Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In contrast, I think they're getting progressively more and more useful in light of an increasingly larger and more automatedly hostile world network.

I imagine in the 1970s there weren't a whole lot of hacks that began with "scan the entirety of ARPANET to find a few vulnerable machines, then apply vulnerability."



>I imagine in the 1970s there weren't a whole lot of hacks that began with "scan the entirety of ARPANET to find a few vulnerable machines, then apply vulnerability."

The RTM worm (1986?) springs to mind.

Eugene Spafford write up: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1701&...

A different write up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5302924

With Microscope and Tweezers: http://www.mit.edu/~eichin/virus/main.html


Great links! (Refreshing my knowledge now) :-)

My point was that the economics that justified 80s worms didn't exist in the 70s and earlier. There simply weren't enough systems networked to make an automated attack preferable over a bespoke, single-system approach.

And extrapolate that change into the future with more and more machines of standardized config being connected to the internet... and automated attack and use becomes more and more attractive. Which means prevention of automated attack should become more useful.


I tend to agree with you, but I'm a bit at a loss as to how we can gain some formal insight into this question.

If an obfuscation layer were to reduce risk, what would that look like and how could we measure it?

I'd be really interested in running an informal study.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: