Journal moncyb's Journal: Nuking vulnerable computers? 7
Holy crap. Let's send nuclear missles up the tailpipe of any car with a burnt out light. After all, it is a safety hazard, and we want the public to be protected.
Holy crap. Let's send nuclear missles up the tailpipe of any car with a burnt out light. After all, it is a safety hazard, and we want the public to be protected.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones
no need to do anything to their computers (Score:2)
Re:no need to do anything to their computers (Score:2)
Good idea. And don't let them get on the internet until they download the latest patch to fix that problem... Oh wait a second...
Re:no need to do anything to their computers (Score:2)
Re:no need to do anything to their computers (Score:2)
I doubt MS is going to allow that to happen. This would take away MS's ability to verify the validity of each patch. someone could hack into "bob's internet service" servers and put a trojan in the patches that are supposed to fix the problems. This would mean instead of ONE source for patches, there would be thousands.
This could potentially make MS look bad, and take away their control.
Re:no need to do anything to their computers (Score:2)
Disabling "infected host"? (Score:1)
Also, we have mandatory yearly inspections... Burnt out lights is failing the inspection and you have to repair or destroy the car.
Both the above scenario's are about the same as "disconnection infected hosts".
I didn't see
Depends on how you do it. (Score:2)
Actually, a form of that is already happening. I rent a rack from Rackshack, and because of an exploit in Half Life (used to run a game server on the side) the box got owned. Rackshack caught it before I did, and took it offline. I had to call it, get them to reset it with a new hard drive and mount the old drive manually and restore files (a