Just 12 minutes

I'm sure many here are very familiar with the notion that there is "a
50% chance of being infected by an internet worm in just 12 minutes of
being online using an unprotected, unpatched Windows PC." As many of you
know, this is a direct quote from a Sophos press release from July 1,
2005:

http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2005/07/pr_uk_midyearr...dup2005

Sophos got a lot of mileage from this press release. An interesting side
effect I've seen is newsgroup posts warning users of the dangers of
going online to patch an older, pre-SP2 version of Windows XP because it
will take more than 12 minutes, leaving many vulnerable to malware
infestation. Obviously, there are ways around this: download the entire
service pack (using another PC) and burning a disk so that SP2 may be
applied while the PC is offline and safe. Or users may get the
equivalent disk from Microsoft for a nominal fee.

But this begs the question: For the majority of people who choose to
obtain SP2 through automatic updates, *how* vulnerable are they exactly?
Of course, for those running SP1 or Gold, Messenger Service (which is on
by default) can be manually turned off. But again, for the majority of
people who have performed a clean installation without knowing to turn
off specific services, how vulnerable are their PCs?

I'm sure the study referenced in the press release talks about averages
and includes people who don't patch their systems and don't practice
other modes of safe hex. Messenger spam arriving informing a gullible
person that they have spyware or registry problems has happened many,
many times. People clicking on links in e-mails when they shouldn't be
doing so... well, you get the picture.

But what about a PC on the Internet that is not doing anything but
sitting there? Without the benefit of a firewall, hackers/bots can
attempt to do damage, for sure. But without any user input, is this
12-minute figure reasonable? Or is it more a case of marketing hype?
Specifically, what specifically can happen to an unpatched system,
assuming there is no user input (clicking on links, OK buttons in pop-up
windows, etc.)? Are there worms that can do damage this way, and if so,
what are they and what is the mechanism by which they infect a PC? How
common is real-time hacking in this sort of situation?

From: "Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM.RemoveThis@myrealboxXYZ.invalid>

| I'm sure many here are very familiar with the notion that there is "a
| 50% chance of being infected by an internet worm in just 12 minutes of
| being online using an unprotected, unpatched Windows PC." As many of you
| know, this is a direct quote from a Sophos press release from July 1,
| 2005:
|
| http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2005/07/pr_uk_midyearr...dup2005
|
| Sophos got a lot of mileage from this press release. An interesting side
| effect I've seen is newsgroup posts warning users of the dangers of
| going online to patch an older, pre-SP2 version of Windows XP because it
| will take more than 12 minutes, leaving many vulnerable to malware
| infestation. Obviously, there are ways around this: download the entire
| service pack (using another PC) and burning a disk so that SP2 may be
| applied while the PC is offline and safe. Or users may get the
| equivalent disk from Microsoft for a nominal fee.
|
| But this begs the question: For the majority of people who choose to
| obtain SP2 through automatic updates, *how* vulnerable are they exactly?
| Of course, for those running SP1 or Gold, Messenger Service (which is on
| by default) can be manually turned off. But again, for the majority of
| people who have performed a clean installation without knowing to turn
| off specific services, how vulnerable are their PCs?
|
| I'm sure the study referenced in the press release talks about averages
| and includes people who don't patch their systems and don't practice
| other modes of safe hex. Messenger spam arriving informing a gullible
| person that they have spyware or registry problems has happened many,
| many times. People clicking on links in e-mails when they shouldn't be
| doing so... well, you get the picture.
|
| But what about a PC on the Internet that is not doing anything but
| sitting there? Without the benefit of a firewall, hackers/bots can
| attempt to do damage, for sure. But without any user input, is this
| 12-minute figure reasonable? Or is it more a case of marketing hype?
| Specifically, what specifically can happen to an unpatched system,
| assuming there is no user input (clicking on links, OK buttons in pop-up
| windows, etc.)? Are there worms that can do damage this way, and if so,
| what are they and what is the mechanism by which they infect a PC? How
| common is real-time hacking in this sort of situation?
|

Using a NAT Router will mitigate the BOT/Worm threat as well as hacking attempts.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp