nanog mailing list archives
Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:12:54 +0000 (GMT)
I saw this mentioned in an article a day or two after the attack. Clearly they are wrong about this (lying or mistaken), for as you say the speed of propogation means that a single infected host would have infected the whole internet in minutes which means we all see the first packets at almost exactly the same time.
Current thread:
- Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before Sean Donelan (Feb 13)
- Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 13)
- Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before William Warren (Feb 13)
- RE: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before Al Rowland (Feb 13)
- Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before Peter Salus (Feb 13)
- Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before William Warren (Feb 13)
- Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before k claffy (Feb 13)
- Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before David Lesher (Feb 13)
- Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before Mike Lloyd (Feb 13)
- Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before Jack Bates (Feb 13)
- Bumps on the Net (was Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours") Sean Donelan (Feb 13)
- Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before Martin Hannigan (Feb 13)
- Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before Krzysztof Adamski (Feb 13)
(Thread continues...)
- Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm "hours" before Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 13)