{"id":2324,"date":"2003-12-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-22T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2003\/12\/22\/threat-from-sober-variant-grows\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:41:04","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:41:04","slug":"threat-from-sober-variant-grows","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2003\/12\/22\/threat-from-sober-variant-grows\/","title":{"rendered":"Threat From Sober Variant Grows"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A variant of the Sober mass-mailing worm appears to be gaining more traction as leading security vendors increase their threat levels.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Increasing prevalence of the W32\/Sober.C worm prompted Network Associates Inc. on Sunday to raise its risk assessment to medium from low.<\/p>\n<p>Sober.C is most active in Germany, where e-mail security vendor MessageLabs Inc. said 83 percent of samples had originated.  MessageLabs consider the risk &#8220;low,&#8221; while saying that it has intercepted a &#8220;significant number of copies&#8221; of the worm.<\/p>\n<p>Symantec Corp. rated it as a level 2 threat out of five, or a low threat.<\/p>\n<p>More info: [url=http:\/\/www.eweek.com\/article2\/0,3959,1420196,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594]http:\/\/www.eweek.com\/article2\/0,3959,1420196,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594[\/url]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-warnings"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2324","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=2324"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2324\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4811,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2324\/revisions\/4811"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}