| 1 |
Am Samstag, 18. Februar 2012, 06:00:00 schrieb Dale: |
| 2 |
> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 04:26:02 -0600 |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> Howdy, |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> I ran across this and though it was a joke. Did a news search and |
| 9 |
> >> sure enough, it is reported in lots of places. Random linky: |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102856/Will-FBI-shut-Internet-Ma |
| 12 |
> >> rch-8-virus-concerns.html?ito=feeds-newsxml |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> Is there any truth to this mess? My bigger and better question, how |
| 15 |
> >> is shutting down the internet going to fix this? When the net comes |
| 16 |
> >> back up, they are still going to be infected. Right? |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> I'm glad I run a really nice Linux OS. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > Gawd, I hate it when morons write sensational articles that attempt to |
| 21 |
> > make sense to other morons. You get crap like that. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > So if this is legit, and I'm not saying it is, what happened is this: |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > The malware changes the DNS cache settings on infected machines, |
| 26 |
> > sending the user to rogue caches. The FBI captured some (or all) of |
| 27 |
> > these rogue caches and (possibly) tried to fix them. A court has now |
| 28 |
> > said those rogue caches must now be shut down. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > So if the morons reading the article do nothing, on March 8 the DNS |
| 31 |
> > caches they use will be down. The user's DNS will not work. |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > OMFG!!!!!!! Da intartubes is broken!!!!! |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> > <sigh> |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > Instead, why not just set the DNS caches to something NOT owned by Ivan |
| 38 |
> > The Russian Spammer? |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> > And no, the intartubes will NOT be switched off. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> I don't really think they can unless they just cut power to all the |
| 43 |
> computers. After all, the internet is supposed to be redundant right? |
| 44 |
> If there is a few computers still running that have a connection, it is |
| 45 |
> still working. Sort of anyway. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Does make one wonder tho. They have been talking about having a |
| 48 |
> internet "off switch" but I'm not sure it would be that easy. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
basically, yes. Take down the core routers and backbones and everything falls |
| 51 |
apart. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
#163933 |
Archives