-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 9:59 PM, Paul Ferguson <fergdawg@netzero.net> wrote:
And in fact, "threat propagation" in a v6 world may actually be worse than expected, and naivet� may actually contribute to a larger-scale attack, given the statistical possibility of potentially more victims.
naivete because folks believe the 'v6 is more secure' propoganda? or some other reason?
Yes. :-)
Address space size, and proximity, may well be red herrings in this discussion.
can you expand on this some?
Someone else mentioned "self-infliction" in this thread, and that's spot on. Over the course of the past year or more, we've seen less & less "scanning & self-propagating" malware, and more & more self-infliction, either by being duped via social engineering or just by drive-by infections/compromises. As it stands, now -- and unless the pendulum swings the other way -- the whole "...v6 address space is larger, thus it is much harder to scan and thus propagation of worms is much harder..." train of thought is completely misguided. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHZ+v6q1pz9mNUZTMRAviAAKC1z/Q0m1xzFmSkah5WL8xrbD/cEgCfaKgi xQHKSq8Tx8D5JEv6ObrGVoQ= =mdeP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/