'Friendly' Worms Could Spread Software Fixes 306
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft researchers are working out the perfect strategies for worms to spread through networks. Their goal is to distribute software patches and other friendly information via virus, reducing load on servers. This raises the prospect of worm races — deploying a whitehat worm to spread a fix faster than a new attacking worm can reach vulnerable machines."
Annnndddd... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an old idea (Score:5, Insightful)
If you use a tool like this on your own network, fine, but if I find it on my own you had better cover your tracks because I'll go ballistic.
Just what we need... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Insightful)
Caused Issues the last time someone tried it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess this goes with all of the tags we've seen today on articles of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong?".
3-2-1 tagged "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Annnndddd... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right, none. There's your clue.
This one is different. (Score:5, Insightful)
not exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm not mistaken according to Micro Soft's EULA you don't actually own the software they do. They are just giving you permission to use it. Though you do own the hardware the worm in question would only affect or change the Soft Ware. In addition you neither own your network connection or most likely the building you live in ( dorm, apartment, mortgaged home etc) so from a purly legal stand point you have no leg to stand on. Though I do completely understand and support the meaning behind yrou rant
Extremely bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
What about all the security admins who filter traffic based on pattern matches and ports? So now when we see a spike in traffic from thousands of machines going to 1433 on successive IP's we're supposed to somehow make a diagnosis on whether it's good or bad traffic? It's unnecessary overhead on the network. Whatever it's intention, auto fixing of problems and specifically designed auto replicating extra internet traffic is a bad idea.
Re:A viral implementation of Windows Update? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This one is different. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yah, that'll work. (Score:4, Insightful)
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/12/18/post-install-issues-with-ms07-069-ie6-on-xpsp2.aspx [msdn.com]
(Among others) That they'll be a perfect candidate to create this type.
For that matter, I'd really like to know how someone/people who might do this, would get around that whole illegal thing.
Re:not exactly (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to argue that route you can still prove that you own the router, network cable, processor etc. so you still own the last few feet they are trespassing on. Heck renters still have a right to use lethal force against an intruder is many states. So there is a legal leg to stand on.
Regardless privacy is the main concern.
This BS creeps up time and again.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody proposing this nonsense just shows they do not even have elementary security knowledge and did not research the topic at all. Incompetents.
Re:not exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I keep asking this question about EULAS: tell me, now. Mike buys a naked, no OS computer and a boxed set of Windows Vista Home, and asks me to install it for him. If I'm the one who agrees to the EULA, how is he legally held to that EULA? He didn't agree to anything, I did. And unless he's signed "power of attorney" to me, well?
What if his ten year old child (or neighbor kid) installs it?
What if it's already installed on a computer he gets at Best Buy? I ask this out of ignorance because I haven't bought a whole computer since 1987. You have to agree to a contract AFTER buying the computer?
How can this hold up in court?
If I have six PCs in my house networked together then I do own my network connection. I also own MY COPY of Windows. Nowhere on the box does it say I don't.
You can't put a contract in a new car's glove box saying "if you open this glove box you are held to the following conditions..."
I wish a real lawyer would explain to me how in the hell anybody thinks a EULA is binding on anybody. It makes no sense at all.
Re:This is an old idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This one is different. (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you pay any attention to the last 30 years or so of cryptography [wikipedia.org]? Any peer-to-peer patch distribution system would use digital signatures that are difficult to fake. The corresponding public keys would be distributed with the OS install or through some other secure mechanism (SSL from the main update site or similar). Any attacker that can install their own key could install a worm through that route anyway.
P2P is quite good at solving intermittent high demand distribution problems, and is quite well matched to this.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)