{"id":1965,"date":"2009-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-15T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2009\/11\/15\/microsoft-study-shows-growing-threat-of-computer-worms\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:40:22","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:40:22","slug":"microsoft-study-shows-growing-threat-of-computer-worms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2009\/11\/15\/microsoft-study-shows-growing-threat-of-computer-worms\/","title":{"rendered":"Microsoft study shows growing threat of computer worms"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The danger of corporate computers becoming infected by worms has risen dramatically recently, according to a new study by Microsoft.  The study showed that, globally, the chances of infection by a computer worm had increased by almost 100 per cent when comparing the first half of 2009 with the same six-month period in 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Private users get off lightly, by comparison, partially because they are more likely than corporate customers to make sure their computers have the newest security software installed.<\/p>\n<p>Germany and Austria both have PC infection rates significantly below the global average of 0.87 per cent: 0.3 and 0.21 per cent, respectively.   Despite the higher risk of worm attacks, the study say worms only make up about 6.7 per cent of all attacks, meaning they are only the fourth most predominant threat.  Nonetheless, a year ago, that figure was 16.8 million.<\/p>\n<p>Microsoft presents its Security Intelligence Report twice a year, updating readers on the actual state of computer security and dangerous programmes.<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.topnews.in\/microsoft-study-shows-growing-threat-computer-worms-2236347<\/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-1965","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\/1965","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=1965"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1965\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4452,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1965\/revisions\/4452"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}