nanog mailing list archives
Re: Packet anonymity is the problem?
From: Petri Helenius <pete () he iki fi>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:28:24 +0300
Joe Provo wrote:
Maybe there should be more "neighborhood intelligent" worms which would target resources that are within the vicinity of the compromised host. SMTP, WWW, etc. services. That way the effects would be most devastating for the lazy.I have heard the 'assymetric cost/benefit' rationale for thebad laziness (sloppiness, not the larry wall-esque 'good' laziness of automation) on and off the last few years. Similarly, I have heard about the tremendous cost of sloppiness and human error in terms of root-cause for networking badness for the past several years.
Pete
Current thread:
- Packet anonymity is the problem? Sean Donelan (Apr 10)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Todd Vierling (Apr 10)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Dan Hollis (Apr 10)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Paul Vixie (Apr 10)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Joe Provo (Apr 11)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Petri Helenius (Apr 11)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Joe Maimon (Apr 11)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Jeff Workman (Apr 11)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Joe Maimon (Apr 11)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Jeff Workman (Apr 11)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 11)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Todd Vierling (Apr 10)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Yann Berthier (Apr 11)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 11)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Yann Berthier (Apr 11)
- Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Owen DeLong (Apr 11)