k claffy <kc@ipn.caida.org> writes:
almost makes me wonder if some white hat might (should?) have been behind CodeRed as some 'vaccination' attempt.
k, First, I thought you were going by kc :-) Second, your analysis is flawed in that it makes the fundamental mistake that the ends justify the means. If you do not accept that notion, then no one who was behind CodeRed can be construed as a "white hat." Consider: 1) A doctor of epidemiology notices that there is a potential for a large segment of the population to contract a particular disease - say the bubonic plague - which is on the rise again. Said doctor contacts the U.S. CDC in Atlanta, as well as raising awareness through normal media channels (television, magazines, newspapers, radio, slashdot, etc.). Said doctor, also having the wealth of Croesus - or being associated with the WHO, sets up free vaccination sites all across the world. Millions of people receive the vaccination and deaths (and much untold suffering) is avoided. No doubt, this doctor is a white hat. 2) Another doctor of epidemiology notices the same situation, but takes another tactic. This doctor runs out into the street and begins to randomly inject the vaccine into the arms of passersby - taking great care to ensure that clean needles are used and the strictest handling procedures are followed - we wouldn't want to spread hepititus or AIDs... This doctor is, undoubtedly, a black hat. The reason for this is that the doctor failed to follow one of the fundamental rules of civilized society - informed consent of the individuals receiving the vaccine. No doubt the intentions of the two doctors are the same. No doubt that they "mean well". No doubt one is a serious threat to the continuing health and welfare of those nearby. Now, if there was a tiger team that offered, as part of its services, to try and infect your system with CodeRed, then they would be operating in the role of white hats. -jon -- ------------------ Jon Allen Boone tex@delamancha.org