Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1550-996904711-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 21062 invoked by uid 510); 4 Aug 2001 05:00:49 -0000 Received: from n30.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.80) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 4 Aug 2001 05:00:49 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1550-996904711-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.56] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Aug 2001 05:58:31 -0000 X-Sender: fc@big.all.net X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 4 Aug 2001 05:58:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 83820 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2001 05:58:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Aug 2001 05:58:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Aug 2001 05:58:30 -0000 Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id WAA22767 for iwar@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:58:26 -0700 Message-Id: <200108040558.WAA22767@big.all.net> To: iwar@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <20010804055522.20087.qmail@web14503.mail.yahoo.com> from "e.r." at Aug 03, 2001 10:55:22 PM Organization: I'm not allowed to say X-Mailer: don't even ask X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [iwar] Why Code Red is never going to Spread Exponentially Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Per the message sent by e.r.: > Nice to find another realist in the crowd. Why have only a few people > scoffed off China as the creators of Code Red; the"Mother of all > Viruses". I am not buying the idea that China did it, indigeniously. > If the Chinese are that good, why is there OPSEC(operational security) > so bad. That is to say, if they were unaffected, and it was there bug, > they blew their own cover. If it were there's, they needed to take > some hits-sound outraged at we "imperialist running dogs" for messing > with them. Why didnt the Chinese engage in a small, but very effective > amount of "perception management". I doubt it was because Jiang and > the boys were at a Yankees game in NYC. ERGO, WHY and WHO remain > unanswered. And, you won't find the answers in "big math". Who dun > it? and why? When the final repair bills are in, there will be lots of > zeros involved. Trival antics were not the point. Any ideas as to what > was? But if they got hit big time you would claim it was not them because they got hit. This is just not adequate evidence. --This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended to serve-- Fred Cohen Fred Cohen & Associates.........tel/fax:925-454-0171 fc@all.net The University of New Haven.....http://www.unhca.com/ http://all.net/ Sandia National Laboratories....tel:925-294-2087 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:39 PDT