Four Threats For '09 You Haven't Heard of

ancientribe writes "Security experts are cautiously on the lookout for some lesser-known but potentially lethal threats that could be more difficult to prepare for and defend against in 2009. These aren't your typical enterprise hack attacks. They're mainly large-scale Internet threats — attacks that knock out sections of the Internet infrastructure, radical extremist hackers, Web attacks that adversely affect online ad revenue, and even the unthinkable: human casualties as a result of a cyberattack." Also known as the new group of things the fear mongers will use to make you do their bidding.

Another security threat is....

[Seakip18]

Reader's clicking on infected links because they're articles are so full of ads, they can't tell where the "Next Page" link is anymore.

My solution is thus. [darkreading.com]

I think the biggest threat is our own idiocy, rather than some ominous force.

Pathetic.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Even by the (low) standards of fear-mongering this is utter drivel. Pop-up blockers are an apocalyptic threat to the internet now?

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to Megan Meier.

Re:Mytob?

[rev_sanchez]

In modern health care IT systems you have multiple pieces of fairly complicated software generally coming from 1/2 a dozen vendors or so and a user population that is not that technically savvy but is familiar with Windows. Those vendors won't retool their software for market share that currently doesn't exist. It's easy to say that they should use something that isn't as susceptible to malware but that's the only part that's easy.

Re:I just had to point out a couple things, sorry

[avoiceinthewildernes]

Ever heard of Karl Popper? I didn't think so.

In short, you CANNOT "prove" a scientific theory. There is a fundamental logical problem with the very idea: We make predictions, and sometimes the predictions come true. But 'If H, then P ; P; Therefore, H' is just plain invalid. However, if a prediction fails to come true, we have: 'If H, then P; not-P; Therefore, not-H.' So, hypothesis testing CANNOT prove that a theory is true, but we can submit a theory to testing and prove that it's false, and that's enough to give us confidence in the truth of hypotheses that we haven't been able to falsify. This, in highly abbreviated form, indicates why Popper's view that scientific claims are never proved but must be susceptible of falsification has been so very influential. It's not the last word in philosophy of science, but it's an important point, and one that you should at least understand and take seriously.

As far as I can tell, neither you nor GP knows what counts as "real science."