North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Packet anonymity is the problem?
--On Sunday, April 11, 2004 6:03 PM -0400 Joe Maimon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Jeff Workman wrote:
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?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.
Jeff Workman | email@example.com | http://www.pimpworks.org