Good worms back on the agenda

Good worms back on the agenda
Robert Lemos, SecurityFocus 2006-01-27

ARLINGTON, Virginia -- A researcher has reopened the subject of beneficial worms, arguing that the capabilities of self-spreading code could perform better penetration testing inside networks, turning vulnerable systems into distributed scanners.

Colapse all | Post comment

Good worms back on the agenda 2006-01-27
Anonymous

Instead of buying a "scanning system" for each segment, couldn't you accomplish the same thing with one scanner and a vlan?...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Good worms back on the agenda 2006-01-28
Anonymous

The nematode threat is like trying to stop an epidemic and cure cancer all in one. IRL the best option is to stop and control sludge disposal internationally. I don't think that is an option in this case.

The larva feeds of glucose in the spinal musculature, glutathione is being looked at as a pr...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Good worms back on the agenda 2006-01-29
Alexandre Sieira

"Because the worms would be limited to spreading in a specific company's network, they would be completely legal, said Aitel."

Not true. Don't forget that many systems not owned by a company may be located in its network.

Consultants' laptops, for example, bring a serious problem. They either...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Good worms back on the agenda 2006-01-29
Anonymous

This is such a bad idea I've a hard time coming up with adjectives for it. Just a couple of the problems:

- How do you deal with bugs in the code that keeps it confined to a given network, or the code to shut it down? Bugs in either of those places could give you a worm that'll propagate across t...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Make it an RFC! 2006-01-30
assurbanipal

This stuff is never gonna work!

And the idea is not new.

Can you imagine benign worms propagating in corporate infrastructure?

What this proposal lacks, is an RFC status. Don't know why, but it reminds me of works such as the "The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header (Evil Bit)" [RFC 3514]......

[ more ] [ reply ]

Good worms back on the agenda 2006-01-30
Anonymous (1 replies)

Why Do we have to get over this again and again...

It is best summed up by Bruce Schneier:

'A worm is not "bad" or "good" depending on its payload. Viral propagation mechanisms are inherently bad, and giving them beneficial payloads doesn't make things better. A worm is no tool for any rational ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Re: Good worms back on the agenda 2006-01-31
Anonymous

Here, here. When will this stupid idea ever die? Using a virus/worm to manage workstations instead of a real product (of which there are plenty) is lazy and asking for problems....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Good worms back on the agenda 2006-01-30
Lucas C. Ferreira (1 replies)

These "good worms" need not use vulnerabilities to "infect" computers on the network. There are plenty of mobile agent systems that could be used instead, with more security for both the host and the agent....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Re: Good worms back on the agenda 2006-02-03
Anonymous (1 replies)

One mistake in the so called 'good worm' and your 'more secure' method becomes a way for Bad Guys to do nefarious things using Your code....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Re: Re: Good worms back on the agenda 2006-02-10
Anonymous

This comment sums to nil. "Bad Guys," in case no one's noticed, are already doing "nefarious things." What's more, they're doing it with crap code that breaks things, which is the only way the mainstream media picks up on the fact that something's amiss.

The argument that this is a bad idea bec...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Already available 2006-01-30
Anonymous

Core Security already has a vulnerability product with worm-like capabilities. ...

[ more ] [ reply ]