Daily computer security headaches such as viruses and spam threaten to spread to a far wider range of devices — from phones to car engines, a survey to be published by IBM has found.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The report, published by IBM Security Intelligence Services, a consulting arm of the world’s largest computer company, paints a picture of rampant, albeit controllable, security dangers. The survey combines data from big business customers, government security statistics and observations from some 2,000 IBM security consultants, detailing the proliferation of computer security threats in 2004 and likely next moves.<\/p>\n
Watch out for viruses that spread to mobile phones, handheld computers, wireless networks and embedded computers which are increasingly used to run basic automobile functions, the 2004 year-end “Security Threats and Attack Trends Report” report warns.<\/p>\n
Then again, the readiness of individuals and companies to confront these challenges has also evolved, the study said. “It’s difficult to say whether we are moving to a steady state,” Stuart McIrvine, director of IBM’s security strategy, said in an interview. “The threats are increasing, but consumers and businesses are getting a lot smarter.”<\/p>\n
IBM’s report draws on data from 500,000 electronic devices. It details a range of challenges that computer users faced in 2004 and extrapolates from early warning signs what sort of new threats electronics users are likely to face this year.<\/p>\n
Known computer viruses grew by 28,327 in 2004 to bring the number of old and new viruses to 112,438, the report said.<\/p>\n
Of 147 billion e-mails scanned by IBM for customers in 2004, one in 16, or 6 percent, contained a virus. During 2002, just 0.5 percent of e-mail scanned had viruses.<\/p>\n
The average amount of spam circulating on global networks was 75 percent, the survey found. But during peak periods, spam accounted for as much as 95 percent of e-mail traffic.<\/p>\n
http:\/\/abcnews.go.com\/Technology\/wireStory?id=483417<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-statistics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1786","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1786"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1786\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4273,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1786\/revisions\/4273"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}