1998-11-23 - Re: Is Open Source safe? [Linux Weekly News]

Header Data

From: Jim Gillogly <jim@acm.org>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: dc8a73d2df38bbe8d1b82232cebd70dd28ffa7e8fc1a2fca594a813498343395
Message ID: <3659C59C.9979534D@acm.org>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1998-11-23 21:37:43 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 05:37:43 +0800

Raw message

From: Jim Gillogly <jim@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 05:37:43 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Is Open Source safe? [Linux Weekly News]
Message-ID: <3659C59C.9979534D@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Frank O'Dwyer writes:
>                                       Here we're talking about
> deliberately inserted back doors. Those can get extremely nasty, and may
> be unpatchable. Examples include "data kidnap" (encrypting the target's
> information in situ and demanding a ransom for the decryption key), and
> "data cancer" (slow corruption of the target's information, ensuring
> that the backups are also corrupted). ...  I haven't heard of any real
> examples of such attacks, but that's not especially comforting.

The "data kidnap" scenario was tried with the "PC CYBORG (AIDS) virus"
(actually a Trojan) scare of 1989, where a disk with a database
application was sent to a number of recipients.  I think it scrambled
the FAT.  It gave a post office box in Panama for the ransom payments.  

-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	Highday, 3 Foreyule S.R. 1998, 20:23
	12.19.5.12.16, 8 Cib 9 Ceh, Fourth Lord of Night





Thread