Look, you're missing a critical point here.
If I attack a high, strong castle wall with a baseball bat, I'm gonna fail. Yet you want to count that as somehow the same as if I attack a grass shack with a baseball bat and knock it down.
I'm saying, the strength of the castle renders the baseball bat ineffective. I might as well attack with a toothbrush, or piss on the wall. So who cares if I do?
OTOH, the fact that an attack with a baseball bat against the grass shack IS effective, is newsworthy, hence this thread.
Please try to understand this. The mere existence of attacks is NOT relevant to this discussion -- it's a question of whether they succeed! Unix servers get attacked constantly, by all manner of attackers, human and automated. The question is whether the attacks are successful in a properly maintained (configured, patched) server or workstation.
The point of the article was that a properly configured, fully-patched install of Win7 is STILL vulnerable to most (7 out of 10 in this small sample) current viruses.
Do you get it yet? The mere existence of threats, per se, is not relevant to this topic, and your continued insistence that is, is tiresome. Good day.
I’m not missing any critical point. I simply pointed out that the statement that other OSes don’t suffer from “this problem” is silly. I’ve said repeatedly during the course of this thread that Windows had more malware aimed at it and was more vulnerable. But there’s a difference between most targeted and ONLY, that is the critical point, that some people like to pretend Windows is the only OS to have ever been infected, and that’s simply not the case. That the only way it “seems like” other OSes don’t have this problem is if you go out of your way to not notice that there is malware targeting every OS.
The point of the article is to sell software. It was written by one of the biggest AV companies out there. I’m surprised they even admitted to trying viruses that got blocked by 7.