{"id":47129,"date":"2022-06-15T17:46:09","date_gmt":"2022-06-15T17:46:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/6ad1032e-e1da-4ec3-810b-dba9221591cb"},"modified":"2022-06-15T17:46:09","modified_gmt":"2022-06-15T17:46:09","slug":"hands-on-with-pfizer-booster-4-0-my-review-of-anti-malware-for-carbon-based-systems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.threatshub.org\/blog\/hands-on-with-pfizer-booster-4-0-my-review-of-anti-malware-for-carbon-based-systems\/","title":{"rendered":"Hands on with Pfizer Booster 4.0: My review of anti-malware for carbon-based systems"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\"Virus<\/picture><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

Getty Images<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Over the last few years, we’ve been battling an array of organic malware attacks from various SARS-CoV-2 variants that have been exploiting a zero-day vulnerability (CVE-2019-05309) in host system immunity. Fortunately, prominent pharma security vendors, such as Pfizer, have made the required software patches available to thwart these attacks using the latest mRNA host cell programming technology.<\/a><\/p>\n

Some host system operators have been reluctant to deploy the new patches, citing dubious and unsupportable claims of insufficient beta testing, an accelerated development cycle, and potential unknown system-wide effects. <\/p>\n

Regardless, the first three versions of the Pfizer Booster have been remarkably effective in keeping hundreds of millions of potentially affected systems from undergoing emergency intervention or worse — decommissioning.<\/p>\n

We recently had the opportunity to put Pfizer’s latest software patch, version 4, to the test, after interfacing with a pair of patched but infected systems at a local hibachi restaurant a week ago last Sunday. <\/p>\n

Here’s how we did.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Pros<\/p>\n