On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 23:51, HaywireMac wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:17:45 -0400 > Brant Fitzsimmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > > > >We can only speculate what was in the mind of the worm's author(s). > > >But if the 200,000 instances of this worm had chosen to target > > >"windowsupdate.microsoft.com" or even "microsoft.com" with an > > >unthrottled Raw Socket SYN flood, a very different scenario would be > > >playing out today and tomorrow: Microsoft.com would be gone. > > > > > >But the worm's originator(s) appear to have been more interested in > > >making a point, than in taking Microsoft.com permanently off the > > >Internet _ which they could have easily done. > > ></quote> > > > > > >Sharrea > > > > > > > Interesting. > > Ya, sounds almost like White Hats to me, tho, for white hats it did do a > lot of damage to Windows machines worldwide, ie. at least in terms of > inconvenience. From what I have heard, it has been relatively easy to > remove and patch, and the damage doesn't seem to be permanent. > > Hmmmm, didn't Gibsom warn MS about Raw Sockets a loooooong time ago when > XP was just a dream (nightmare?). > I know Civileme went off and informed everyone on the newbie list long before XP was out about raw sockets, and how wrong and stupid it was to design raw sockets into the OS like that. seemed to me the only real reason for M$ to make raw sockets was to be able to back door you at M$ wishes. and gee, unless I borrow a copy, I might not ever get to use XP. ________________________________________________________________________ > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
