Packet anonymity is the problem?
Jeff Workman
jworkman at pimpworks.org
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
More information about the NANOG
mailing list