{"id":1867,"date":"2006-05-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-05-04T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/05\/04\/virus-levels-remain-flat-for-april\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:40:11","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:40:11","slug":"virus-levels-remain-flat-for-april","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/05\/04\/virus-levels-remain-flat-for-april\/","title":{"rendered":"Virus levels remain flat for April"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>By comparison, this time last year there had already been a number of big virus outbreaks, leading SoftScan to conclude that virus writers seem to be unnaturally quiet and that spam levels appear to have stabilised in recent months.   The only real change has been in the goods and services the spam emails offer.  At the end of January this year spam levels were slightly higher at 87.09%, but the underlying trend is approximately 85%.  With no major outbreaks, the top five virus families and their proportional percentages have changed little so far this year.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Until now Netsky has remained in the number one spot, demonstrating as SoftScan pointed out in February that users need to check and clean their machines, since the high percentage rate is not down to new infections.  However financial motivation has once again proved too much temptation for hackers and phishing is now in the number spot.<\/p>\n<p>Viruses accounted for 0.55% of all email traffic in April. The top five virus families for April were:<\/p>\n<p>1 phishing 42.60%<br \/>\n2 netsky 28.49%<br \/>\n3 mytob 13.24%<br \/>\n4 html.iframe 5.00%<br \/>\n5 nyrem 4.57%<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.net4now.com\/isp_news\/news_article.asp?News_ID=3561<\/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-1867","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\/1867","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=1867"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1867\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4354,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1867\/revisions\/4354"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1867"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1867"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1867"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}