3 ms·
Don't forget: 4. Poor binary compatibility made it seem like worms were impossible, and twenty years ago, the most dangerous cyberattacks were 'pranks' designed
by rhet0rica 1y ago
Don't forget: 4. Poor binary compatibility made it seem like worms were impossible, and twenty years ago, the most dangerous cyberattacks were 'pranks' designed to hose as many PCs as possible
- whizzter 1y agoIn Linux? No, C/C++-compiled binaries with dynamic linking often had issues due to glibc versions diffing,etc but you could always compiled things statically. "not ok" by LGPL licence so an issue for games,etc that wanted closed source so people talked about it, but a malicious worm creator could definitely go there since they probably wouldn't care about (L)GPL compliance (remember Linus has always been very hard on patches not breaking userspace ABI's).
- rhet0rica 1y agoYeah. Emphasis on the "seem" part. A false sense of security brought on by, "If binary artifacts for package _foo_ can't be ported between distros, what chance do worms have?" plus the even older memory that the Morris worm had been designed around (and limited to) certain target platforms and architectures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm
- bobmcnamara 1y ago> dynamic linking often had issues due to glibc versions diffing This was annoying for exploit authors as well. Like an early form of ASLR.