Packet anonymity is the problem?

Sun Apr 11 22:17:11 UTC 2004

--On Sunday, April 11, 2004 6:03 PM -0400 Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com> 
wrote:

> Jeff Workman wrote:

>> 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.

I would be inclined to agree.  However, how do we "verify" such a worm.  Do 
we only allow signed worms to infiltrate our system?  This is flawed 
because the worms in the wild are obviously penetrating systems without 
their owner's (or the operating system's) consent.  And, even if it were 
possible to implement such a worm, who is going to assume the liability of 
signing it?

-J

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