Two issues: 1. Those who quibble about the particular type of trojan that we found have missed the point and display their ignorance of network security and hacking techniques. A trojan is a tool. It's no more dangerous than the person who uses it. In this case, a *variation* of a known trojan was being used by at least two "hackers" to attack third parties from a distributed base of hundreds/thousands of infected machines. Those hackers are now shut down, at least temporarily, due to the press and the threat of an FBI investigation. So, who cares what type of Trojan it is? 2. The naysayers here are the anti virus cartel who speculate without even bothering to gather fact (sorry to step on the toes of your little fraternity, guys.) This was proactive detection and prevention of an active attack before it caused major damage. What did companies like Network Associates and Semantic do to detect and prevent the last DDoS attacks BEFORE they caused millions in damage? The answer is: nothing. Thanks, Michael Allgeier mta@netsec.net
Two issues: 1. Those who quibble about the particular type of trojan that we found have missed the point and display their ignorance of network security and hacking techniques. A trojan is a tool. It's no more dangerous than the person who uses it. In this case, a *variation* of a known trojan was being used by at least two "hackers" to attack third parties from a distributed base of hundreds/thousands of infected machines. Those hackers are now shut down, at least temporarily, due to the press and the threat of an FBI investigation. So, who cares what type of Trojan it is? 2. The naysayers here are the anti virus cartel who speculate without even bothering to gather fact (sorry to step on the toes of your little fraternity, guys.) This was proactive detection and prevention of an active attack before it caused major damage. What did companies like Network Associates and Semantic do to detect and prevent the last DDoS attacks BEFORE they caused millions in damage? The answer is: nothing. Thanks, Michael Allgeier mta@netsec.net
Two issues: 1. Those who quibble about the particular type of trojan that we found have missed the point and display their ignorance of network security and hacking techniques. A trojan is a tool. It's no more dangerous than the person who uses it. In this case, a *variation* of a known trojan was being used by at least two "hackers" to attack third parties from a distributed base of hundreds/thousands of infected machines. Those hackers are now shut down, at least temporarily, due to the press and the threat of an FBI investigation. So, who cares what type of Trojan it is? 2. The naysayers here are the anti virus cartel who speculate without even bothering to gather fact (sorry to step on the toes of your little fraternity, guys.) This was proactive detection and prevention of an active attack before it caused major damage. What did companies like Network Associates and Semantic do to detect and prevent the last DDoS attacks BEFORE they caused millions in damage? The answer is: nothing. Thanks, Michael Allgeier mta@netsec.net
Two issues: 1. Those who quibble about the particular type of trojan that we found have missed the point and display their ignorance of network security and hacking techniques. A trojan is a tool. It's no more dangerous than the person who uses it. In this case, a *variation* of a known trojan was being used by at least two "hackers" to attack third parties from a distributed base of hundreds of infected machines. Those hackers are now shut down, at least temporarily, due to the press and the threat of an FBI investigation. So, who cares what type of Trojan it is? 2. The naysayers here are the anti virus cartel who speculate without even bothering to gather fact (sorry to step on the toes of your little fraternity, guys.) This was proactive detection and prevention of an active attack before it caused major damage. What did companies like Network Associates and Semantic do to detect and prevent the last DDoS attacks BEFORE they caused millions in damage? The answer is: nothing. Thanks, Michael Allgeier mta@netsec.net
Slashdot Mirror
Two issues: 1. Those who quibble about the particular type of trojan that we found have missed the point and display their ignorance of network security and hacking techniques. A trojan is a tool. It's no more dangerous than the person who uses it. In this case, a *variation* of a known trojan was being used by at least two "hackers" to attack third parties from a distributed base of hundreds/thousands of infected machines. Those hackers are now shut down, at least temporarily, due to the press and the threat of an FBI investigation. So, who cares what type of Trojan it is? 2. The naysayers here are the anti virus cartel who speculate without even bothering to gather fact (sorry to step on the toes of your little fraternity, guys.) This was proactive detection and prevention of an active attack before it caused major damage. What did companies like Network Associates and Semantic do to detect and prevent the last DDoS attacks BEFORE they caused millions in damage? The answer is: nothing. Thanks, Michael Allgeier mta@netsec.net
Two issues: 1. Those who quibble about the particular type of trojan that we found have missed the point and display their ignorance of network security and hacking techniques. A trojan is a tool. It's no more dangerous than the person who uses it. In this case, a *variation* of a known trojan was being used by at least two "hackers" to attack third parties from a distributed base of hundreds/thousands of infected machines. Those hackers are now shut down, at least temporarily, due to the press and the threat of an FBI investigation. So, who cares what type of Trojan it is? 2. The naysayers here are the anti virus cartel who speculate without even bothering to gather fact (sorry to step on the toes of your little fraternity, guys.) This was proactive detection and prevention of an active attack before it caused major damage. What did companies like Network Associates and Semantic do to detect and prevent the last DDoS attacks BEFORE they caused millions in damage? The answer is: nothing. Thanks, Michael Allgeier mta@netsec.net
Two issues: 1. Those who quibble about the particular type of trojan that we found have missed the point and display their ignorance of network security and hacking techniques. A trojan is a tool. It's no more dangerous than the person who uses it. In this case, a *variation* of a known trojan was being used by at least two "hackers" to attack third parties from a distributed base of hundreds/thousands of infected machines. Those hackers are now shut down, at least temporarily, due to the press and the threat of an FBI investigation. So, who cares what type of Trojan it is? 2. The naysayers here are the anti virus cartel who speculate without even bothering to gather fact (sorry to step on the toes of your little fraternity, guys.) This was proactive detection and prevention of an active attack before it caused major damage. What did companies like Network Associates and Semantic do to detect and prevent the last DDoS attacks BEFORE they caused millions in damage? The answer is: nothing. Thanks, Michael Allgeier mta@netsec.net
Two issues: 1. Those who quibble about the particular type of trojan that we found have missed the point and display their ignorance of network security and hacking techniques. A trojan is a tool. It's no more dangerous than the person who uses it. In this case, a *variation* of a known trojan was being used by at least two "hackers" to attack third parties from a distributed base of hundreds of infected machines. Those hackers are now shut down, at least temporarily, due to the press and the threat of an FBI investigation. So, who cares what type of Trojan it is? 2. The naysayers here are the anti virus cartel who speculate without even bothering to gather fact (sorry to step on the toes of your little fraternity, guys.) This was proactive detection and prevention of an active attack before it caused major damage. What did companies like Network Associates and Semantic do to detect and prevent the last DDoS attacks BEFORE they caused millions in damage? The answer is: nothing. Thanks, Michael Allgeier mta@netsec.net