Conficker Worm: Not Finished Yet
#2
Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:45 AM
#3
Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:11 AM
The virus didn't have to have a malicious payload to be a success. It's a success by infected up to 12 million computers. The authors of this virus now just have to show companies any bit of the coding so secure millions of dollars from people with the inclination to form a botnet or to send out their own program.
I don't think the point of the virus was for the writers to send out their own stuff, but rather to create a market and interest in their ability to propagate whatever payload they so desire.
Maybe the justice department will offer them multi-million dollar contracts to protect against people like themselves?
#5
Posted 02 April 2009 - 10:07 AM
#6
Posted 02 April 2009 - 10:22 AM
#7
Posted 02 April 2009 - 10:59 AM
Are you saying that you'd like to have to report detailed information about each connected machine to your ISP to be able to log on? And the ISP should be able to dictate what valid patches and operating systems are, no doubt in the process annihilating many embedded networking solutions?
Privacy issues aside, I wonder how you think it would be possible for a user without the latest patches to get them. Unless you'd like to see Microsoft sending CD's by mail to every customer twice monthly.
Not to mention that the notion of identifying "threats" requires deep packet analysis and incredibly sophisticated software, adding more overhead to the ISPs and giving them a reason to raise rates again.
And all this, you want 'mandated,' presumably by the UN or some other international authority with the power to enforce it.
#9
Posted 02 April 2009 - 11:33 AM
#10
Posted 02 April 2009 - 01:15 PM
#11
Posted 02 April 2009 - 02:49 PM
#12
Posted 02 April 2009 - 05:20 PM
spottydog said:
:D Hey spottydog, Actually at least one other member that I'm aware of did the same thing. I had entertained the idea, but all my security stuff is and has been up to date, so figured it would be a bust anyway. Had one member that ran his computer naked of any kind of security stuff and had his girlfriend log into as many site as possible. Don't know what the results were, but I would be surprised if there weren't at least a few Vundo type things in there as well as a possible ZLOB or two. :D coastie
#13
Posted 03 April 2009 - 07:47 AM
blocked always, it would not be unrealistic to block harmful malicious
or unauthorized transmission from cyber criminals once a pattern has
been identified. If you seriously don't think that everything on the
net is not already being monitored by big brother, try having a
conversation about planning an attack on a Govt official and see how
long it takes to have a visit from the Feds. The way I look at it is
the criminals have a free ride to steal your freedom while crapping on
privacy with an open door policy to do what ever they can while you're
watching you tube. If I had a choice to use an ISP that can identify
and prevent the unauthorized malicoius code from spreading itself
further I would use it. I know which ISP's the cyber criminals would
choose-the same ones that are protecting your so called privacy while
they're cleaning out the bank account.
#14
Posted 03 April 2009 - 10:22 AM
#15
Posted 04 April 2009 - 01:58 AM
Sign In
Register
Help


MultiQuote