|
BugTraq
RFC: virus handling Jan 28 2004 03:45PM Thomas Zehetbauer (thomasz hostmaster org) (13 replies) RFC: content-filter and AV notifications (Was: Re: RFC: virus handling) Jan 29 2004 12:00PM Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) (andris aernet ru) (1 replies) Re: RFC: content-filter and AV notifications (Was: Re: RFC: virus handling) Feb 03 2004 04:07PM Peter J. Holzer (hjp wsr ac at) Re: RFC: virus handling Jan 28 2004 10:00PM John Fitzgibbon (fitz jfitz com) (1 replies) Re: RFC: virus handling Jan 28 2004 06:24PM Patrick Proniewski (patpro patpro net) (1 replies) Re: RFC: virus handling Feb 03 2004 08:55PM Matthew Dharm (mdharm one-eyed-alien net) (1 replies) Re: RFC: virus handling Jan 28 2004 06:07PM Jeremy Mates (jmates sial org) (1 replies) Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 03 2004 12:11PM Larry Seltzer (larry larryseltzer com) (3 replies) Re: Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 05 2004 12:18PM Andreas Marx (amarx gega-it de) Re: Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 04 2004 12:27PM Philip Rowlands (phr doc ic ac uk) Re: RFC: virus handling Jan 28 2004 05:54PM 3APA3A (3APA3A SECURITY NNOV RU) (1 replies) getting rid of outbreaks and spam (junk) [WAS: Re: RFC: virus handling] Feb 03 2004 09:11AM Gadi Evron (ge linuxbox org) (4 replies) Re: getting rid of outbreaks and spam (junk) [WAS: Re: RFC: virus handling] Feb 04 2004 08:04PM Georg Schwarz (geos epost de) Re: getting rid of outbreaks and spam (junk) [WAS: Re: RFC: virus handling] Feb 04 2004 06:27AM der Mouse (mouse Rodents Montreal QC CA) Re: getting rid of outbreaks and spam (junk) [WAS: Re: RFC: virus handling] Feb 03 2004 11:07PM James A. Thornton (jamest u-238 infinite1der org) |
|
Privacy Statement |
> First, it's dated 1/28, the day MyDoom.B was discovered, and the message sent
field says
> that too; other dates in the headers disagree.
Oh, like the fact that a lot of mail servers were getting pounded by MyDoom.*A*
doesn't mean that there could be delays along the line? (Remember to add in the
timezones - at least some of the boxes are running in GMT not EST5EDT).
> Second, and more to the point, it takes an extreme view of MyDoom.B that nobody else is
> supporting, including the sources they cite. MyDoom.B is a flop.
OK. So let's see. We've got one highly successful virus (MyDoom.A) on the
loose at the time of writing, another variant that's essentially identical
except for the target, and no clear indication why this one *shouldn't*
take off as well.
Yes, it took an extreme view that nobody is supporting *NOW*. Now isn't
last Wednesday night, when there wasn't a week's worth of hindsight.
Yes, it fizzled. Please point us at the information available to the CERT
guys *at the time* that proves there was *no* way that MyDoom.B could
possibly ever be a real threat. What would you have the CERT guys do,
*not* send the advisory just because they aren't 100% sure at the time?
I suppose you also understand why MyDoom-A was huge and Dumaru-whatever that
showed up 2 days before was a yawner. Also, note that I got more copies of
Dumary in the first 2 hours of THAT one than I got *total* of MyDoom-A - so
based on the first 2 hours from where *I* am, Dumaru was looking like a much
bigger event.
> Am I misreading something? Did anyone else get this on 1/28?
Received: from lists2.securityfocus.com (lists2.securityfocus.com [205.206.231.20]) by outgoing2.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP id B5ECF8F5D0; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:27:56 -0700 (MST)
Received: (qmail 11614 invoked from network); Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:11:38 +0000
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:12:09 -0500
Looks like some delay there. But it was already at SecurityFocus's qmail
within seconds (the Date: is actually 31 seconds ahead of the Received: once
you allow for timezones - somebody isn't using NTP ;)
[ reply ]