[124060] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NSP-SEC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Bensley)
Mon Mar 22 06:46:05 2010
In-Reply-To: <D11D744DC8FA664CB1FF57683DB37AB309DB7FF7A9@usemp10.ins.com>
From: James Bensley <jwbensley@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:44:59 +0000
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 21 March 2010 23:10, <John.Herbert@usc-bt.com> wrote:
> Hey James,m
>
> Well, I'm sure that the 140,000,000 is a FUD figure extrapolated by an AV=
vendor rather than an actual audit (:-), but you make a fair point.
>
> That said, I did start wondering how an "Internet User" is defined in the=
stats you pointed to. Assuming that Internet User means an Internet connec=
tion (?), do we assume that there is only one bot per computer (bearing in =
mind that if you're susceptible to one, there's a good chance you have succ=
umbed to more than one); or that there's only one computer per user (progre=
ssively less common in a domestic setting, and see the previous point again=
also); and we are probably ignoring the possibility of bots in commercial =
environments (bots couldn' t possibly penetrate the workplace, right?). All=
of the above I'd wager could skew the statistics to something more reasona=
ble.
>
> In conclusion: blah blah blah statistics. Can't win :)
>
> Have a good weekend :)
>
> j.
>
Yes and what about virtual machines, servers, data centers? There are
going to be (obviously) far more machines online than there are people
so I guess the figure can be greatly skewed but I can see from other
peoples posts that it could also be accurate.
Scary!
--=20
Regards,
James ;)
