full-disclosure - RE: Benign Worms (Cosmin Stejerean)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon May 16 04:28:04 2005
From: cstejere at cti.depaul.edu (Stejerean, Cosmin)
Subject: RE: Benign Worms (Cosmin Stejerean) 

>> regular patching. There might be some cases when writing a quick "worm"
to
>> patch rogue machines automatically might be better (especially to patch
>> laptops connected to a wireless hotspot, etc) but since it is risky it

> Nope.. You don't *know* that a worm will or won't actually hit that 
> vulnerable Laptop.  It *probably* will, given enough time.

> Or you can just have an attack-trained DHCP server, and *know* that laptop
> will get fixed when it rears its head on the network. ;)

That would be perhaps the best way to do this or as Nick was mentioning in
an earlier email, have the DHCP server scan the machine, not penetrate it,
then put it in a VLAN that can only access the site of the vendor to
download the patch or a page on your own network mentioning that the machine
is vulnerable / infected and that it needs to be patched to access your
network. 

While not the best way to handle patch management I still think the idea of
benign worms is one worth researching and experimenting with. 

I won't say anything else on the subject.

Cosmin Stejerean

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3726 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20050515/d01910ef/smime.bin