Hackers, viruses, and worms provided a constant threat in 2003. The year started off badly in January when the Slammer worm in about three hours infected hundreds of thousands of systems running Microsoft SQL Server.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There were tens of thousands of threats that affected individual businesses in various ways, depending on what systems and applications they had deployed and what kinds of security systems and practices they had in place.<\/p>\n
– In 2000, the CERT Coordination Center, a government-funded security group, recorded 21,756 security-related incidents.
\n– Four out of five businesses were hit by a virus or worm in 2003, according to a survey of 404 security decision makers by the Yankee Group. Denial-of-service attacks were the second-most-common security incident, hitting about 40% of those surveyed.
\n– More than half of those surveyed by the Yankee Group expect their security budgets to increase during the next three years, while only 8% expect security spending to decline.<\/p>\n
Security analysts and vendors predict that 2004 will bring thousands of new viruses and worms and a huge increase in the use of spyware. They also say that spammers will increasingly adopt tools used by virus writers, adding to the volume of spam and the problems it causes for corporate networks.<\/p>\n
“The issue gets serious when it comes to telecommuters using home PCs, which may not have antivirus and firewalls installed,” says Scott Blake, VP of information security at security firm BindView Corp. “The corporation has no control over what software they install on their home PC.” For more than a year, he collected the keystrokes of the customers of the printing and copying chain, including passwords and user names, and used that data to fraudulently open bank accounts.<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.informationweek.com\/story\/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=17100340<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2037","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-trends"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2037","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=2037"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2037\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4524,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2037\/revisions\/4524"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2037"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2037"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2037"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}