<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/13/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Castigliola, Angelo</b> <<a href="mailto:ACastigliola@unumprovident.com">ACastigliola@unumprovident.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
>This doesn't mean that W98 is secure. On Secunia's site the latest<br>>(corrected) vulnerability is dated 20060613, less than 1 month ago, and<br>>tomorrow someone could find a new one that won't be corrected.<br>
<br>Sure, that could happen but seeing how there are only two known exploits<br>published in 2006 for Windows 98 I think it is safe to say that the risk<br>is fairly low. Why should Microsoft spend millions of dollars to operate
<br>a team to update Windows 98 when there was such a low volume of exploits<br>for Windows 98 with very little details regarding the specifics of the<br>exploit and no known code has been released to exploit these<br>vulnerabilities?
<br><br>>You don't need 2000 vulnerability. It's enough only one exploit to<br>>create a 70 millions PC zombi net.<br><br>I'd like to see someone discus the plan of execution of exactly how a<br>hacker would go about compromising 70 million Windows 98 computers.
</blockquote><div><br>Put the exploit on your myspace account ;-)<br><br><a href="http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2006/07/myspace_moves_into_1_position.html">http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2006/07/myspace_moves_into_1_position.html
</a><br><br>-JP</div></div><br>