🚀 go-pugleaf

Unknown wrote:

> Think about how you would go about developing (and testing) such a
> worm.

I can't.  It's (the code) too far beyond my realm of understanding.

Nor can I fathom why people write destructive shit in the first place.

Seems to me, if you're THAT smart, you could be doing something a little 
more CONstructive with your talent.


 "walter" <walter@none.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gq88tu$d23$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> Unknown wrote:
>>
>>> Talk about 'computer experts' not being very bright-----Do you think
>>> combating a worm with another worm is bright?
>>
>> Actually it's not a bad idea if you read ALL of what was written.  OP
>> seems to be suggesting releasing a (harmless) worm that's sole
>> intent is to target and destroy a nasty one.  If it finds it, it
>> kills it, then kills itself. If it doesn't find it, it just kills
>> itself.  So where's the problem?
>>
>>> "Onideus Mad Hatter" <usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote in
>>> message news:101fs492js8b53cuc1s51ej0c0e80jnrr4@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:29:32 GMT, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Computer Experts Unite to Hunt Worm
>>>>>
>>>>> March 18, 2009
>>>>>
>>>>> nytimes.com/2009/03/19/technology/19worm.html
>>>>>
>>>>> An extraordinary behind-the-scenes struggle is taking place
>>>>> between computer security groups around the world and the brazen
>>>>> author of a malicious software program called Conficker.
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> These so called "computer experts" aren't all that bright if you
>>>> ask me.  The best way to combat a worm...is with another worm. One that 
>>>> propagates, seeks out the bad worm, removes it and then,
>>>> once the threat has been eliminated a kind of "self destruct" code
>>>> can be broadcast to the good worm which will delete itself.