Re: red worm inside private network?

BTW - the red worm faq at http://www.incidents.org/react/code_redII.php
(and Symantec & others) indicate Red Worm II really needs a scratch the disk
and reload to get rid of. Not like original Red Worm.
jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Silberberg" <jsilberberg@mindspring.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>; "IGNITE400 MEMBERS LIST"
<ign_list@ignite400.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: red worm inside private network?


> Jim,
>
>         If any of the standard ports are NAT Mapped from a public to the
> private address then the private address would not be any protection from
> this worm as I understand it's replication process.  Only a server that is
> entirely isolated behind a wall would be protected, and then only if it
did
> not have an unprotected peer who could see it and the Internet.
>
> Jeffrey M. Silberberg
> Independent Consultant
> CompuDesigns, Inc.
> (770) 399-9464
>
> AS SOON AS I KNOW THE ANSWERS
> THEY CHANGE THE QUESTIONS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Franz <franz400@triad.rr.com>
> To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>; IGNITE400 MEMBERS LIST
> <ign_list@ignite400.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 12:42 PM
> Subject: red worm inside private network?
>
>
> > has anyone found red worm infecting private (10.0.1.xxx) networked
> servers?
> > (we just did- am going to "kill -9" the net admin who said "every" NT
was
> > patched.
> > jim franz
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MIDRANGE-L mailing list
> > MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> > http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MIDRANGE-L mailing list
> MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l