__/ [Cynic] on Monday 31 October 2005 16:39 \__
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:58:44 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> How about fighting fire with fire? Release a virus that will affect
>>> *only* compromised PC's. On such a machine, the virus brings a popup
>>> every 10 minutes to inform the user that the PC is compromised, and
>>> gives instructions as to how to remove & protect the PC. If no action
>>> after a few days, it either removes the malevolent code or blocks all
>>> access to the Internet.
>
>>That sounds like an excellent idea, but will you ever have the consent from
>>a large corporation to do that to its customers? I suppose they could argue
>>that prompts which urge the user to get patches do exactly that.
>
> Who said anything about getting consent? I said fight fire with fire.
> The virus gets on their PCs in the same way that they were originally
> compromised - without consent. Yes, I am fully aware that it would be
> illegal.
Yes, I know, but this is uk.legal, is it not? Besides, this is morally wrong
to take the law (or one's computer) into your own hands.
>>The initiative must come from the ISP. I know we can disconnect users in
>>our network if their computers has been demonstrated to be scanning ports,
>>thus attempting to infect more machines. Can the same be applied to
>>hijacked computers? And if so, is it at all detectable?
>
> AFAIK all ISPs are entitled to disconnect a customer if that
> customer's PC is doing something against their T&Cs. Which sending
> spam email usually would be.
Try to tell every ISP to metaphorically 'pull those knobs' rather than turn a
blind eye. People are lazy by nature, unless there is compromise or risk or
threat involved.
|
|
