If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Over two years ago, a couple of anti-virus firms noted that a couple of virii were written with the idea of being able to be updated over time. The problem with all of this is of course the need for a more or less fixed point from which the virii clients contact an update server (likely another suborned machine) and vice-versa... the reason why we haven't seen this executed on a wide scale is the fair amount of ease with which IPs are traced.
An analogy one might use is this: It's one thing to leave a bomb ticking away in a box on a street corner and then walk away. It's quite another to walk up to it later, disarm it, and put a new on in it's place over and over again without attracting attention to yourself at some point.
Hey, Donny! We got us a German who wants to die for his country... Oblige him. - Lt. Aldo Raine
I would have expected if you (as a hacker/virus writer) want to update a virus, why not simply release a new update-virus that is easily picked up by an infected computer? If you make the update-virus harmless for other PC's, it most likely will get a fairly low danger-rating for most antivirus tools (giving it time to spread).
It would eliminate the need for a "central" server, making it much harder to trace.
Alternatively, I wonder if it were possible to get an update file in the google-cache. The virusses would then simply look in the google cache for an update, again making it harder to trace the source.
Jörg
pixar Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)
Comment