Steinhart Alexander wrote: > > >Clever tool with immoral, unethical and possibly illegal use. > I would not like to discuss here the moral... It's question of the time > and a (Anti)Worm is free, but I don't hope this a Scriptkiddy who set a > beta version into the world... > > My question, whether it participates meaningful one antiworm, to let > stop at a certain time and not with a certain percentage (I hope > millionth... part) of found servers to "patch"? I don't know if I've fully understood you but I think you're asking if it wouldn't be better to make an anti-worm stop after a certain percentage of hosts have been patched than after a certain time has passed. Assuming that the malicious worm is scanning the net randomly the anti-worm could monitor the frequency of intrusion attempts and shut itself down if the rate falls below a certain threshold. An interesting idea I didn't think of when coding CRclean. regards, Markus Kern
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Sep 06 2001 - 15:31:01 PDT