| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <200505131626.j4DGQ0Fn014563@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Date: Fri May 13 17:26:11 2005 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: Benign Worms On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:03 CDT, k k said: > There is debate surrounding whether releasing benign worms such as Nachi or > Welcha, in general is ethical or not. But network administrators can still > create benign worms for their need (not necessarily Nachi or Welcha) and > release them in their domain to patch systems. > > 1. Do people do that? Or at least, have you considered it? I doubt anybody seriously considers it > 3. If not, what prevents you from doing that? There's 3 basic setups: 1) You don't have a lot of machines. You don't *need* a worm to update 5 or 10 boxes, just walk to each and do it. 2) You have a lot of machines that aren't under your direct administrative control (for example, an ISP or a university). You can't deploy a worm, because those boxes aren't yours to screw around with - worming them could get you arrested for hacking and/or end up liable for any damages caused if a machine glitches during the patch. 3) You have a lot of machines under your control that you need to update. You don't need a worm - there's plenty of tools like "Push an update via an AD policy" and so on, and you should be using those. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20050513/80bff705/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists