Packet anonymity is the problem?

Sun Apr 11 22:03:39 UTC 2004

Jeff Workman wrote:

>
>
>
> --On Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:45 PM -0400 Joe Maimon 
> <jmaimon at ttec.com> wrote:
>
>> Therefore the "good" people should beat the bad people to the punch and
>> write the worm first. Make it render the vulnerable system invulnerable
>> or if neccessary crash it/disable the port etc..... so that the "lazy"
>> administrators fix it quick without losing their hard drive contents or
>> taking out the neighborhood.
>>
>> Such "corrective" behavior as suggested by you might also be implemented
>> in such a "proactive" worm.
>>
>> How many fewer zombies would there be if this was happening?
>
>
> As I understand it, Netsky is supposed to be such a worm. Doesn't seem 
> to make much of a difference, does it?
>
> I thought that Nachi/Welchia was supposed to be such a worm as well, 
> and it ended up doing more harm than good.

One could argue that those were implementation issues, probably 
performed by people who did not know what they were doing.

>
> -J
>
> -- 
> Jeff Workman | jworkman at pimpworks.org | http://www.pimpworks.org
>
>