On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, der Mouse wrote: >> We are accustomed to see malware bent on financial gain, but what is >> the motivation for Conficker? The investment was made, the ammassed >> "firepower" is large, and no gain has yet been obtained. Could the >> owners of Conficker be outside of the usual criminal circles? Could >> it be a military project, waiting for a political event, to activate? > > Could? Certainly. > > My own suspicion? It's a relatively ordinary botnet-in-prepraration, > just run by someone who's willing to let it lie fallow for a few months > in order to get better penetration before spinning it up. >
I heard something this am on npr that got me thinking. A radical Taliban group claimed credit for the Pakistan Police training facility attack yesterday, and then said Washinton was next and it would be "amazing". What better terroist attack than to use a giant botnet to paralize US govt networks or banking networks? Just thinking out loud... :-) -- Steve Equal bytes for women. > (My own opinion of the "Conficker pwns Parliament" thing is rather well > summed up by xkcd #463. But then, that's how I feel about most malware > incidents.) > > /~\ The ASCII Mouse > \ / Ribbon Campaign > X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org > / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. > _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
