mailing list archives
Re: KSpynix ::: the Unix version of KSpyware? (Proof Of Concept)
From: bkfsec <bkfsec () sdf lonestar org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:38:17 -0400
I'm quite well aware that such malware exists on Unix/Linux systems.
Nor was I saying that firefox was attacked by your spyware.
before sending me such emails, read Kspynix before: Firefox is not
attacked by the POC,
and such malware already exists for Unix systems although their code
are not public... that's why I code this "small" malwares (if they can
be called malware...)
But then, that's even less of a reason to publish it, seeing as there
really is nothing new here.
About the ethic, it's your problem if you think it's not ethical to
publish such code, Besides don't be afraid Unix systems are always
Sure... whatever you say...
No fear here, buddy. But, seeing as this is an open list, I'm free to
question the ethical nature of your release. I think that if you'll
take the time to look through the archive, you'll see that I'm a staunch
advocate of full disclosure, but if there's no real gain from publishing
code that can assist in harming others, chances are pretty damn good
that it's unethical to publish that code.
And i "waste" my time with what I want !!!
No argument there.
That depends. What's the purpose of publishing the code? Is there any
new or interesting technique used that hasn't been charted before? If
so, then I'd say it might be ethical.
If it's just "because you could"... then I'd say that it would most
likely be unethical to publish that code. Not to mention illegal in
certain countries (I'm not advocating that it should be illegal, it just
could be considered illegal..)
What's an ethical act for you? I wanted to publish a (snip malware type)
this week, is it ethical?
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/