Viral cure could 'immunise' the internet - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Viral cure could 'immunise' the internet

  1. #21
    Senior Member Godsrock37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    121
    i think its a cool idea, but it will probably never be implemented to the point of actually working/being effective

    the pros:
    if u had a system where the whole AV workforce could centralize their efforts and kill the virus before it becomes a veritable threat, there wouldnt be such a large need for deploying AV software on every machine that exists

    easier to organize and work against viri, instead of having a lot of independent groups that use different systems that cant necessarily work together

    Indeed, I'd almost postulate that regular viruses--the kind that harm, not the kind that heal--are an important, even vital part of the mix. They are the means by which selection can happen.
    what selection would be needed if AV security were not an issue? how would it help to be taking out a computer that cant defend itself from a virus if there wasnt a virus in the first place? it doesnt make much sense to me, but what do i know
    i think it would be quite nice if there was one less service running on many computers, and instead have a server that would clean out all incoming viri and send out its own healing virus

    cons:
    that system breaks and a whole lot of people are out of luck (and probably a computer), no one wants that kind of responsibility

    users have less responsibility to protect their machines and can be less active in what is going on with their computer, not good at all

    is not a security fix all, as many people would initially think, there would still need to be an active work effort against viri

    there are a lot of other pros and cons, those are just the ones i could think of off the top of my head. but like i said, its a cool idea that will probably not be realized to the point the creator wanted it to be, merely because of its nature, like a eutopia or anything else that would be even close to perfect or a cure to all viri
    if God was willing to live all out for us, why aren't we willing to live all out for Him? God bless,
    Godsrock37
    my home my forum

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,147
    There are some flaws in the concepts presented in the article in the original post.

    1. The method still doesn't do anything until a new virus or variant is released/discovered and captured. The claim is that the proposed methods would be more efficient than the current methods. In any case, it is still a reactive, rather than a proactive methodology. The effectiveness of the method is completely dependent on overcoming the other flaws, below.

    2. The network of honeypots/honeynets requires a private, secured network. This requires a funding source, since access and lines ain't free, and an organization for management and maintenance. It must be a permanent setup and funding source and cannot be subrogated by any one entity. Since this would have to be an international effort, that can be classified as complete fantasy.

    3. The network of honeypots/honeynets requires an international organization and coordination, with agreed-upon standards and the ability to respond immediately across the globe to new threats and communicate completely and effectively. This part, in addition to the infrastructure, would need a reliable, permanent funding source and international support. See #2.

    4. Response and effectiveness of the system is completely dependent on the design, maintenance, security and competence of the honeynet operators across the globe. First, you have to get organizations all over the world willing to take some level of responsibility for hosting these honeypot/honeynet installations and train staff to a specific measurable, worldwide standard.

    I wish it would be possible to create an international organization that could make something of this scope and scale happen and make it work consistently and reliably. But, most of this is just pipe dream.

  3. #23
    Super Moderator: GMT Zone nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,192
    I just don't see it working in real life.

    catch makes a good point :

    All good until the "fixes" break critical systems with custom applications or exotic configurations.
    How many people blindly apply updates to their systems without testing them first?

    Also, this is supposed to be automatic analysis and generation of countermeasures.................if it were that easy, why do AV companies employ so many people?

    Again, this is still retrospective, so there is a requirement to "repair" systems. How will a robotic system have a chance of determining what to do given the plethora of different configurations that are out there?

    Viruses by definition, infect things, a behaviour that might be reasonably expected to be detected. Network aware worms can also be detected, but the "payload" might be more difficult to determine. But how would it deal with mass mailers?

    Network theory and mathematical models are all well and good, turning them into a practical reality is another day's work.

    If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
    As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
    What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    445
    All good until the "fixes" break critical systems with custom applications or exotic configurations.
    EDIT: How many problems has Norton caused? Service Pack 2?

    Where do you get the idea that this would be some kind of mandatory thing?

    I don't see this as being much different than any other AV system. It works somewhat differently, but the primary difference is method of signature/fix generation and propagation of said fix. The end user AV still hasn't changed. There is just a (theoretically) better response.

    it is still a reactive, rather than a proactive methodology.
    Definitions and fixes have always been reactive.

    Heuristic analysis Would still be present in the end user AV I'd bet.

    This requires a funding source
    AV subscriptions.

    But, most of this is just pipe dream.
    Walking on the moon was a pipe dream too.



    Let's be honest... Common sense and education is the best AntiVirus there will ever be. I don't have an AV and I don't get Viruses. And yes, I run Windows. I run TrendMicro's Housecall once a week.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Godsrock37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    121
    i like the optimism

    some good points, but even if it was realized it wouldnt be realized for a very long time

    if God was willing to live all out for us, why aren't we willing to live all out for Him? God bless,
    Godsrock37
    my home my forum

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides