full-disclosure - RE: Bening 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200505141831.j4EIVFIG027897@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
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