Re: [Full-disclosure] Benign Worms

["J.A. Terranson" <measl@xxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 13 May 2005, k k wrote:

> There is debate surrounding whether releasing benign worms such as Nachi or
> Welcha,

First off, lets get something straight: Neither of your two examples was
in any way "benign".  Both of these cost carriers and their customers
*billions* of dollars.  Many of us spent weeks with little to no sleep
cleaning up the mess these "benign viruses" created.


> in general is ethical or not.

I don't know where you've been looking, but the only place I've seen the
ethics of this "seriously debated" is in middle schools and the like.
There is no serious question that this is a hostile act, and cannot
logically be considered "ethical" under *any* conceivable circumstances.


> But network administrators can still
> create benign worms for their need (not necessarily Nachi or Welcha) and
> release them in their domain to patch systems.

You actually know admins that write viruses to do their patching?  Sorry,
but I think you're full of shit.  If you're not, then these "admins" need
to be immediately given a boot in the balls, followed by an unemployment
benefit.  Why would an *administrator*, someone with FULL rights to the
machine, use such a device to place patches???

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
sysadmin@xxxxxxx
0xBD4A95BF

        "What this country needs is a good old fashioned nuclear enema."


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/