Yeah, that'd be good. If people set up machines like this to 'fix' vulnerable machines that tried attacking them.
But then there's still lots of issues. Like who governs this, who writes the patch to fix the vulnerability, and if indeed they could be trusted.
And then, writing a patch to fix someones else bug is going to be bad. Extremely bad if the origional source code isn't at hand.
Yeah, I just contradicted myself and don't really have any conclusion:-/
I always liked the idea of releasing a worm that fixed the exploit it exploited, and then removes itself. I beleive someone did this in the past?
But then I guess there's also the extra traffic it induces which'd be problematic in itself.
Software vendors can't be expected to release perfect code all of the time (if ever), and people will always find bugs which can be exploited. I don't see any solution to this, other than the backup & recovery techniques.
I guess it all depends on what kind of software you work on. But for me, effieciency is all too important.
You seem to have taken offense at my comment, which is odd. I certainly didn't intend that.
I used to write software in the back of my maths book and type them in when I got home, on my VIC20. To me it just looks like someone having a bit of a mess around trying to make this. They can't seriously anticipate making any real money out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that'd be good. If people set up machines like this to 'fix' vulnerable machines that tried attacking them. But then there's still lots of issues. Like who governs this, who writes the patch to fix the vulnerability, and if indeed they could be trusted. And then, writing a patch to fix someones else bug is going to be bad. Extremely bad if the origional source code isn't at hand. Yeah, I just contradicted myself and don't really have any conclusion :-/
I always liked the idea of releasing a worm that fixed the exploit it exploited, and then removes itself. I beleive someone did this in the past? But then I guess there's also the extra traffic it induces which'd be problematic in itself. Software vendors can't be expected to release perfect code all of the time (if ever), and people will always find bugs which can be exploited. I don't see any solution to this, other than the backup & recovery techniques.
I guess it all depends on what kind of software you work on. But for me, effieciency is all too important. You seem to have taken offense at my comment, which is odd. I certainly didn't intend that.
I used to write software in the back of my maths book and type them in when I got home, on my VIC20. To me it just looks like someone having a bit of a mess around trying to make this. They can't seriously anticipate making any real money out of it.
You see writing efficent code as 'novel'? Remind me never to employ you :-p