Re: Linux big bang theory....

[kefka <kefka () kevinbeardsucks com>]

Exactly, isn't a 10k-strong botnet, kind of the average?

And tons of those children are using old-old-*OLD* worm/bots/whatever 
you want to call them.

Anyway, since you're probably just talking about a large imaginary 
number, I'd say linux hosts for raw processing power (since, if it's an 
AMD box or anything even slightly obscure, it can actually use the 
processor correctly).  Otherwise, in terms of ability to clog a network 
with garbage, I wouldn't care if they were linux or windows, I'd care 
about the speed of their connection.

I think the point is moot, being that we're talking about infecting a 
lot of hosts, your target is Windows...unless you're actually smart, 
then it's Cisco IOS.


Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:12:01 EDT, "J. Oquendo" said:
>
>   
> > be security conscious" then you are the fool here. Of the
> > couple of thousand of brute force bots I see, none are on
> > Windows.
> >     
>
> Meanwhile, Vint Cerf was estimating 140 *million* compromised hosts,
> and they're sure as hell not all Linux boxes.
>
> Those several thousand ssh-pounders are insignificant compared to the overall
> problem. In fact, if you estimate that Linux has even a 1% market share, if
> Linux was equally heavily exploited, you'd expect to see 1.4 million pwned
> Linux boxes, rather than just a "couple of thousand".  
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/