January 3rd, 2005, 03:21 PM
Anti-Santy worm on the prowl
It will be interesting to find out what the "patch" actually contains.
I don't think it's possible to write a beneficial worm.
\"You got a mouth like an outboard motor..all the time putt putt putt\" - Foghorn Leghorn
January 3rd, 2005, 04:07 PM
Absolutely not beneficial. It uses resources without the owners consent. It changes code without the owners consent. Regardless of the intent of the worm's writer, it is unethical. The only way this sort of activity could be considered beneficial is if it checked the sites code version, found the email of the administrator(s), and sent them a message outlining the problem and providing links to the security announcements and fixes, while making no changes!
In fact, I would suspect that this 'Anti-Santy-Worm' does indeed fix the known vulnerability...but how many backdoors, rootkits, or unknown vulnerabilities does it create for later exploitation?
No, writing a worm that 'fixes' the hole exploited by a previous worm is no benevolent act. Just because I don't like the color of your house, I don't have to right to paint it a 'more conformist' color, even if I paid for the painting, made sure nothing was damaged, and took care of all expenses or inconveniences, but did so without your consent. It's still *YOUR* house.
Ok, no more preaching.
"Data is not necessarily information. Information does not necessarily lead to knowledge. And knowledge is not always sufficient to discover truth and breed wisdom." --Spaf
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. --Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
"...people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right." - Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore