Oddly enough, you don't ever actually see an RIAA or MPAA file a lawsuit for downloading a movie/song/cd either. I expect this is just a misquote in the Wired article. The **AA is smart enough not to test those fair use laws in court. What they are really doing is suing these people for distributing the content. The (official) BitTorrent client requires that you make the content available to other users while you are downloading (thus distributing said content). So, as long as the **AA is suing people for distributing, fair use never comes into play.
Depends on how the law was written. What if liability was on the party with access to the source code. So, if company "A" distributes a binary without source, they assume liability since the customer isn't able to verify the code is "safe".
An open source project on the otherhand, at a minimum ships a binary and also makes the source available to the end user, thus transfering the liability from the distributor to the customer.
Give me drivers. I'll suffer through a some green on black curses interface ala make menuconfig for gawds sake. Error out with a message that says I was eaten by a grue if I don't respond with a [y] fast enough or in the wrong case. Just give me some drivers....
On impulse, I recently bought a Canon PIXMA i4000. I remembered reading some good reviews, it was on sale, and I had a $70 MIR (recently bought a Canon digital camera). I honestly was surprised to find that no decent drivers were available for this printer. I even wrote Canon to complain. The response was something along the lines "our seperate business departments choose what platforms to support and unfortunately, Linux was not one of them."
Personally I feel that the government should pay for child care until your children go to school.
I challenge anyone who makes statements about what the government should pay for, first substitute my family, friends, and neighbors in place of government along with my in place of your.
For instance, the above comment would become "Personally, I feel that my family, friends, and neighbors should pay for my child care until my children go to school."
If you can't stand by the altered statement, I don't see how you can stand by the original.
I am not sure why everyone seems to be slamming the author of the article for being a "Master of the Obvious". Probably because much (all) of the content comes from the FUD farm called Symantec. If this study is true, then I would admit that this change is significant. No, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that hackers/crackers would shift from owning systems 'just to own them', to owning systems for economic gain. However, it is still very important to identify when then trend changes, as it impacts the threat variable which a companies risk is calculated on.
For those of you who aren't sure how risk should be calculated, let Batman help you.
How does it compare to the bible of all IDS analysts, Network Intrusion Detection by Stephen Northcutt & Judy Novak
That's a really good question. To me the bible is Stevens TCP/IP Illustrated Vol I. While Northcutt's book is a great introduction to IDS and anaylsis for beginners, I think Rich's book goes beyond that (as evident in reviews from respected members in the community like Lance Spitzner from the Honey Net Project). To quote Ron Gula from the foreword of Richard's book.
If you've learned the basics of TCP/IP protocols and run an open source or commercial intrusion detection system, you may be asking, "What's next" If so, this book is for you.
You can also read a couple of sample chapters from the book.
Of course, I am a little bias. Rich is a great friend, but I truly think he did an awesome job of creating something that should be required reading for anyone involved in network secuirty.
Don't get too excited though. It is still cheaper to buy a system preloaded with Windows XP than it is to purchase the exact system without an OS. I recently compared an Optiplex 170L (w/XP) to an Optiplex 170LN (w/FreeDOS on disk but not installed). The 170L came in at $593 while the 170LN with the exact same hardware and support contract was $716. Go figure. Mad propz to the U.S. Justice Department for keeping the Microsoft monopoly in check [end sarcasm].
Yes, I truly believe that IPSs/application FWs are the direction those assets belonging to the 'prevention' category need to go (see my previous post about prevention, monitoring, response).
I think there are some fundamental _business_ problems for the IPS guys.
Number one, some of those (IPS) products seem to be a lot like their IDS cousins and selling something that doesn't work as expected or isn't useful as implemented. Number two, IPS companys have to take on those huge goliaths of FW companys. I think that is the reason a very good technology (IPS) went after a market hindered by bad implentations (IDS) even though I don't see them as direct competitors. Blame it on the damn marketers.
Sorry for the late post, but I thought you deserved a response.
Sorry, why didn't you say that this was an I_P_S (Instant Protection System)? Guaranteed to stop 100% of all attacks. I didn't realize that by putting an I_P_S on my network, that no longer would I need to patch any of my systems, audit them for vunlerabilities, etc. Long live service pack 1! Woooo hoooo! No more worrying about systems running legacy applications that can't be upgraded! Users getting trojan via instant messanging applications? Not a problem! I can't wait to tell the board. Risk? We have no risk! Not with our Instant Protection System in place. The threat is ZERO!! We CAN NOT be compromised!! Eat my dust you l33t hax0rs!!
Excuse me while I go back to the real world. With a real network. With real users. And real security problems. Prevention will NEVER be 100%. So you either suck it up and ingore the possibility of a compromise or you inuclude monitoring. I choose prevention+monitoring.
You seem to be missing the point. It isn't about whether I think IPS is good/bad. I honestly think it's great. My point is that IPS doesn't replace an IDS. I feel you still need IDS. There are three components of Network Defense:
Protection, Monitoring, and Response
FWs/IPS/etc fall into Protection NIDS/HIDS/etc are in the Monitoring category
I don't believe any protection (including IPS) will ever be 100% and therefore you better be implementing monitoring and response at some level. When I think IDS, I think IDS alerts (snort, RealSecure, etc) + session logging (argus, sancp, etc), and raw pcap logging. It's what I think IDS really should be, but since it isn't, we use the term Network Security Monitoring.
A cut -n- paste job from a previous post. Sorry, but I am too lazy to rewrite the thing.
My personal opinion is IPS's have been mislabeled since the beginning (aren't marketers wonderful). Take this definition I found in some Usenet archives (circa 1992):
"a combination of a security policy with some of the components
above. Specifically, an implementation of the given policy that
is enforced by a combination of screening and/or routing." [1]
Geeze, seems like IPS would fit right in there. Now the final jeopardy question, what was that a definition of? If you guessed "firewall" then you get the big prize. So that's it, you heard it here folks, an IPS isn't the evolution of a IDS, but instead part of the evolution of a firewall. If you look at the history of firewalls, you'll see that early on there were huge flame wars over Packet Filtering and Application Firewalls. In the end, the packet filtering FW won out. Seems to me packet filtering FWs used less resources and could handle faster networks and as those speeds approached full duplex 100mb links, application FWs got left in the dust.
Fast forward to 2003 and the designers of IDS software have made huge progress in detecting potential attacks, system's CPU/RAM/etc have increased phenomally, and the 'normal' speed of network have sorta leveled out. So, application FWs are back in the picture. Vendors with short term memory loss label this 'new' product an Intrusion Prevention System and advertise it as the replacement for your IDS. Those vendors give it a new label for good reason. There is no way they want to bang heads with the big FW companies and more importantly, their implementations of IDS have been huge failures within their customers networks and they need something to market as 'new and improved' (again).
I say (most) vendors of IDS and 'IPS' products failed because they sold the product as an INTRUSION Detection System when they really had an ATTACK detection system. An INTRUSION Detection System implies the IDS can detect an event and determine its nature (malicious vs non-malicious). If the attack was malicious, an IDS will help you determine if it successful. If the attack was successful, the analyst should be able to use the data collected by the IDS to determine the impact on the system in question and finally what steps are needed for remediation. The 'IDS' vendors instead force fed us near worthless systems that can display an 'event'. Many won't give us any details on how they determined it was an 'event' and most can't give us any supporting data about 'attack' beyond a src/dest IP addr and port. If we are lucky, we get a whole packet too. No analysis can be done with the console, instead one must go to the targeted machine and pull out his/her host forensics kit or pay a 'Security Consulting' firm $600/hour to recommend you wipe and rebuild the system.
Soon customers begin to ask "what do I do with this event" and later "I spent XXX hours tracking this down only to find the attack didn't happen or wasn't successful". The vendor noticing the agnst in his customer's voice replies with "we are working on ways to reduce 'false-positives' and in the future we will use IPS technology to prevent attacks too." and thus the birth of "IDS is Dead". I expect FW vendors to incorporate more and more attack detection features from IDSes (duh) and have true hybrid Packet Filtering/Application FWs, but the fact is we will still need IDS. IDS done the right way of course (we call it Network Security Monitoring), but that is a whole other rant.
It's perfectly reasonable to, once they've given you the quote, to also tell you what all is wrong with your car. Tell them you'd need to think about it, as if this is going to put a bit of crimp in your budget for this month, and say you'll get back to them as soon as you've worked out the details.
Too bad the dealers already have away around this. Diagnostics will cost you $50-$100 in the first place (waived if you get the vehicle fixed there of course).
The BUMA can still sue people the way the RIAA does in the US for downloading copyrighted music files
Why can't people get this straight (oh, wait this slashdot), but AFAIK, no one has been sued by the RIAA for downloading mp3s. They have all been sued for distributing mp3s (sharing the files via P2P). It is easier to prove illegal distribution (versus illegal possession - I mean does anyone really know what fair use is?) and the penalties are stiffer too.
I realize the Slashdot editors have a tendancy to post dupes (really, they do), and I appreciate the links to other (older) stories, but come on, this was a new interview (notice the comments about SCO) that I found informative. Some of his comments nearly brought tears to my eyes.
Besides, this is Slashdot, and any pro-opensource, anit-Microsoft story is required to be rehashed over, and over, and over....
Why does every comment seem to target the retailer for this? Seems to me that taxing internet sales will not affect them one way or another as long as the playing field is level. The state gov'ts, on the other hand, believe they are missing out on millions of dollars in lost tax revenue. With the economy like it is, and states reporting big deficits, they need a scape goat. Looks like a win/win situation for the state gov'ts. Whether the consumers get torqued at the retailers and stop buying online, or the consumer continues to buy online, the gov't still gets their $$. Sure beats the complicated task of reducing spending and potentionally pissing off the lobbyist that got them their positions within the gov't in the first place.
On another note, I doubt it will affect my online purchases much. Most of my online purchases are for things I cannot find locally or items I am getting as gifts for family/friends who are not local. It seems easier/faster/cheaper to send items directly from the online retailer vice buying/wrapping/sending the package myself.
I saw an earlier post for linuxforkids, but I thought gcompris deserved it's own mention even though it is on the linuxforkids.org site. Gcompris contains a nice suite of educational games for Linux. All GPL of course.
A wise man once told me to use the preview button and I ignored him.:(
I saw an earlier post for linuxforkids, but I thought gcompris deserved it's own mention even though it is on the linuxforkids.org site. Gcompris is a nice suite of educational games for Linux. All GPL of course.
I see your bet and raise you an infinite number of software and hardware developers.
Installed anything on a MS platform lately? Everyone wants your email address, so they can give you better "support" by selling your info to hordes of spam artist. For instance, my Mom doesn't use Windows because it's easier to use or crashes less often. She uses Windows because CreateCard12 doesn't run on Linux. Her new printer didn't come with Linux drivers and neither did her scanner. MS retains its monopoly status for those reasons and it isn't about to jeopordize it's relationship with these software and hardware companies by helping prevent spam (unless the get $30 a month from you).
MS Windows notifies you when an update is available for the apps installed on your system. Mozilla notifies you and everyone else when vulnerability has been discovered. As quickly as possible, they also notify you, RH, MS, and everyone else when the fix is available. Speaking of Windows Update, why doesn't it tell you that there is a newer version of Mozilla available? Oh, never mind, they are a convicted monopoly and that would be against their policy.
If you're going to argue a case, at least compare apples to apples.
The terrorist site in question contains banner ads and by clicking on the link you are providing material support to this terrost group. I am writing my Congressman in hopes of getting all "Banner Ads" deemed illegal via the Patriot Act. Why all banner ads? Well like handguns, automatic weapons, and switch blade knives, banner ads have been proven to be a weapon terrorists can wield against innocent citizens.
1. It's a public school. And a world-class research institute, at that. A school that gets lots of federal money. That increases their free-speech mandate.
2. They aren't saying "UCSD will not allow this." They are citing Federal law. They interpret the Patriot Act as making that link illegal. That's a direct first amendment issue.
Exactly, and because the University does receive such funding, I would argue that it is their responsiblity to preform due diligence and ensure that potentionally illegal links, content, etc. is removed from their servers. Whether you agree with their interpetation of the law or not, it is not you who is assuming the responsibility of the contents/links on their servers.
If you open the package and like what you find, you may keep it for free. In this instance, "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally.
Does this mean if someone received a "Free Trial Version" of some software through the mail, the recipient would have an unlimited license to install it on as many systems he wanted? Since the recipient now owns the product (not a license to use it), could he then legally circumvent any protection that would limit the products use (ie: 30 day trial periods, etc)?
Were do people get these dates from? At least do a little research. The first reference to CodeRed I could find was a post to the Incidents list at SecuirtyFocus.com on July 15th. The acutual data was captured a couple of days prior to the post if my memory serves me correctly (the poster is a good friend of mine and a coworker at the time).
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly enough, you don't ever actually see an RIAA or MPAA file a lawsuit for downloading a movie/song/cd either. I expect this is just a misquote in the Wired article. The **AA is smart enough not to test those fair use laws in court. What they are really doing is suing these people for distributing the content. The (official) BitTorrent client requires that you make the content available to other users while you are downloading (thus distributing said content). So, as long as the **AA is suing people for distributing, fair use never comes into play.
Depends on how the law was written. What if liability was on the party with access to the source code. So, if company "A" distributes a binary without source, they assume liability since the customer isn't able to verify the code is "safe".
An open source project on the otherhand, at a minimum ships a binary and also makes the source available to the end user, thus transfering the liability from the distributor to the customer.
Give me drivers. I'll suffer through a some green on black curses interface ala make menuconfig for gawds sake. Error out with a message that says I was eaten by a grue if I don't respond with a [y] fast enough or in the wrong case. Just give me some drivers....
On impulse, I recently bought a Canon PIXMA i4000. I remembered reading some good reviews, it was on sale, and I had a $70 MIR (recently bought a Canon digital camera). I honestly was surprised to find that no decent drivers were available for this printer. I even wrote Canon to complain. The response was something along the lines "our seperate business departments choose what platforms to support and unfortunately, Linux was not one of them."
I challenge anyone who makes statements about what the government should pay for, first substitute my family, friends, and neighbors in place of government along with my in place of your.
For instance, the above comment would become "Personally, I feel that my family, friends, and neighbors should pay for my child care until my children go to school."
If you can't stand by the altered statement, I don't see how you can stand by the original.
I am not sure why everyone seems to be slamming the author of the article for being a "Master of the Obvious". Probably because much (all) of the content comes from the FUD farm called Symantec. If this study is true, then I would admit that this change is significant. No, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that hackers/crackers would shift from owning systems 'just to own them', to owning systems for economic gain. However, it is still very important to identify when then trend changes , as it impacts the threat variable which a companies risk is calculated on.
For those of you who aren't sure how risk should be calculated, let Batman help you.
That's a really good question. To me the bible is Stevens TCP/IP Illustrated Vol I. While Northcutt's book is a great introduction to IDS and anaylsis for beginners, I think Rich's book goes beyond that (as evident in reviews from respected members in the community like Lance Spitzner from the Honey Net Project). To quote Ron Gula from the foreword of Richard's book.
You can also read a couple of sample chapters from the book.
Of course, I am a little bias. Rich is a great friend, but I truly think he did an awesome job of creating something that should be required reading for anyone involved in network secuirty.
Bammkkkk
Dell still offers a Linux workstation. It comes with RedHat Enterprise Linux. They also have OSless desktops.
Don't get too excited though. It is still cheaper to buy a system preloaded with Windows XP than it is to purchase the exact system without an OS. I recently compared an Optiplex 170L (w/XP) to an Optiplex 170LN (w/FreeDOS on disk but not installed). The 170L came in at $593 while the 170LN with the exact same hardware and support contract was $716. Go figure. Mad propz to the U.S. Justice Department for keeping the Microsoft monopoly in check [end sarcasm].
Yes, I truly believe that IPSs/application FWs are the direction those assets belonging to the 'prevention' category need to go (see my previous post about prevention, monitoring, response).
I think there are some fundamental _business_ problems for the IPS guys.
Number one, some of those (IPS) products seem to be a lot like their IDS cousins and selling something that doesn't work as expected or isn't useful as implemented. Number two, IPS companys have to take on those huge goliaths of FW companys. I think that is the reason a very good technology (IPS) went after a market hindered by bad implentations (IDS) even though I don't see them as direct competitors. Blame it on the damn marketers.
Sorry for the late post, but I thought you deserved a response.
Sorry, why didn't you say that this was an I_P_S (Instant Protection System)? Guaranteed to stop 100% of all attacks. I didn't realize that by putting an I_P_S on my network, that no longer would I need to patch any of my systems, audit them for vunlerabilities, etc. Long live service pack 1! Woooo hoooo! No more worrying about systems running legacy applications that can't be upgraded! Users getting trojan via instant messanging applications? Not a problem! I can't wait to tell the board. Risk? We have no risk! Not with our Instant Protection System in place. The threat is ZERO!! We CAN NOT be compromised!! Eat my dust you l33t hax0rs!!
Excuse me while I go back to the real world. With a real network. With real users. And real security problems. Prevention will NEVER be 100%. So you either suck it up and ingore the possibility of a compromise or you inuclude monitoring. I choose prevention+monitoring.
Bammkkkk
You seem to be missing the point. It isn't about whether I think IPS is good/bad. I honestly think it's great. My point is that IPS doesn't replace an IDS. I feel you still need IDS. There are three components of Network Defense:
Protection, Monitoring, and Response
FWs/IPS/etc fall into Protection
NIDS/HIDS/etc are in the Monitoring category
I don't believe any protection (including IPS) will ever be 100% and therefore you better be implementing monitoring and response at some level. When I think IDS, I think IDS alerts (snort, RealSecure, etc) + session logging (argus, sancp, etc), and raw pcap logging. It's what I think IDS really should be, but since it isn't, we use the term Network Security Monitoring.
Bammkkkk
A cut -n- paste job from a previous post. Sorry, but I am too lazy to rewrite the thing.
My personal opinion is IPS's have been mislabeled since the beginning (aren't marketers wonderful). Take this definition I found in some Usenet archives (circa 1992):
"a combination of a security policy with some of the components
above. Specifically, an implementation of the given policy that
is enforced by a combination of screening and/or routing." [1]
Geeze, seems like IPS would fit right in there. Now the final jeopardy question, what was that a definition of? If you guessed "firewall" then you get the big prize. So that's it, you heard it here folks, an IPS isn't the evolution of a IDS, but instead part of the evolution of a firewall. If you look at the history of firewalls, you'll see that early on there were huge flame wars over Packet Filtering and Application Firewalls. In the end, the packet filtering FW won out. Seems to me packet filtering FWs used less resources and could handle faster networks and as those speeds approached full duplex 100mb links, application FWs got left in the dust.
Fast forward to 2003 and the designers of IDS software have made huge progress in detecting potential attacks, system's CPU/RAM/etc have increased phenomally, and the 'normal' speed of network have sorta leveled out. So, application FWs are back in the picture. Vendors with short term memory loss label this 'new' product an Intrusion Prevention System and advertise it as the replacement for your IDS. Those vendors give it a new label for good reason. There is no way they want to bang heads with the big FW companies and more importantly, their implementations of IDS have been huge failures within their customers networks and they need something to market as 'new and improved' (again).
I say (most) vendors of IDS and 'IPS' products failed because they sold the product as an INTRUSION Detection System when they really had an ATTACK detection system. An INTRUSION Detection System implies the IDS can detect an event and determine its nature (malicious vs non-malicious). If the attack was malicious, an IDS will help you determine if it successful. If the attack was successful, the analyst should be able to use the data collected by the IDS to determine the impact on the system in question and finally what steps are needed for remediation. The 'IDS' vendors instead force fed us near worthless systems that can display an 'event'. Many won't give us any details on how they determined it was an 'event' and most can't give us any supporting data about 'attack' beyond a src/dest IP addr and port. If we are lucky, we get a whole packet too. No analysis can be done with the console, instead one must go to the targeted machine and pull out his/her host forensics kit or pay a 'Security Consulting' firm $600/hour to recommend you wipe and rebuild the system.
Soon customers begin to ask "what do I do with this event" and later "I spent XXX hours tracking this down only to find the attack didn't happen or wasn't successful". The vendor noticing the agnst in his customer's voice replies with "we are working on ways to reduce 'false-positives' and in the future we will use IPS technology to prevent attacks too." and thus the birth of "IDS is Dead". I expect FW vendors to incorporate more and more attack detection features from IDSes (duh) and have true hybrid Packet Filtering/Application FWs, but the fact is we will still need IDS. IDS done the right way of course (we call it Network Security Monitoring), but that is a whole other rant.
Bammkkkk
Too bad the dealers already have away around this. Diagnostics will cost you $50-$100 in the first place (waived if you get the vehicle fixed there of course).
Why can't people get this straight (oh, wait this slashdot), but AFAIK, no one has been sued by the RIAA for downloading mp3s. They have all been sued for distributing mp3s (sharing the files via P2P). It is easier to prove illegal distribution (versus illegal possession - I mean does anyone really know what fair use is?) and the penalties are stiffer too.
I realize the Slashdot editors have a tendancy to post dupes (really, they do), and I appreciate the links to other (older) stories, but come on, this was a new interview (notice the comments about SCO) that I found informative. Some of his comments nearly brought tears to my eyes.
Besides, this is Slashdot, and any pro-opensource, anit-Microsoft story is required to be rehashed over, and over, and over....
Bammkkkk
Why does every comment seem to target the retailer for this? Seems to me that taxing internet sales will not affect them one way or another as long as the playing field is level. The state gov'ts, on the other hand, believe they are missing out on millions of dollars in lost tax revenue. With the economy like it is, and states reporting big deficits, they need a scape goat. Looks like a win/win situation for the state gov'ts. Whether the consumers get torqued at the retailers and stop buying online, or the consumer continues to buy online, the gov't still gets their $$. Sure beats the complicated task of reducing spending and potentionally pissing off the lobbyist that got them their positions within the gov't in the first place.
On another note, I doubt it will affect my online purchases much. Most of my online purchases are for things I cannot find locally or items I am getting as gifts for family/friends who are not local. It seems easier/faster/cheaper to send items directly from the online retailer vice buying/wrapping/sending the package myself.
Bammkkkk
...so I could drive him insane by constantly refering to him as Tinky Winky. Time for Teletubbie Bye-Bye...
Yeah, I am posting this late, but I couldn't resist.
Bammkkkk
I saw an earlier post for linuxforkids, but I thought gcompris deserved it's own mention even though it is on the linuxforkids.org site. Gcompris contains a nice suite of educational games for Linux. All GPL of course.
:(
A wise man once told me to use the preview button and I ignored him.
Bammkkkk
I saw an earlier post for linuxforkids, but I thought gcompris deserved it's own mention even though it is on the linuxforkids.org site. Gcompris is a nice suite of educational games for Linux. All GPL of course.
Bammkkkk
I see your bet and raise you an infinite number of software and hardware developers.
Installed anything on a MS platform lately? Everyone wants your email address, so they can give you better "support" by selling your info to hordes of spam artist. For instance, my Mom doesn't use Windows because it's easier to use or crashes less often. She uses Windows because CreateCard12 doesn't run on Linux. Her new printer didn't come with Linux drivers and neither did her scanner. MS retains its monopoly status for those reasons and it isn't about to jeopordize it's relationship with these software and hardware companies by helping prevent spam (unless the get $30 a month from you).
Bammkkkk
MS Windows notifies you when an update is available for the apps installed on your system. Mozilla notifies you and everyone else when vulnerability has been discovered. As quickly as possible, they also notify you, RH, MS, and everyone else when the fix is available. Speaking of Windows Update, why doesn't it tell you that there is a newer version of Mozilla available? Oh, never mind, they are a convicted monopoly and that would be against their policy.
If you're going to argue a case, at least compare apples to apples.
Bammkkkk
The terrorist site in question contains banner ads and by clicking on the link you are providing material support to this terrost group. I am writing my Congressman in hopes of getting all "Banner Ads" deemed illegal via the Patriot Act. Why all banner ads? Well like handguns, automatic weapons, and switch blade knives, banner ads have been proven to be a weapon terrorists can wield against innocent citizens.
Hey, I can dream can't I?
Bammkkkk
Exactly, and because the University does receive such funding, I would argue that it is their responsiblity to preform due diligence and ensure that potentionally illegal links, content, etc. is removed from their servers. Whether you agree with their interpetation of the law or not, it is not you who is assuming the responsibility of the contents/links on their servers.
Yes, NullSoft is a licensed company.
And to clarify, end users are not responsible for the payment of any licensing fees for software that uses the mp3 patents.
Bammkkkk
Does this mean if someone received a "Free Trial Version" of some software through the mail, the recipient would have an unlimited license to install it on as many systems he wanted? Since the recipient now owns the product (not a license to use it), could he then legally circumvent any protection that would limit the products use (ie: 30 day trial periods, etc)?
Insert evil grin here.
Were do people get these dates from? At least do a little research. The first reference to CodeRed I could find was a post to the Incidents list at SecuirtyFocus.com on July 15th. The acutual data was captured a couple of days prior to the post if my memory serves me correctly (the poster is a good friend of mine and a coworker at the time).