Re: A question for the list...

Jimi Thompson wrote:

>> 
>>
>> At last year's Blackhat conference in Las Vegas, Tim Mullen presented 
>> what
>> turned out to be a very controversial proposal. Briefly, he questioned 
>> why
>> it would be inappropriate to strike back and disable (if not remove) a
>> worm from hosts that are clearly not being adequately managed.

I don't think that this is the case.
Not that it couldn't be the case, but if we say, Use "spammer" in place of worm host,,,

Many of us feel that spamming as it is practiced (just about every way possible) is not proper network use, and is in fact willful mismanagement. No one is actually being taken to task, so many folks have adopted a somewhat passive strike back by using black hole lists to disallow access to their sections of the network.

Isn't this sort of the same thing?

• Wireless LAN Policies for Security & Management - NEW White Paper *** Just like wired networks, wireless LANs require network security policies that are enforced to protect WLANs from known vulnerabilities and threats. Learn to design, implement and enforce WLAN security policies to lockdown enterprise WLANs.

To get your FREE white paper visit us at: http://www.securityfocus.com/AirDefense-incidents