Mathew P. wrote:
...
--------------------8<-----------------------
...
zombie machines. I also wouldn't be at all suprised if the attack and
takeover was accomplished via automation with an internet crawler. This
would account for the very high estimated number of hijacked windows boxes.
I suspect that the takeover is more like the pyramid selling schemes that
come and go: each zombie tries a set of IP addrs to find a machine to
takeover; when successful, the new zombie also does likewise.
Suppose that the zombies have a .1% success rate (1 in 1000 machines
attacked get zombiefied).
Roughly speaking (in an ideal world?), from one initial machine, after it
has attacked 1000 machines, there will be 2 zombies, each attacking. 1000
attacks later (each) they will each have found another machine each and
there will be 4 zombies. 1000 attacks later, there will be 8 zombies.
As you can see, after each "round" of 1000 attacks[2] the number of zombies
doubles.
[2] As soon as a new zombie is made, it can start attacking - it doesn't
have to wait for its attacker to finish its "round" of attacks.
Depending upon how long the zombiefying process has been running, and how
large (or small) the success rate, I would suspect/have to say that the
large number of zombies is [almost] self-sustaining - they have almost
reached "saturation" that is the downfall of pyramid schemes, but in their
case, all it means is that they're beginning to attack zombies more often,
which has the advantage that if the machine is cleaned (eg as the user
couldn't understand why it was so slow so they just reloaded), it's likely
to be re-zombiefied.
Also the very quick time to being zombiefied (taking a virgin Windwos
machine online) implies that a large number of zombies are searching out new
machines to assimilate^Wzombiefy and that possibly most, if not all, IP
addresses are being attacked within a short timeframe by various zombies - I
know I keep getting "zombie" traffic hitting my gateway.
Being a Microsoft-free person, I continue
to live as a sufferer, which I think is unfair. The legal newsgroups said
that no case can be made against anybody. That's what the majority said
anyway...
Nothing about Aiding and Abetting the criminal by Microsoft [releasing tools
(aka Windwos(TM) OS) that can be used to crack into computers or for blackmail]?
...
IMHO, this is analagous to the zombie phenominon. An improper software
design (in Windows) is allowing security breaches into the OS of the
personal computer used by a given consumer. It is private property
Whose private property is the OS?
You only purchase a licence to use MS's OS; you don't buy the OS itself.
The computer, hard disk and data, etc may be your private property, but not
the OS.
and an assumption of protection of that property against illegal
attacks is reasonable given the functions that an OS is expected
to provide.
Thus any attack on the OS is an attack on /MS/'s private property, and so
any litigation for it would be MS's choice?
However, that OS is also supposed to be protecting /your/ private property
(data) and if it fails to do so, should MS be held liable?
It's amazing:
Would people put a lock on their garden shed and when the lock gets picked,
they then go out and buy a replacement lock of the same brand, which just as
easily gets picked. They then go out and buy a new shed which comes with a
lock already installed, again of the same brand (the only lock allowed to be
installed by shed manufacturers) and it gets picked.
You'd think they'd have learnt? Even if the lock manufacturer says it's a
much better lock?
This is the cyberspace equivalent of "breaking and entering". IMO
by virtue of being the producer of Windows, Microsoft can be held
liable.
Can a glass window manufacturer be held liable for the thief breaking the
glass? I would have to guess only if they guaranteed the strength and
durability of the glass against such attack.
|
|
