Re: Re: Malware sharing? People are full of shit [was: Getyour computer viruses here!]

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

Nick FitzGerald wrote:
> Gadi Evron to Dr Solly:
>
>
> > > Because the Bad Guy who didn't get it anyway, now can get it.
> >
> > Assume for a minute what I know to be true.. the Bad Guy HAS IT period.
> >
> > How would that change your view?
>
>
> The strongest objections to what Val is proposing are _NOT_ sample 
> accessability but open accessability to competent, detailed analysis of 
> advanced (by the "lesser" malware authors' standards) techniques.
>
> As I wrote somewhere else in this thread earlier today, _technically_ 
> sample accessibility is probably not really a "problem' at all because 
> it already happens a great deal and trivial "hexeditor hacks" are dealt 
> with pretty well by modern scanners.  (In the big picture I'm still not 
> comfortable ignoring the ethical issues there, but purely from the "how 
> would our current processes handle this specific aspect of such a 
> service?" perspective, the answer is "they'd probably not notice".)
>
> Anyway, even if you're right (which I seriously doubt), you are simply 
> removing one of the weaker objections and making no impact at all on 
> the stronger objections.

I spoke of _sample_ sharing, not analysis sharing. That's for another time.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.