> "Even so, 300,000 infected users worldwide is not a terribly large
> amount when compared to previous worms like Sober or Mydoom. However,
> with this worm it isn't the quantity of infected users, it is the
> destructive payload which is most concerning."
Vmyths used to be a great source for debunking a lot of the virus
hype. Everything old seems to be new again. In 1999, the Chernobyl
virus was the end of the world. It erased disks and BIOS of computers.
Fast forward 2005. What is the proper response for a global
impact of ~200K machines that may suffer data loss? I
don't think that inter-continental mobilization is the
Wall Street may agree as well. AV and security
companies gained nothing from this outbreak other than incurred
operational expense - a data point to add to the "is the customer
paying their fair share" argument.