The headline claims "All RDP Scanning on the Internet" but the article says they only had data from their observation grid, not the entire internet.
Cybersecurity
c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.
THE RULES
Instance Rules
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No pornography.
Community Rules
- Idk, keep it semi-professional?
- Nothing illegal. We're all ethical here.
- Rules will be added/redefined as necessary.
If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.
Learn about hacking
Other security-related communities !databreaches@lemmy.zip !netsec@lemmy.world !securitynews@infosec.pub !cybersecurity@infosec.pub !pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
Notable mention to !cybersecuritymemes@lemmy.world
Not true as it's impossible to measure such a thing. But it makes sense that these numbers are what they are because ipv4 addresses are expensive.
The article explains exactly what it did measure and what this does not mean:
Every number in this post describes attacker activity reaching GreyNoise sensors, not confirmed impact on third-party environments.
That's not what the headline says
So read the article, then, before commenting
Why? Why would I read an article that should be summarized in a headline? I don't have time to read 100,000 words a day
"Oh you should have read the 100 point fine print on our billboard instead of believing the 10000 point text"