RE: [Full-Disclosure] Centralized server information gathering alternatives / The Bizex worm

["Aditya, ALD [Aditya Lalit Deshmukh]" <aditya.deshmukh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> Most worms today that infect machines try to report back to centralized
> servers specified by the creator (to upload/download data).  The only
> problem with this approach is that centralized servers can be shut down to
> prevent the spread of the worm and cease information gathering.  Now, what
> would happen if worms were "smarter" and instead utilized the BitTorrent
> networks?  With a small server client built into the worm payload and
> 50,000-100,000 infected machines, the author(s) (and even the worm itself)
> now has access to the data being harvested without the crutch of a single
> (or a few) predetermined access points.  Do you guys think this approach
> will be utilized in the more advanced worms of tomorrow?

now that you bring it up, we made a program that would do something like that 
but with a different approach.

it was certral location with many redundunt location that would be queried 
under various conditions and when query was successful the first thing that 
would be done was to update the "backup central locations list" and then do the 
rest of the work.

in case you are wondering what this program did: it was a windows auto update 
ancestor on a very large network that worked like a charm.


-aditya


________________________________________________________________________
Delivered using the Free Personal Edition of Mailtraq (www.mailtraq.com)

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html