Wrong. EITHER WAY you re-image, as the machine has been compromised! But one way, your leased line isn't maxing out and p*ssing off all the directors who can't surf at >28.8 Can we all pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese stop talking about this now. It exists. Use it, or hide. Either way, it isn't a VULNERABILITY DEVELOPING thing... Dom -----Original Message----- From: Stanley G. Bubrouski [mailto:stanat_private] Sent: 07 September 2001 22:19 To: Vachon, Scott Cc: vuln-devat_private Subject: RE: CodeGreen beta release (idq-patcher/antiCodeRed/etc.) On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Vachon, Scott wrote: > > > > Article: Subject : Experts Reject Code Red II 'Cleanup Worm' Plan > > > > http://www.dsinet.org/?id=1654 > > > > > > Hmm, All these "Experts" own or work for companies that "sell" security in > some fashion. Of course they reject it. They lose money if folks start > fixing things for free ! If I ONLY had a choice of strangers compromising my > systems with destructive goals in mind, or those compromising them and > patching vulnerabilities, I would choose the latter. I don't work for a security company. It costs us nothing to fix employees machines. It costs us if we have to reimage their machine, because a worm that "meant well" screwed it up. > > ~S~ > > Disclaimer: My own two cents. > Regards, Stan -- Stan Bubrouski stanat_private 23 Westmoreland Road, Hingham, MA 02043 Cell: (617) 835-3284
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 16:04:31 PDT