RE: private-sector keystroke logger...

2001-11-29 Thread Trei, Peter
Ben Laurie[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jay D. Dyson writes: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hrm, how about a worm with a built-in HTTP server that installs itself on some

Re: private-sector keystroke logger...

2001-11-27 Thread Perry E. Metzger
Derek Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hrm, how about a worm with a built-in HTTP server that installs itself on some non-standard port, say TCP/28462 (to pick one at random)? Too easy to detect. Encrypt the key in some key known only to the attacker, and start leaking little bits of it in

Re: private-sector keystroke logger...

2001-11-27 Thread pasward
Jay D. Dyson writes: On 27 Nov 2001, Derek Atkins wrote: Hrm, how about a worm with a built-in HTTP server that installs itself on some non-standard port, say TCP/28462 (to pick one at random)? Craftier still, backdoor an existing service that behaves normally until it

Re: private-sector keystroke logger...

2001-11-27 Thread Ben Laurie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jay D. Dyson writes: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hrm, how about a worm with a built-in HTTP server that installs itself on some non-standard port, say TCP/28462 (to pick one at random)?

Re: private-sector keystroke logger...

2001-11-27 Thread Jim Choate
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Ben Laurie wrote: Yeah right - so it sets up an outgoing connection to some webserver to pass on the info. Firewall that. Easy, have your firewalling software keep a list of all the connections you allow. Each time a connection to a machine not on the list occurs it asks