[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Full-Disclosure] The 'good worm' from HP
- To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] The 'good worm' from HP
- From: michael williamson <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:00:57 -0500
There are much better alternatives to using exploit code to install
patches. The security folk at TAMU have come up with an in-line
network sniffer automagically blocks infected machines and notifies them
via an internal webserver of their infection. After a set time it
allows them back on. (clever...motivates _user_ to clean/patch)
http://netsquid.tamu.edu/
This is a _lot_ more responsible than running exploit code of any sort,
even for a good purpose. I admin one particular windows server that I
must actually wait for vender approval before applying any hotfixes.
I'd be extremely pissed if some do-gooder net admin tried to patch my
box via sploit code and ended up breaking it. (it is that fickle)
-Michael
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html