Re: [iwar] Re: China Skeptical Code Red PC Worm of Chinese Origin

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-08-02 04:56:43


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1537-996753404-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 02 Aug 2001 04:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13008 invoked by uid 510); 2 Aug 2001 10:59:05 -0000
Received: from n27.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.77) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 10:59:05 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1537-996753404-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.56] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Aug 2001 11:56:44 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 11:56:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 82731 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 11:56:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 11:56:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 11:56:43 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id EAA03330 for iwar@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:56:43 -0700
Message-Id: <200108021156.EAA03330@big.all.net>
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <9kberq+93kj@eGroups.com> from "ellisd@cs.ucsb.edu" at Aug 02, 2001 11:51:22 AM
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] Re: China Skeptical Code Red PC Worm of Chinese Origin
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Per the message sent by ellisd@cs.ucsb.edu:
...
> are thousands of exploits), a new worm is possible.  Until we are able 
> to better patch our systems (bad solution) or create more secure 
> systems (better, but harder solution), worms are going to continue to 
> be a problem. 

I disagree that it's harder to make systems more secure than to have to
constantly patch them.  While patches may be inevitable in computer
systems as they are in automobiles, when you build a better system the
qwuality leads to lasting value.  The issue in computers is that the
technology has been changing so quickly that "new" has been widely
perceived as better than "high quality" - always a mistake when surety
is the objective.

> Attribution will be nearly impossible and meaningless.

I disagree about the limits of attribution.  We may be able to do a
great deal better than you think.

FC
--This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended to serve--
Fred Cohen		Fred Cohen & Associates.........tel/fax:925-454-0171
fc@all.net		The University of New Haven.....http://www.unhca.com/
http://all.net/		Sandia National Laboratories....tel:925-294-2087

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:38 PDT