Michal Zalewski wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Stuart Staniford wrote:
>
> > Agreed - we're only talking about saturation of the hosts that can
> > actually be attacked from the Internet, are vulnerable to whatever
> > exploit the worm has, are currently connected to the Internet, and
> > have publically routable static Internet addresses. What we're
> > arguing is that the worm can reach all of those hosts that it's going
> > to reach in O(30secs) if it's small and uses the kind of strategies we
> > discuss.
>
> There's a huge network in Poland, called Polpak, connected to the
> Internet. It makes a part of it. It connects dozens, if not hundreds, of
> thousands of computers. It has very centralized structure, built around
> the capital of this country. It has very poor international uplinks,
> heavily overloaded, with packet loss ratio around 50-60% in peak hours.
>
> You can't ignore networks like that around the globe, they make a
> significant percent of overall host count. The Internet is not made only
> of US hosts in metropolitan areas, that can interact and exchange
> information in fast and reliable way.
You are right. Hosts on networks that are so poorly connected will not get
infected very quickly.
However, it may be much quicker than you think because the flash worm can
use address space locality. Once a worm or two is into that section of the
address space, most of the rest of it will be compromised quickly.
Stuart.
--
Stuart Staniford --- President --- Silicon Defense
** Silicon Defense: Technical Support for Snort **
mailto:stuartat_private http://www.silicondefense.com/
(707) 445-4355 x 16 (707) 445-4222 (FAX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service.
For more information on this free incident handling, management
and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 16:24:13 PDT