Shortly before April 1, many news outlets began to report on the Conficker virus, calling the infection "one of the most dangerous threats ever." You can argue that time will tell. After all, the virus has lately come alive as reports indicate the the worm has begun contacting infected computers via a binary file over peer-to-peer.
However, it can also be argued that this panic will no doubt trivialize the efforts by many to warn users of other future, potentially more harmful viruses. Guardian Blogger Charles Arthur points out, that since the Conficker did little on the supposed attack date of April 1, that this non-event has now created a twofold problem.
First, after all this buildup, people are going to find it hard in future not to think that the security industry is crying wolf over such a threat ... But equally, that means that people get lax about security -- thinking that since they didn't see anything dramatic happen when the last one blew around, that means that it's not important.
With all of this, arguably unnecessary, hubbub over computer viruses, can we can legitimately assess which infections cause a serious threat and which ones do not? Will this contribute to apathy toward other virus warnings from the computer-security industry? Join the discussion on this controversial subject here.https://o1.qnsr.com/log/p.gif?;n=203;c=204663295;s=11915;x=7936;f=201904081034270;u=j;z=TIMESTAMP;a=20410779;e=i