full-disclosure - interesting?

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

Message-ID: <129d01c2c9d7$eb102290$01000001@grotedoos>
From: SkyLined at edup.tudelft.nl (Berend-Jan Wever)
Subject: interesting?

> I think this is significant as it could offer some
> insight into whether it is more efficient or economical (fewer
> iterations?) to distribute mobile or replicating information
> into a network in a controlled vs. a random way. To me, it's
> eerily similar to the question of how to distribute
> vulnerability information most effectively in a system
> of interconnected administrators.
>
> Randomly seems to have worked quite well this time around.
>
If it would not have had a random scanning engine but would have scanned all
"possible" IP addresses one by one(256*256*256*256=4,294,967,296 possible
targets), at 55 million scans per second it would take 78 seconds for it to
scan them all. The way I see it, it's randomness seems to have hampered it.

<quote>
The worm achieved its full scanning rate (over 55 million scans per second)
after approximatly three minutes, after which the rate of growth slowed down
somewhat because significant portions of the network did not have enough
bandwidth to allow it to operate unhindered.
</quote>

Berend-Jan Wever