Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Beta Programs
Strikeback, Part Deux
Tim Mullen, 2003-01-13

Why I should have the right to kill a malicious process on your machine.

Comments Mode:
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Anonymous (2 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
llamatron (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Miles (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-14
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Chris Caydes (2 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Stealthbadger (2 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-14
Anonymous
The Self-Defense Argument is flawed... Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-14
Shawn Duffy (5 replies)
Important differences. 2003-01-15
Stealthbadger
This arguement against the "Self-Defense Argument" is flawed... Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Fud
Most self defense laws also include provisions for using "leathal force" to defend others from harm. By simply barring the gates from this attack you are, in essence, passing the danger to another system that may not be as able to defend itself as your own. Someones going to get hurt somewhere along the line if you let something roam the neighborhood/net looking to do damage.

The comparison of an invading process to a human intruder is flawed. Killing a milignat process is more eqivilent to shooting the gun out of an assailents hand than shooting them in the head (Ie. bringing the system hosting it down). Last time I checked a human life meant more than a few electrons...




[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/134/17743#17743
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Anonymous
Strikeback strategies CAN'T stop Nimda... 2003-01-13
Nicholas Weaver
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-13
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-14
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-14
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Valhalla
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-14
Anonymous (2 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-14
HalbaSus
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-14
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-14
pjf@thinkage.ca (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-14
Anonymous
MULLEN'S A KOOK 2003-01-14
Soum YnonA (1 replies)
MULLEN'S A KOOK 2003-01-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Ronald
NIMBDA - bad example 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
k.lichtenwalder@computer.org
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
pha153
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
James W. Meritt, CISSP, CISA
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Dan
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Striking Back 2003-01-15
Peter Schultz
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Ryan Weaver
What if the Worm Closes the Door? 2003-01-15
Rick.Miller@Linux.org
Malicious "Neutralizing Agent"? 2003-01-15
Rick.Miller@Linux.org
3 strikes 2003-01-15
Jeremiah Blatz
Strikeback, Part Deux -- vacinations 2003-01-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux -- vacinations 2003-01-23
Dr. Vesselin Bontchev
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
CounterAttacking is your right 2003-01-15
Anonymous
They just don't get it, do they? 2003-01-15
Concerned Netizen
Your "Right" is Wrong 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Examples are flawed. 2003-01-15
Bob James
No Automation 2003-01-15
Jeff Licquia
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, accountability 2003-01-15
hobbsk@ohiou.edu
security = ethics 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-16
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-15
M. Durrant
Strikeback - Think b4 you dump 2003-01-15
Dimitris (1 replies)
Strikeback - Think b4 you dump 2003-01-16
Anonymous
The rule of Law 2003-01-16
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-16
Anonymous
You shoot them...they shoot you back? 2003-01-17
Anonymous (1 replies)
You shoot them...they shoot you back? 2003-01-18
Johnny Ringo
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-21
Anonymous (2 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-21
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-22
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-23
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-24
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-22
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-22
Anonymous
Rights and defenses 2003-01-23
Dr. Vesselin Bontchev (1 replies)
Rights and defenses 2003-01-24
Anonymous (1 replies)
Rights and defenses 2003-01-25
Anonymous
Legalities 2003-01-23
Anonymous
You are already lost 2003-01-24
Anonymous
Strikeback, Part Deux 2003-01-24
Anonymous
Wrong again Timmy 2003-01-24
Unknown







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2009, SecurityFocus