On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:41:39 EST, Larry Seltzer said: > The advisory specifically says that MyDoom.B is spreading rapidly, and that > was never > the case. It didn't say that it *could* spread rapidly. Maybe you think > misinforming in > order to induce caution is a good idea, but I expect nothing but the truth > from an > agency like this. And I posted a heads-up to our local staff about Dumaru a lot quicker than I did for MyDoom, because from where *I* was, I saw a *huge* initial spike of Dumaru. If I had waited, I would have realized that Dumaru had fizzled. On the other hand, if I had waited that long and it took off like MyDoom, we'd have been screwed. As I said - would you rather they delayed 12 or 18 hours to identify *for sure* how fast it was spreading? Read Nick Weaver's work on Warhol Worms at http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/warhol.html and then ask yourself how much time they should wait and verify before releasing. Unless you have *proof* that they already *knew* it was a snoozer when they hit send, or you have *specific* recommendations on how they can do better, let it slide. Or alternatively, what would *YOU* do if your boss at Ziff Davis told you that there were cases where your article *had* to be on the web server *within an hour* of you getting the first hint of the story, or real damage might happen? Oh, and you don't know which stories those are, and which ones you can afford to wait 2 or 3 hours and do follow-ups on first. Oh, and Ziff Davis also said that if you screwed up and got a fact wrong, you'd hear about it from all your readers. If you got a lead that a massive DDoS was coming in 90 minutes, what would you do?
Attachment:
pgpgq4FmAMUUB.pgp
Description: PGP signature