Bill Frantz writes: -+----------------- | Some people tell me that the 0wned machines are among the most | secure on the network because botnet operators work hard to | keep others from compromising "their" machines. I could see the | operators moving toward being legitimate security firms, | protecting computers against compromise in exchange for some of | the proof of work (POW) money.
I'm one of those people. Quoting from my speech of 1/20: > Virus attacks have, of course, become rarer over time, which is > to say that where infectious agents once ruled, today it is > parasites. Parasites have no reason to kill their hosts -- on > the contrary they want their hosts to survive well enough to > feed the parasite. A parasite will generally not care to be all > that visible, either. The difference between parasitism and > symbiosis can be a close call in some settings, and of the folks > who famously bragged of being able to take the Internet down in > twenty minutes, one has said that a computer may be better > managed once it is in a botnet than before since the bot-master > will be serious about closing the machine up tight against > further penetration and similarly serious about patch > management. Therefore, since one can then say that both the > machine's nominal owner and the bot master are mutually helped, > what we see is evolution from parasite to symbiont in action. > According to Margulis and Sagan, "Life did not take over the > globe by combat, but by networking." On this basis and others, > bot-nets are a life form. Rest of text upon request. Incidentally, I *highly* recommend Daniel Suarez's _Daemon_; trust me as to its relevance. Try this for a non-fiction taste: http://fora.tv/2008/08/08/Daniel_Suarez_Daemon_Bot-Mediated_Reality --dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majord...@metzdowd.com