RE: CodeGreen beta release (idq-patcher/antiCodeRed/etc.)

["Dom De Vitto" <Dom () DeVitto com>]

Wrong.
EITHER WAY you re-image, as the machine has been compromised!

But one way, your leased line isn't maxing out and p*ssing off
all the directors who can't surf at >28.8

Can we all pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese stop talking about this
now.  It exists. Use it, or hide. Either way, it isn't a
VULNERABILITY DEVELOPING  thing...

Dom
-----Original Message-----
From: Stanley G. Bubrouski [mailto:stan () ccs neu edu]
Sent: 07 September 2001 22:19
To: Vachon, Scott
Cc: vuln-dev () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: CodeGreen beta release (idq-patcher/antiCodeRed/etc.)




On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Vachon, Scott wrote:

> > Article: Subject : Experts Reject Code Red II 'Cleanup Worm' Plan
> >
> > http://www.dsinet.org/?id=1654
>
> Hmm, All these "Experts" own or work for companies that "sell" security in
> some fashion. Of course they reject it. They lose money if folks start
> fixing things for free ! If I ONLY had a choice of strangers compromising
my
> systems with destructive goals in mind, or those compromising them and
> patching vulnerabilities, I would choose the latter.

I don't work for a security company.  It costs us nothing to fix employees
machines.  It costs us if we have to reimage their machine, because a worm
that "meant well" screwed it up.

> ~S~
>
> Disclaimer: My own two cents.

Regards,

Stan

--
Stan Bubrouski                                       stan () ccs neu edu
23 Westmoreland Road, Hingham, MA 02043        Cell:   (617) 835-3284