|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:37:30 -0500 (EST) From: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org> To: Bruce Williams <williams.bruce@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <775e001a1001150607m178c58cdscff8587adccb895f@mail.gmail.com> Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Bruce Williams wrote: > "The alleged attacks from China are troubling on many fronts. On > Thursday, security firm McAfee released a report saying the program > used to target U.S. firms involved a so-called "zero day" > vulnerability -- one that was to this point unknown to the security > community, and thus indefensible by anti-virus software. The flaw ... > "These highly customized attacks known as advanced persistent threats > were primarily seen by governments and the mere mention of them > strikes fear in any cyberwarrior, wrote McAfee's George Kurtz in a He makes it sound like nobody's ever discovered 0-day sploits in use in the wild / had 0-day sploits used against them. The term 0-day has been around for quite some time for a reason. I don't see anything new here other than the insinuation that the Chinese government might have been behind their use. Does anyone really believe that the use of targeted 0-day exploits to gain unauthorized access to information hasn't been at least considered if not used by spies working for other [than China] countries? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |