, 2003-01-13
Why I should have the right to kill a malicious process on your machine.
Expand all |
Post comment
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-13
Chris Caydes (2 replies)
Chris Caydes (2 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-13
Stealthbadger (2 replies)
Stealthbadger (2 replies)
The Self-Defense Argument is flawed... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-14
Shawn Duffy (5 replies)
Shawn Duffy (5 replies)
Give me a break... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-13
Shawn Duffy (7 replies)
Shawn Duffy (7 replies)
Give me a break... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-14
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
Give me a break... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-14
Shawn Duffy (3 replies)
Shawn Duffy (3 replies)
Isn't this like smacking the neighbor's kid for mouthing off?
2003-01-14
Anonymous (7 replies)
Anonymous (7 replies)
No, it's like shooting your neighbor's dog who ruthlessly attacking someone.
2003-01-15
P. Hofmeister (1 replies)
P. Hofmeister (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-21
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)

Jeez get real! its not as though strike-back is designed to format your machine while displaying a console message saying "This is what happens to Naughty admisitrators".
all it does is prevent the worm from continuing to propogate, if you read the full description thats linked to in the article, you'd see it states that the target system will be IMPROVED, because 1)theres one less process running that shouldnt be running, and 2) there's no bandwidth being used to attack other innocent systems.
And about the point of installing an AV program... of course you should be running one, but wheres the problem with HELPING those administrators who dont have one or dont keep it updated? strike-back is good for all involed, and should definately be used.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/134/17791#17791