Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: interesting?
From: Simon Richter <Simon.Richter () hogyros de>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 13:54:36 +0100
Hi,
According to the analysis posted to NANOG by a number of researchers (http://www.caida.org/analysis/security/sapphire/), It infected the majority of hosts within the first 10 minutes.
[...]
This seems important is because it shows that a high rate of saturation can be achieved among network nodes as effectively (if not more so) using random distribution, as by using a structured or hierarchical distribution strategy.
Actually, that was what the worm author did. The algorithm generates new numbers from the current (i.e. it has some sort of knowledge what hosts have already been infected) plus a not-really-predictable component (system time, IIRC) plus some sort of counter because the system clock is so slow. So what we have witnessed is the structured approach. The question remains whether the worm author is a maths wizard or just plain lucky. Simon -- GPG Fingerprint: 040E B5F7 84F1 4FBC CEAD ADC6 18A0 CC8D 5706 A4B4
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- interesting? batz (Jan 31)
- Re: interesting? Berend-Jan Wever (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? Ka (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? Simon Richter (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? Simon Marechal (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? Simon Richter (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? Simon Marechal (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? Roland Postle (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? Geoincidents (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? Simon Marechal (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? Berend-Jan Wever (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? batz (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? Gregory Steuck (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? batz (Feb 01)
- Re: interesting? Bruce Ediger (Feb 01)