full-disclosure - Benign Worms

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: <20050513153806.N55024@ubzr.zsa.bet>
Date: Fri May 13 22:07:01 2005
From: measl at mfn.org (J.A. Terranson)
Subject: Benign Worms

On Fri, 13 May 2005, k k wrote:

> There is debate surrounding whether releasing benign worms such as Nachi or
> Welcha,

First off, lets get something straight: Neither of your two examples was
in any way "benign".  Both of these cost carriers and their customers
*billions* of dollars.  Many of us spent weeks with little to no sleep
cleaning up the mess these "benign viruses" created.

> in general is ethical or not.

I don't know where you've been looking, but the only place I've seen the
ethics of this "seriously debated" is in middle schools and the like.
There is no serious question that this is a hostile act, and cannot
logically be considered "ethical" under *any* conceivable circumstances.

> 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.

You actually know admins that write viruses to do their patching?  Sorry,
but I think you're full of shit.  If you're not, then these "admins" need
to be immediately given a boot in the balls, followed by an unemployment
benefit.  Why would an *administrator*, someone with FULL rights to the
machine, use such a device to place patches???

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
sysadmin@....org
0xBD4A95BF

	"What this country needs is a good old fashioned nuclear enema."