And... a final question (that no one seems willing to address -- maybe it's trivial?): Why does Symantec show this Trojan.Zbot as "Very Low" Risk -- when it's capable (even in variant form) of inflicting great damage?
Probably because Norton has it fully covered
Tks for reply, Stu.
Well...it wasn't covered for those 75,000 computers that this .Zbot variant hit. Or, maybe they all didn't use Norton?
And, the other (4) Malware things that clobbered my computer -- .Blusod, Downloader, et al? All designated as "High Risk" when discovered on my computer, but "Low Risk," on Symantec's Web-page.
Is this the way Symantec/Norton classifies their "Threat" system -- using an ex post facto (after the action) approach?? It's High Risk when it gets through and infects your computer -- but Low Risk, when it doesn't??
That just doesn't make good sense to me.
Maybe Symantec should say something like: "This is extremely dangerous and High Risk malware that we think we have completely [?] controlled."
Any other ideas? <G>
NIS 2012, GHOST 15, NU 15. Win XP SP3. 2004 Toshiba 17" laptop, 3.1GHz "dual-core" cpu, 1.5 GB mem (max 2.0), 80GB HDD.