|
|
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 02:31PM Valdis Kletnieks vt edu (2 replies) RE: Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 04 2004 02:41PM Larry Seltzer (larry larryseltzer com) (1 replies) 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 |
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:11:49 EST, Larry Seltzer <larry (at) larryseltzer (dot) com [email concealed]> said:
>>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.
Most of the time, I'd expect that a copycat virus is going to be
much smaller than the original, since that trick-space is now
going to be saturated.If there's nothing different in the
distribution of the virus, then I'd say they were silly to
presume it was going to be anywhere near as big as MyDoom A.
--
Stephen Samuel +1(604)876-0426 samuel (at) bcgreen (dot) com [email concealed]
http://www.bcgreen.com/~samuel/
Powerful committed communication. Transformation touching
the jewel within each person and bringing it to light.
[ reply ]