| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat May 14 19:31:32 2005 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: RE: Bening Worms (Cosmin Stejerean) On Sat, 14 May 2005 11:42:18 CDT, "Stejerean, Cosmin" said: > You would probably only do something like this in case of an emergency. > In most cases there are a lot better ways to patch management than spreading > a worm of your own. Describe an emergency scenario where writing and testing a worm to do your network is superior to deploying either a honeypot back-attack-and-patch or centralized scan-and-patch service? > Perhaps the best example of how this was used and why it should be done this > way unless it's an emergency is the problem with the Xerox researches in > 1978 that used worms to automate tasks on their network. The code was > corrupted and over 200 machines crashed. I think you meant "Why it *shouldn't* be done this way"? -------------- 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/20050514/46321e76/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists