sites. If you only visit a short list of reliable sites, you are fairly safe. I think most people are in that category but people who really use IT to find random information all day long are much more likely to encounter malware. e-mail used to be a major vector but many people use cloud services using very sophisticated techniques so I think the probability of encountering malware at any PC behind a good firewall is likely about 25%, if I had to guess. There are millions of malwares and ~100 million web sites. It takes some effort to plant a malware so there is a good chance many sites have not been infected.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ernest wrote, <em><font color="green">&#8220;the probability of encountering “a malware,” as you put it, is 1.0 on the Internet.&#8221;</font></em></p>
<p>It&#8217;s high but not that high or oldman&#8217;s PC would have fallen over long ago. Theoretically, one could stick to a single site with text-only on a read-only site and be pretty safe, not that many do that&#8230; There are ~100million websites out there and a moderate percentage are spreading malware. It is quite possible to have a lot of fun while missing the bad sites. The port-attacks are usually stopped by any modern fire-wall. Even at the schools where I worked and that other OS was riddled with malware there were some machines not being infected even though they had the identical hard drive image. I think the biggest factor is the energy of the user to visit more sites. If you only visit a short list of reliable sites, you are fairly safe. I think most people are in that category but people who really use IT to find random information all day long are much more likely to encounter malware. e-mail used to be a major vector but many people use cloud services using very sophisticated techniques so I think the probability of encountering malware at any PC behind a good firewall is likely about 25%, if I had to guess. There are millions of malwares and ~100 million web sites. It takes some effort to plant a malware so there is a good chance many sites have not been infected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ernest</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/04/22/myths-and-market-share-and-malware/#comment-88448</link>
		<dc:creator>ernest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=11639#comment-88448</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The probability of a compromise is the product of the probability of encountering a malware and the probability of being susceptible.&quot;

Possibly, Robert, but the probability of encountering &quot;a malware,&quot; as you put it, is 1.0 on the Internet.

I&#039;ll leave you to work out what effect this has on the probability of being susceptible.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The probability of a compromise is the product of the probability of encountering a malware and the probability of being susceptible.&#8221;</p>
<p>Possibly, Robert, but the probability of encountering &#8220;a malware,&#8221; as you put it, is 1.0 on the Internet.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll leave you to work out what effect this has on the probability of being susceptible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
