Almost all WannaCry victims were running Windows 7

One week after it first hit, researchers are getting a better
handle on how the WannaCry ransomware spread so quickly — and
judging from the early figures, the story seems to be almost
entirely about Windows 7.

According to data released today by Kaspersky Lab, roughly 98
percent of the computers affected by the ransomware were running
some version of Windows 7, with less than one in a thousand
running Windows XP. 2008 R2 Server clients were also hit hard,
making up just over 1 percent of infections.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/1...cry-windows-7-
version-xp-patched-victim-statistics

On Sat, 20 May 2017 11:54:17 +0200 (CEST)
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" wrote:

Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider


You are not believable.

On 05/20/2017 06:37 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2017 11:54:17 +0200 (CEST)
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" wrote:

Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider


You are not believable.

The article is posted on The Verge, not written by the OP.

"One week after it first hit, researchers are getting a better handle on
how the WannaCry ransomware spread so quickly — and judging from the
early figures, the story seems to be almost entirely about Windows 7."

"According to data released today by Kaspersky Lab, roughly 98 percent
of the computers affected by the ransomware were running some version of
Windows 7, with less than one in a thousand running Windows XP. 2008 R2
Server clients were also hit hard, making up just over 1 percent of
infections."

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/1...tim-statistics

On 5/20/2017 6:29 AM, Nobody wrote:
On 05/20/2017 06:37 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2017 11:54:17 +0200 (CEST)
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" wrote:

Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider


You are not believable.

The article is posted on The Verge, not written by the OP.

"One week after it first hit, researchers are getting a better handle on
how the WannaCry ransomware spread so quickly — and judging from the
early figures, the story seems to be almost entirely about Windows 7."

"According to data released today by Kaspersky Lab, roughly 98 percent
of the computers affected by the ransomware were running some version of
Windows 7, with less than one in a thousand running Windows XP. 2008 R2
Server clients were also hit hard, making up just over 1 percent of
infections."

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/1...tim-statistics




However, Micro$oft released a security update to Windows 10 to block
WannaCry and WannaCrypt. To me, this indicates that Windows 10 was no
less vulnerable than Windows 7.

No matter what systems were actually attacked, much of the blame should
be focused on the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA
developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
computer systems against theft of that malware. The NSA therefore put
United States -- people, businesses, organizations, and even the
government itself -- at risk instead of protecting us.

See my "The Great Computer Plague of 2017" at
http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_PCplague.html.

--
David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com

Consider:
* Most state mandate that drivers have liability insurance.
* Employers are mandated to have worker's compensation insurance.
* If you live in a flood zone, flood insurance is mandatory.
* If your home has a mortgage, fire insurance is mandatory.

Why then is mandatory health insurance so bad??

On Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500
Nobody wrote:

From: Nobody
Subject: Almost all WannaCry victims were running Windows 7
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
Icedove/31.7.0 Newsgroups:
alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.windows7.general,comp.os.linux.advocacy ,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Organization: albasani.net

So what?

David E. Ross wrote:
On 5/20/2017 6:29 AM, Nobody wrote:
On 05/20/2017 06:37 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2017 11:54:17 +0200 (CEST)
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" wrote:

Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider

You are not believable.
The article is posted on The Verge, not written by the OP.

"One week after it first hit, researchers are getting a better handle on
how the WannaCry ransomware spread so quickly — and judging from the
early figures, the story seems to be almost entirely about Windows 7."

"According to data released today by Kaspersky Lab, roughly 98 percent
of the computers affected by the ransomware were running some version of
Windows 7, with less than one in a thousand running Windows XP. 2008 R2
Server clients were also hit hard, making up just over 1 percent of
infections."

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/1...tim-statistics




However, Micro$oft released a security update to Windows 10 to block
WannaCry and WannaCrypt. To me, this indicates that Windows 10 was no
less vulnerable than Windows 7.

No matter what systems were actually attacked, much of the blame should
be focused on the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA
developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
computer systems against theft of that malware. The NSA therefore put
United States -- people, businesses, organizations, and even the
government itself -- at risk instead of protecting us.

See my "The Great Computer Plague of 2017" at
http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_PCplague.html.


I don't think we should really exaggerate the risk level
for this, at least for home users.

In a corporate environment, it's an issue of "scale".

1) Just the worm-like network packets sent, can slow
a network down. Even if the AV on a target machine
blocks the effects of an incoming packet, the packets
being sent use up network bandwidth. This is why some
enterprises claimed they were "disturbed" by WannaCrypt,
but not turned into a meltdown.

2) There can be a lot more machines on one LAN segment,
compared to a home user.

For a home user, the level of risk is relatively the
same between Locky, and WannaCrypt. Certain flavors of
Locky can crawl through existing file share mounts, or
mount the disk in question (if the mount does not
require the user to type a password perhaps). If you
have only two running computers on your home LAN right
now, Locky could end up encrypting most of the partitions,
while WannaCrypt could encrypt all of them.

In terms of preparedness, both require a complete home
backup strategy, for best protection.

At the current time, you still have to click on an
email attachment, to be infected, for WannaCrypt to
get inside your LAN. The typical IPV4 NAT router
protects against incoming worm-like behavior. It
takes effort for the average user, to have port-forwarded
the necessary port(s), for a Port Forwarded file share
to be an (original) infection vector.

The situation is lamentable, but the solutions
really aren't all that different than preparing
for a visit from Locky.

Now, if any of these things use an Adobe Flash exploit
as the entry vehicle (no matter which Ransomware is involved),
*then* we're in deep trouble. Popular web sites still sell
advertising space involving Flash content from unknown sources.
Whether WannaCrypt or Locky were to get in that way, it
would be a mess. No amount of patching of Adobe Flash,
seems to be enough.

Personally, I'm still worried about Locky.

Paul

"David E. Ross" wrote

| The NSA
| developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
| computer systems against theft of that malware.

I'm imagining the NSA using the marketing
logic of the gun lobby: "If you outlaw malware
only outlaws will have malware. And we can't
have that."

There was even news recently that the NSA
had developed "hassleware", to cause general
disruption of 3rd-party software on target
machines:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/new...user-software/

Your tax dollars at work. I have to wonder how
much of this is adult teenagers without enough
supervision. It's hard to imagine any useful purpose
for planting malware that periodically kills Firefox
or IE processes. That's just juvenile nonsense.

In article
burfordTjustice wrote:

On Sat, 20 May 2017 11:54:17 +0200 (CEST)
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" wrote:

Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider


You are not believable.

Nobody gives a **** about your opinion because it doesn't matter.

On Sat, 20 May 2017 13:18:52 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"David E. Ross" wrote

| The NSA
| developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
| computer systems against theft of that malware.

I'm imagining the NSA using the marketing
logic of the gun lobby: "If you outlaw malware
only outlaws will have malware. And we can't
have that."

There was even news recently that the NSA
had developed "hassleware", to cause general
disruption of 3rd-party software on target
machines:

Didn't the NSA insist that OS vendors leave a backdoor for them and
try to force them to do so?


--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2017 13:18:52 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"David E. Ross" wrote

| The NSA
| developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
| computer systems against theft of that malware.

I'm imagining the NSA using the marketing
logic of the gun lobby: "If you outlaw malware
only outlaws will have malware. And we can't
have that."

There was even news recently that the NSA
had developed "hassleware", to cause general
disruption of 3rd-party software on target
machines:

Didn't the NSA insist that OS vendors leave a backdoor for them and
try to force them to do so?

Here, some Linux people have their little joke.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/0...door_intrigue/

The thing that should bother you about that article,
was the removal of the Elephant Diffuser from
later versions of BitLocker. Maybe a back door wasn't
planted when the FBI wanted one, but it was made a
little less secure by removal of the elephant Diffuser
(for "performance" reasons). People who invoke
security/privacy in their computing, always place
an emphasis on performance over privacy, right ? Right ?

You're in good hands with All State.

https://theintercept.com/2015/06/04/...sk-encryption/

"it explained why it removed the Elephant diffuser, citing
worries over performance and compatibility that will appease
some, but certainly not all, concerned parties"

"Windows Vista ... AES-CBC ... along with ... Elephant diffuser"

"Windows 8 silently removed the Elephant diffuser
even though it still uses AES-CBC."

"Removing the Elephant diffuser doesn't entirely break BitLocker.
If someone steals your laptop, they still won't be able to
unlock your disk and access your files. But they might be
able to modify your encrypted disk and give it back to
you in order to hack you the next time you boot up."

HTH,
Paul

On Sat, 20 May 2017 21:31:15 +0100 (BST)
Nathan Hale wrote:

Booford


LOL grade school level..stay in school.

In article
burfordTjustice wrote:

On Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500
Nobody wrote:

From: Nobody
Subject: Almost all WannaCry victims were running Windows 7
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
Icedove/31.7.0 Newsgroups:
alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.windows7.general,comp.os.linux.advocacy ,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Organization: albasani.net

So what?

That's what your mom said when she coughed you out head first on
a concrete floor.

Ransom ware is mal ware, same ****.

the way this company programmed its malware remover,
is that if its not of the op system files, it checks it,
and marks it. So its like, say goodbye to malware if
your using it...

It will locate several of them first time you run it.
And it matters not, if you have run malware removers before.
And what is amazing, is this thing is only 2mb in size.

Would not be caught dead without it... Malware Remover
Or many of his other good small softwares that are free.

http://www.novirusthanks.org/free-tools/


On 5/20/2017 2:54 AM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) scribbled:
One week after it first hit, researchers are getting a better
handle on how the WannaCry ransomware spread so quickly — and
judging from the early figures, the story seems to be almost
entirely about Windows 7.

According to data released today by Kaspersky Lab, roughly 98
percent of the computers affected by the ransomware were running
some version of Windows 7, with less than one in a thousand
running Windows XP. 2008 R2 Server clients were also hit hard,
making up just over 1 percent of infections.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/1...cry-windows-7-
version-xp-patched-victim-statistics

tesla sTinker wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Ransom ware is mal ware, same ****.

the way this company programmed its malware remover,
is that if its not of the op system files, it checks it,
and marks it. So its like, say goodbye to malware if
your using it...

It will locate several of them first time you run it.
And it matters not, if you have run malware removers before.
And what is amazing, is this thing is only 2mb in size.

Would not be caught dead without it... Malware Remover
Or many of his other good small softwares that are free.

http://www.novirusthanks.org/free-tools/

I get my "novirus" at debian.org.

--
The Public is merely a multiplied "me."
-- Mark Twain

In article
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

tesla sTinker wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Ransom ware is mal ware, same ****.

the way this company programmed its malware remover,
is that if its not of the op system files, it checks it,
and marks it. So its like, say goodbye to malware if
your using it...

It will locate several of them first time you run it.
And it matters not, if you have run malware removers before.
And what is amazing, is this thing is only 2mb in size.

Would not be caught dead without it... Malware Remover
Or many of his other good small softwares that are free.

http://www.novirusthanks.org/free-tools/

I get my "novirus" at debian.org.

Can you P2P stream NFL games on debian?