Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows Infected in 12 Minutes

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the now-that's-what-I-call-secure dept.

Windows 355

Uber-Review writes "The speed with which PC's can become infected has now shortened. If your Windows computer is not properly protected,it will take 12 minutes before it becomes infected, according to London-based security company, Sophos. They have detected 7,944 new viruses in the first half of 2005, a 59% increase over the same time span last year."

cancel ×

355 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

er, dupe (-1, Offtopic)

chazman00 (321337) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984823)

Duped again ! damn you slashdot! ;)

Re:er, dupe (3, Funny)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984837)

No, this time it was another windows machine that was infected in 12 minutes. Expect to see 200 million similar stories in the next week or so.

Re:er, dupe (3, Funny)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984843)

I'm waiting for a dupe in 12 minutes, now that would be good! :D

Re:er, dupe (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984927)

But the funniest thing about the link is the one and only comment on there that says "Crappy article, but this girl will warm you up inside" and then gives a link to something that would probably lead you to the very exploit it is talking about.

Re:er, dupe (1, Funny)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984988)

Never-Review writes "The speed with which /. editors can become infected has now shortened. If your /. editors are not properly protected, it will take 12 minutes before a story becomes duped, according to world-based geek crowd Slashdotters. They have detected 7,944 new dupes in the first half of this year, a 59% increase over the same time span last year."

(Okay, so we're not quite there yet. But with Moore's law...)

--
--

Re:er, dupe (0, Offtopic)

Shalda (560388) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985044)

I've said it before, but it ain't a dupe until CmdrTaco posts it. That's what made his April fools joke of a few years ago particularly funny. Anyone else duping the same article 12 times in one day would be lame.

Re:er, dupe (-1, Offtopic)

Shads (4567) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985083)

Slashdot dupes another story every 12 minutes on average! This strangely coincides with the frequency a windows computer gets "0wn3d" on the "n37" by "3r337 5kr1p7 k1dd13z"... y0 y0. News at 11.

WAKE UP EDITORS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984825)

DUPE ALERT!

Nice... (5, Funny)

j0nkatz (315168) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984826)

And Slashdot can apparently be infected with a dupe in as little as 5 days [slashdot.org] !!!!

Re:Nice... (5, Funny)

m4dm4n (888871) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984881)

Actually thats a well protected and patched uptodate slashdot. Some slashdots can dupe within hours.

Re:Nice... (1, Interesting)

apoc.famine (621563) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985088)

No, this is Trolling v3.1. I mean, anyone who reads this site most likely saw this the first time around. Even if they didn't, they read the original article, or the massive tech-website and/or blog coverage of it.

This is indeed the new form of trolling - except way better than ever before. With no way to mod the article, submitter, or editor, this new trolling can go on for months or years. Rather than troll 1-2 people who then get modded "-1 offtopic", and the troll modded "-1 troll", they can now troll entire articles by submitting dupes. No mods, no karma hit, no being buried by higher-modded comments.

It's god-damned brilliant.

Hmmm. Dupeage! (-1, Redundant)

Chas (5144) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984827)

C'mon guys. Don't you even read your own posts?

Re:Hmmm. Dupeage! (0)

gustgr (695173) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984882)

In slashdot the posts read the editors.

Er (-1, Offtopic)

seymansey (654465) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984830)

Repost!

Holy Dupes, Batperson! (5, Informative)

Willeh (768540) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984832)

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/01/021 8209&tid=172&tid=220&tid=218 [slashdot.org]

Not to mention the original article was a lot better, and not a link to yet another news aggregrator that in turn links to another site: http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20050704.gtvirusjul4/BNStory/Technology/ [globetechnology.com]

Re:Holy Dupes, Batperson! (0, Redundant)

2$ Crack Whore (813937) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984905)

Yes, once again its another dupe - why is everyone still so surprised that this happens? The 'editors' barely pay lip service to their title and I doubt very much that they read the comments either. At face value there is no real passion from the creators of the site - its just the same old shit day after day.

To explain further, Slashdot exists for one purpose: to make money for parent company OSDN. There is nothing wrong with that in itself but don't expect a high quality site the way its currently run. The Slashdot business model (if you can call it that) seems to be to provoke reaction from the loyal crowd of slashbots that frequent the site. Inflammatory / trollish stories (e.g here [slashdot.org] ) and dupes cause the page hits (and therefore ad revenue) to go through the roof.

As a result, most of the comments I see on the stories are neither insightful, interesting or informative. There seems to be no real balanced discussion - something I feel is a product of the moderation system which rewards those who conform to the slashbot mindset and censors everything else. This democratic method of editing the comments is terrible - especially where technical issues are concerned, as a lot of nonsense is modded up by people who don't know otherwise.

You are probably wondering why I read Slashdot. Partly morbid curiosity and partly to laugh at both the flame wars which invevitably break out and the well crafted trolls.

To conclude, Slashdot is neither really "News for Nerds" nor is it "Stuff that matters". If you want the former, go to somewhere like arstechnica [arstechnica.com] or kuroshin [kuro5hin.org] and if you want actual stuff that matters, the BBC are hard to beat. [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Holy Dupes, Batperson! (0)

Evro (18923) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984990)

What exactly is the point of that "Contact the on-duty editor" thing? There seems to be as many dupe stories as ever. I don't get it, it seems like a pretty straightforward thing to do - for any story, search Google for site:slashdot.org (since Slashdot's search feature is really bad) and if there's a match, don't post.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aslashd ot.org+12+minutes&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

Ooh, hard. Google has an API so you can just roll that into your story-posting script and not even go through the trouble of typing it. Or something.

oi vey... (0, Flamebait)

obzidian (591525) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984833)

Can't kids find better things to do with their time? Nearly 8,000 virii... We should lock th.d.fgf.g... CARRIER LOST

Urgh (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984834)

Dupe!! Delete it now and i won't tell anybody! ;)

Woop-de-freaking-doo. (5, Insightful)

MasamuneXGP (824006) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984835)

Honestly, who cares anymore? We've all seen this exact same story with some slightly different words or numbers in about 100 different places. Use a firewall or don't use windows, I get it. Let's get on with our lives plz.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984890)

fo' rill, y0.

Re:Woop-de-freaking-doo. (5, Interesting)

digidave (259925) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985011)

I guess one of the problems is that you can be infected before you have a chance to download a firewall. Unless you're on the newest version of Windows you're pretty screwed unless you can configure packet filtering on the NIC.

Nothing to see here. Move along. (1)

slash76 (894155) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984839)

If your (fill in the blank with OS) computer is not properly protected it will take X minutes before it becomes infected, according to (fill in the name of some company that will sell you solutions to "secure" you computer).

Yes we all remember the "good ole" days when you could wait until tommorrow before doing anything to the computer you just loaded the OS on and hooked up to the internet. Those days have been long gone (if they were really ever here).

Dup! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984844)

Dup!

The number of days to Dupe an article : 12 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984845)

Dupe [slashdot.org]

variants... do they count? (5, Interesting)

super_ogg (620337) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984846)

So there are variants and minor changes... do we really count these as new viruses?
ogg

Re:variants... do they count? (1)

SoloFlyer2 (872483) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984912)

So there are variants and minor changes... do we really count these as new viruses? we may as well... slashdot editors count variants and minor changes as new :)

Re:variants... do they count? (1)

ichigo-666 (896741) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985057)

Why not? Aren't humans "just" another variant of apes with minor changes?

Internet Storm Center is tracking "survival time" (5, Informative)

UnderAttack (311872) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984848)

The Internet Storm Center [sans.org] is tracking a similar number for while. See the "survival time" [sans.org] . It has actually improved over the last few months!

Re:Internet Storm Center is tracking "survival tim (4, Funny)

savagedome (742194) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984965)

A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the Internet is only as good as the slowest Windows members. Excessive going online, as we know, gets Windows machines pwn3d. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest Windows machines first. In this way, continuously going online eliminates the weaker Windows machines, making the Internet a faster and more efficient place.

Shameless parody of the 'beer is good for you' joke

DUPE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984856)

dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe

Cmdrtaco should resign in shame

Nits: picked (2, Informative)

Jooly Rodney (100912) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984857)

Speed doesn't shorten, kids; perhaps the OP meant "increased?"

Slashdot editors are exaggerating (-1, Offtopic)

brainnolo (688900) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984858)

Now, ok, some dupes can happen, is normal for a site which updates so often, but really, each week there are lots of dupes. Please editors check the past articles before accepting new ones, at least the recent ones!

I'm a little sceptical (0)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984860)

And anti-virus firm says anti-virus software is essential.

They may be right, but I'd like a little more information since they're not exactly an unbiased source.

Re:I'm a little sceptical (2, Interesting)

chrisnewbie (708349) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984928)

Just leave your computer open and live on the internet without a firewall. I guarantee you that in less than 30 minutes, you will porbbaly catch something.
It's even faster if you have a static I.P.

I know, i was testing some vpn inside my company and i hooked the laptop to my external hub and it took about 20 minutes to get a worm, and i wasnt doing anything and my win2k was fully patched.

Re:I'm a little sceptical (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985022)

Have you done extensive tests on a range of IP addresses, or are you just extrapolating based on a single result?

On dupe is annoying, but two... (-1, Redundant)

Osrin (599427) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984863)

... is that some sort of record for /.?

Re:On dupe is annoying, but two... (0, Offtopic)

kesuki (321456) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984903)

no. I think the record stands at 22. The same story, covered 22 times in a 13 month span, from various news aggregators, blogs etc. I could be wrong though, I don't have 'hard' numbers.

Re:On dupe is annoying, but two... (0)

patio11 (857072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984976)

No.

Next week's headline will say.... (0)

slapout (93640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984985)

Slashdot story duped in 12 Minutes!

Some paranoid speculation... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984866)

Let's imagine for a second that I'm a large western government, concerned that my citizens are building infrastructure that could be used against me. Perhaps I foresee an oil crunch in a few years and I'd prefer a somewhat tighter control over information, debate, and possible anarchy. Perhaps I've been infiltrating the hacker underground for a while, and find the idea of being able to control hundreds of thousands of zombies quite interesting. Maybe my agents have tried various ddos attacks in the past, and we're satisfied that we can bring down any web site, any internet service, however large.

Now, as a citizen of such a government, I have to ask, "why when 80-90% of domestic PCs are infected, is nothing being done at the legislative level?" Could it be that a world of zombied PCs is just too useful as a tool of control?

Just thinking out loud...

And in a related slashdot story (5, Funny)

mindaktiviti (630001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984870)

"Windows infected in 12 minutes."

The Speed in Which /. editors can be duped! (-1, Redundant)

puto (533470) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984871)

READ all About it!

The Speed in which all slashdot editors can be duped has effectively quadrupled in the past year.

Repeat news for Nerds who missed it the first time.

Puto

new virus (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984873)

there is a new virus that causes the same news story to be posted twice

Time Loop (5, Funny)

DanielMarkham (765899) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984874)

Hey. I saw this episode on Star Trek. The same thing kept happening over and over again until Data finally kept the ship from blowing up.
That's what's happening on /. Now we need to repeat all of our original posts, while sending a message with tachyon beams back to our original selves...

Blog's Up! [whattofix.com]

Re:Time Loop (5, Funny)

Lt Cmdr Tuvok (810548) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984969)

You are quite perceptive. Tachyon beams are exactly what I, myself, have been using, and am indeed using right now, to write messages on this very 'chatboard'.

Perhaps we are indeed violating the Prime Directive in the most appalling manner by allowing geeks from your time to view 'Star Trek' unabatedly. Your knowledge of events and technology that occur and exist in our time grows ever greater.

With this in mind, please disregard this comment. It does not exist.

Re:Time Loop (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12985025)

that was a good episode

The number 3.1 keeps coming up everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12985040)

I guess we better downgrade to Windows for Workgroups to prevent explosions.

Only 12 minutes (5, Funny)

DS_User (874465) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984879)

12 minutes hey. Gee I thought IE opened up quicker than that.

Re:Only 12 minutes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12985031)

Gosh, 12 minutes, well in that time I would probably have about 100 copies of various bots and anything they bring with them, assuming that the system would have lasted the bombardment and wouldn't have rebooted (which it probably would as MS Blast and friends are still active).

news? (1)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984886)

Sophos telling us that we really need them, and providing some subjective numbers to make their case...

I know Windows PCs get infected quite easily, but do we really have to:
1. repeat this statement every few days?
2. quote numbers from an organisation which is served well by making this look as bad as possible and present it as fact?

You may mod me "redundant" (again!), but ... (-1, Redundant)

mshmgi (710435) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984894)

This is like deja vu all over again.

What'd I'd like to know (4, Interesting)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984900)

What I'd like to know is what are they doing during those 12 minutes for Windows to become "infected."

For years I have run Windows straight out of the box (no firewall, no security software, nothing), and I've only ran into two viruses -- one through Kazaa, and one through IRC (both my fault).
I can understand that Windows is vulnerable -- but if I've managed to run Windows for many years without any major problems, then I'm curious what they are doing during these 12 minutes to arrive to such a conclusion.

Re:What'd I'd like to know (3, Insightful)

dissolved (887190) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985080)

but if I've managed to run Windows for many years without any major problems
...that you know of.
If you don't seek the spyware/malware/viruses you often do not find them.

Re:What'd I'd like to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12985101)

Well it's not often I speak directly to members of my bot net but whilst you're on may I offer you sincere thanks for the use of your computer.

my experience with slash-dot (1)

10110100 (891439) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985105)

hey guys,

i'm not sure exactly what i'm doing here. so...bear with me!

i clicked "geeky" on my match.com personals profile, thinking that i'd maybe get hooked up with somebody who was into math or some kind of toy train hobby or something...boy howdy was i in for a shock! i went on 4 dates with guys who all got on match.com because of osdn personals from slash-dot! 4 guys!

anyway, it didn't really work out with any of them, because it seemed like they were all under some kind of mind-control robot or something! i was like "what do you think about office? office 97 is enough for me, but there are some things about xp that are cool too...." the first guy i asked that to exploded on this tyrade about how office was evil, and that it uses html that's invalid...blah blah blah, whatever...i figured "ok, this guys a freak, but i'm not giving up that easily." so guy number two and i are having dinner, and just as a test i bring up office, and he says the *exact* *same* *things* the first guy said! it was like he was reading from a script! i'm thinking to myself "is everybody from slash-dot programmed to say the same thing or what?" i decided to do a bit of investigation.

i actually surfed over to slash-dot and read some of the articles...mostly they were pretty boring, and the comments were just like i expected judging from my previous past experience: scripted!!! just when i was about to completely write the whole thing off, i found a post from some guy who's with anti-slash, some kind of anti-slash-dot website. i mailed him and was all "i so agree with you guys, look at what sheep these slash-dot people are!" he wrote back and made some funny comments (funny and so *true*!...that is soooo the best kind of humor...but i dirgress...) and guess what? this weekend i'm supposed to meet him for dinner :) if you're reading this, i look forward to meeting you in person, john!

anyway, that's my story. ladies: if you're looking for the real cool geeks, check out anti-slash [anti-slash.org] . and fellas, you should check it out too and maybe use to to break out of your mind-control suits!

ok see ya later,

cyndi

Re:What'd I'd like to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12985106)

I'm not sure, but I hit a virus of some sort while setting up DSL about a year ago. And after getting wireless internet access a couple weeks ago, I just found out yesterday that I have a keylogger installed on my computer. So yes, it can happen.

Uh (5, Insightful)

sheriff_p (138609) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984902)

London-based? They're based in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England. Does English now automatically mean London-based or what?

+Pete

Re:Uh (1)

digidave (259925) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985027)

Oxfordshire is on the East side of London, right?

Other way. (1)

reality-bytes (119275) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985109)

Abindgdon is to the West of London and a good way away - being in a different county (Oxfordshire unsuprisingly).

Re:Uh (0)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985062)

Only when it keeps the editors from having to spell or pronounce things like Abingdon and Oxfordshire.

When will they listen? (1)

LifeMatesCanada.Com (893630) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984921)

I'm curious how many times this (and similar) stories will have to be posted on tech journals before Microsoft addresses the problem. In any other business, their customer base would shrink to nothing - imagine a model of car that was consistantly stolen due to shoddy lock manufacturing.

Viva Firefox, and viva the GoogleOS

Irony (-1, Offtopic)

tunnie (730907) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984922)

Isn't it ironic the amount of people calling "dupe"?

Re:Irony (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12985005)

They all are just karma whores.

Re:Irony (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12985014)

No, no it isn't. [tri-bit.com] Not even in the slightest.

HA (1, Troll)

bmgoau (801508) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984925)

This has to be about the 10th time i have seen the whole "Windows can be compramised in [insert time here]" deal.

Anyone who actively follows the news and comments on slashot should know by now that windows is open to attack. And secondly i would hope that anyone who has the least bit of common sense would realise the viruses exist and that if you dont take neccisarry precations such as patching your version of windows.

Let me make it staight.
Windows has security issues, it gets viruses, and other malware. Get over it. Get onto doing something about it. stop scareing thepublic and educate people on ways of being protected.

Re:HA (0)

An1mus (826311) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984953)

It's rare to see that kind of attitude on slashdot. 10 points.

Eat Your Own Dog Food (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984926)

I'm tired of talking about tech fixes to Slashdot's dup plague. It would stop if the editors would just read the damn front page.

How can Windows be secured? (-1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984932)

OK, the easiest way to secure Windows from most attacks is to be behind a physical firewall. But what can be done when that isn't feasible, for instance, when connecting through a modem, wifi, etc? I know there are commercial software firewalls out there, but is there anything available for free, say on Windows 2000?

Re:How can Windows be secured? (1)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984997)

Zone Alarm [zonelabs.com] has a free version.

Editors - Question (5, Insightful)

Phishcast (673016) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984937)

I read Slashdot regularly, and I at least skim every headline that comes across. I must notice just about every duplicate article with simple skimming. I'm not nearly as annoyed as a lot of folks when I see a dupe, but my question is this:

Do the editors of Slashdot actually read the site regularly? If not, should they be posting articles to the front page?

Followup question: Isn't this common sense?

dupe? (-1, Redundant)

nuggetman (242645) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984941)

Hey, I don't think anyone has pointed it out yet but I believe this article is a dupe

It's not a DUPE (0, Flamebait)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984943)

It's not a dupe - this is what makes up the content of slashdot.

Slashdot Story Duped in 12 Minutes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984949)

The average time taken for a story on Slashdot to be reposted has dropped to 12 minutes, according to Slashdot researchers at the Get Rid of Open Source softwareS (GROSS) Institute. Slashdot operator Open Source Developers Network (OSDN) dictator Robert "Roblimo" Miller said that the problem is already solved with search functionality and a firewall that is on by default in Slashcode XP Service Pack 2, released last year.

Roblimo went on to blame the current situation on lazy sysadmins at Slashdot: "If those clowns would just install the new version of Slashcode, and follow the best submission practise of getting out of bed and actually reading the submissions before hitting accept or reject, this problem would be completely solved by now!"

NOT THE DREADED DUPE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984951)

WARNING WARNING, DUPE ALERT! Taco should give a public apology by sucking my balls.

good job stating the obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984954)

so what you're telling me is if you don't patch your computer and make sure everything is up to date, you're vulnerable to being infected? I'm not quite sure what the 12 minutes has to do with anything.

12 minutes? (-1, Redundant)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984957)

WoW, it's almost caught up to the speed of /. dupes!

Blue screen (5, Funny)

digidave (259925) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984959)

My Windows blue screens in nine minutes, so I'm safe.

Windows is stable! (5, Funny)

broothal (186066) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984966)

At least it's stable. It's exactly the same amount of time as the last time [slashdot.org] slashdot mentioned this.

FUCKING DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE DUPES (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984975)

OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES. stop fucking duping. its out of control. you dont even give a shit any more. lousy scum editors. fuck you all. slashdot readers are becoming more and more restless with your dupious behavior and will not take it any more.

Obligatory "here's a patch" post... (3, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984979)

Here's a solution [winsupersite.com] .

*dodges flying tomatos*

OK, OK, here's a patch [freebsd.org] .

*runs*

I know! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12984998)

That is ourragous.. i saw this over at whitedust [whitedust.net] along with the new IE JVM hole [whitedust.net] that slashdot doesn't seem to want to report about

Wow, thirty posts about it being a dupe. (5, Funny)

cablepokerface (718716) | more than 9 years ago | (#12984999)

pot. kettle. black.

Advice (2, Informative)

ArchAngel21x (678202) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985013)

That is why you unplug the computer while you install Windows and security programs. Have that stuff burned to CD or on a back up hard drive. You really don't want to be online right after a fresh install of Windows. I don't have my computer online until I have installed service pack 2, Anti-Virus, and Spybot.

Great to be on Slashdot. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985035)

I just turned on my new Windoes XP Home machine, and the first thing I did was to connect to Slashdot to make this post. I'm sure gla xx[[344 NO CARRIER

Twelve? (1)

RetroRichie (259581) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985036)

Seven! Seven's the key!

And in related news..... (4, Funny)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985056)

You can get robbed in a little as three minutes in Downtown Detroit if you walk around counting large stacks of cash.

The internet is not a nice place. Evolve or die.

email dangers and within 12 minutes? (1, Interesting)

marcovje (205102) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985058)


So apparantly people start an email client _on average_ within 12 minutes after an install and catch a virus? That is pretty rough, and IMHO unrealistic. I don't know what most people do, but I'm usually still install drivers, turning off teletubby mode etc.

Sounds like the vendors included a few old worms that snatch chronically unpatched systems, and gave it a spin to boost antivirus sales.

dupe (0, Redundant)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985066)

It's been posted before.

Unsafe Sex (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12985077)

If your Windows computer is not properly protected,it will take 12 minutes before it becomes infected,

Well that's faster than most /.'ers can get infected. The only time they have dirty sex is if they don't wash their hands.

for the love of FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12985078)

text here

Same dumb post, same answer: (2, Informative)

wirehead78 (576106) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985081)

Get a cheap Linksys router from CompUSA.

12 minutes is faster??? (3, Interesting)

Vapon (740778) | more than 9 years ago | (#12985093)

When MS_Blaster was at its peak I had computers that were infected before the install finished if I left it connected to the internet.

this site is crap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12985100)

why do advertisers even bother to pay you?

am I the first one to mention... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12985102)

that this is a dupe? 80 posts already and nobody noticed yet? /me ducks in cover
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>