I think that part of the evolution is to lock people who create these things up for a *very* long time. It will deter the script kittens when they start to find that their computers are confiscated and their parents homes are sold to pay for the "loss" incurred by there stupidity. The real black hats will be deterred when 20 FBI/CIA whoever agents drag them from their homes at gunpoint with the handcuffs tight around there wrists.
The consequences need to be severe enough. In order to accomplish that our infrastructure has got to support the basic ability to find people who cause problems. Anonymity is not an option. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Frank Knobbe Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Full-Disclosure Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Calcuating Loss On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 12:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > We're fast approaching the point where a site can't do anything resembling a > reasonable testing process and complete it before the worm arrives. I think we're getting close to the point where we realize that patches and virus signatures and such are not sufficient to protect networks from worms and viruses. I meant to bring this up a month or so ago. After the NetSky.A-Z and Bagle.A-Z and NextOne.A-Z, people should start realizing that they need to escape the vicious circle of updating sigs and patching. Different, deeper reaching measures need to be taken to reduce susceptibility to these issues. Architectural changes are necessary to remove the capabilities for these things to run, spread and thrive, not more patches and virus signatures. Sooner or later, individuals will find the answer. It's evolution in the digital world. Regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
