Anti-Santy worm on the prowl

[whatthe]

From ZDNet

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5508607.html

I don't think it's possible to write a beneficial worm.

It will be interesting to find out what the "patch" actually contains.

[zencoder]

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!

Hardly likely.

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.

</soapbox>

Ok, no more preaching.