TrendLabs 'Threat Trends 2010' - a very interesting report!

[~BD~]

G. Morgan wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> *Why* haven't you seen the document, Graham?
>
> At the time you posted it I was busy.

Simple as that! Thanks

>> It looks good using Safari, smaller font in Google Chrome though.
>>
>> The content *is* interesting IMO. Did you simply choose not to look?
>
> I looked, even tried to extract the text. I did, but it looks like
> ****.

And yet *you* are the professional! ;-)

Example, FYI ........

Era of Instant Crime

More than anything else, 2010 was distinguished by the full and proper
emergence of toolkits as a means to perpetrate cybercrime. While these
have always been a part of the cybercrime underground, in 2010 they
flourished and became an even bigger part of the overall threat landscape.

Let us take, for example, a typical scenario for malware attacks. Many
systems today are infected when users search for information utilizing
search engines. Sometimes the infection is readily apparent—FAKEAV—at
other times these are silent—banking Trojans. One would think that this
is the work of a skilled hacker but that is not always the case.

Poisoning search engine results—a technique known as blackhat search
engine optimization (SEO)—involves creating Web pages that will be
highly ranked for certain search terms. Doing this manually is tedious
but there are many point-and-click toolkits that automate the whole
process. Tools like XRumer and uMaxSoft Doorway Generator can take
target keywords and can automatically create thousands of the necessary
sites.

Next, a cybercrime gang needs to upload the said pages to sites— either
malicious or compromised. Again, compromising sites one by one is a
tedious process. Toolkits also considerably automate this process,
running the scripts needed to compromise sites en masse. Note that this
process occurs within hours, if not less, after a topic becomes newsworthy.

>
> It was interesting.
>

Phew! That's something, I suppose! <vbg>

[Mike Easter]

~BD~ wrote:

> Example, FYI ........
>
> Era of Instant Crime

<snip pasted text copied from page 2>

Using p2 for more examples. On the R half of page 2, there are 'obscure'
poor resolution screenshots from some kind of malware toolkits.

The best way to see both halves of p2 is to use the hand tool to move
the 100% zoom level page manually from the left to the right, and then
you still can't actually make out what is written in the screenshots.

I don't know the real purpose of using the malware toolkits for
illustration when the graphic is so obscure.

Then, if you similarly try to copy and paste the text from p3, you will
find it to be in 2 columns on the left side of the page and 2 more
columns on the R side of the page.

Dividing the page into 2 halves each with 2 columns is not the best
layout, especially since it requires moving the view from the left to
the right half, or else making the page very short vertically and very
wide horizontally which further compromises the view of the text which
has such poor contrast of slightly darker gray against slightly lighter
gray instead of black on white.

There are 3 more obscure graphics on the two halves of p3, but you /can/
see the name Spy Eye. Big deal.

Another fuzzy graphic is shown of the Facebook Password Hacker toolkit
on p4 which is also unnecessarily divided into two columns on the left half.

If the page weren't made into the awkward 'shape' of two halves which
are too wide horizontally and too short vertically, the relationship
between the optimal column width would be easier to achieve.

This .pdf was not designed with screen display in mind.

Also, if you try copying and pasting from the two column pages, your
results will likely be unpredictable. You might (or might not) have to
do each column separately; 4 C&P per page.


--
Mike Easter

[Peter Foldes]

"Mike Easter" <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote in message
news:93g5kuFcahU1@mid.individual.net...
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Example, FYI ........
>>
>> Era of Instant Crime
>
> <snip pasted text copied from page 2>
>
> Using p2 for more examples. On the R half of page 2, there are 'obscure' poor
> resolution screenshots from some kind of malware toolkits.
>
> The best way to see both halves of p2 is to use the hand tool to move the 100%
> zoom level page manually from the left to the right, and then you still can't
> actually make out what is written in the screenshots.
>
> I don't know the real purpose of using the malware toolkits for illustration when
> the graphic is so obscure.
>
> Then, if you similarly try to copy and paste the text from p3, you will find it to
> be in 2 columns on the left side of the page and 2 more columns on the R side of
> the page.
>
> Dividing the page into 2 halves each with 2 columns is not the best layout,
> especially since it requires moving the view from the left to the right half, or
> else making the page very short vertically and very wide horizontally which
> further compromises the view of the text which has such poor contrast of slightly
> darker gray against slightly lighter gray instead of black on white.
>
> There are 3 more obscure graphics on the two halves of p3, but you /can/ see the
> name Spy Eye. Big deal.



There is nothing wrong at this end. Everything is clear and sharp and very readable

--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

[Mike Easter]

Peter Foldes wrote:
> "Mike Easter"

>> The best way to see both halves of p2 is to use the hand tool to move
>> the 100% zoom level page manually from the left to the right, and then
>> you still can't actually make out what is written in the screenshots.

> There is nothing wrong at this end. Everything is clear and sharp and
> very readable

If you enlarge the poor resolution graphics on p2 R to 200% from 100%,
you will see that the graphics text is mostly in something resembling
Cyrillic. I don't believe that you are finding that 'readable'.

Re the text: I can read the gray on gray at 100%, but at 100% zoom, the
whole page isn't on the screen. That is inconvenient.

I can put the whole page on the screen in a black shadowbox arrangement
(black fields at bottom and top), but then the gray on gray text is much
smaller. While it is readable, it isn't my choice of 'clear and sharp'
because it would be clearer and sharper if there were either more
contrast or it were larger.


--
Mike Easter

[Peter Foldes]

"Mike Easter" <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote in message
news:93g8ksF3aeU1@mid.individual.net...
> Peter Foldes wrote:
>> "Mike Easter"
>
>>> The best way to see both halves of p2 is to use the hand tool to move the 100%
>>> zoom level page manually from the left to the right, and then you still can't
>>> actually make out what is written in the screenshots.
>
>> There is nothing wrong at this end. Everything is clear and sharp and very
>> readable
>
> If you enlarge the poor resolution graphics on p2 R to 200% from 100%, you will
> see that the graphics text is mostly in something resembling Cyrillic. I don't
> believe that you are finding that 'readable'.
>
> Re the text: I can read the gray on gray at 100%, but at 100% zoom, the whole page
> isn't on the screen. That is inconvenient.
>
> I can put the whole page on the screen in a black shadowbox arrangement (black
> fields at bottom and top), but then the gray on gray text is much smaller. While
> it is readable, it isn't my choice of 'clear and sharp' because it would be
> clearer and sharper if there were either more contrast or it were larger.



I do not see it at 200 Mike but at 400 it shows. Who would enlarge it when it is
perfectly ledgeable and readable at 100.

--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

[~BD~]

Mike Easter wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Example, FYI ........
>>
>> Era of Instant Crime
>
> <snip pasted text copied from page 2>
>
> Using p2 for more examples. On the R half of page 2, there are 'obscure'
> poor resolution screenshots from some kind of malware toolkits.
>
> The best way to see both halves of p2 is to use the hand tool to move
> the 100% zoom level page manually from the left to the right, and then
> you still can't actually make out what is written in the screenshots.
>
> I don't know the real purpose of using the malware toolkits for
> illustration when the graphic is so obscure.
>
> Then, if you similarly try to copy and paste the text from p3, you will
> find it to be in 2 columns on the left side of the page and 2 more
> columns on the R side of the page.
>
> Dividing the page into 2 halves each with 2 columns is not the best
> layout, especially since it requires moving the view from the left to
> the right half, or else making the page very short vertically and very
> wide horizontally which further compromises the view of the text which
> has such poor contrast of slightly darker gray against slightly lighter
> gray instead of black on white.
>
> There are 3 more obscure graphics on the two halves of p3, but you /can/
> see the name Spy Eye. Big deal.
>
> Another fuzzy graphic is shown of the Facebook Password Hacker toolkit
> on p4 which is also unnecessarily divided into two columns on the left
> half.
>
> If the page weren't made into the awkward 'shape' of two halves which
> are too wide horizontally and too short vertically, the relationship
> between the optimal column width would be easier to achieve.
>
> This .pdf was not designed with screen display in mind.
>
> Also, if you try copying and pasting from the two column pages, your
> results will likely be unpredictable. You might (or might not) have to
> do each column separately; 4 C&P per page.
>
>

I agree that your points are valid, Mike - but it may simply be that
things have moved on rapidly with technology in the last five years.

I have no difficulty at all in reviewing the text, and illustrations, in
the format Trend elected to utilise - on my 24 inch iMac screen! <grin>