[69442] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Packet anonymity is the problem?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Workman)
Sun Apr 11 18:17:47 2004
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:17:11 -0400
From: Jeff Workman <jworkman@pimpworks.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4079C0BB.80509@ttec.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--On Sunday, April 11, 2004 6:03 PM -0400 Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
wrote:
> Jeff Workman wrote:
>> As I understand it, Netsky is supposed to be such a worm. Doesn't seem
>> to make much of a difference, does it?
>>
>> I thought that Nachi/Welchia was supposed to be such a worm as well,
>> and it ended up doing more harm than good.
>
> One could argue that those were implementation issues, probably performed
> by people who did not know what they were doing.
I would be inclined to agree. However, how do we "verify" such a worm. Do
we only allow signed worms to infiltrate our system? This is flawed
because the worms in the wild are obviously penetrating systems without
their owner's (or the operating system's) consent. And, even if it were
possible to implement such a worm, who is going to assume the liability of
signing it?
-J
--
Jeff Workman | jworkman@pimpworks.org | http://www.pimpworks.org
