News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:New ultra-stealthy Linux backdoor isn’t your everyday mal... by Cthulhu_ on Friday June 10, 2022 @09:31AM (#31693915)
Personal take: It's better to have malware code stay online and open, than to disappear into obscurity. This being open source also means that anti-malware companies can analyze the code and write detectors and counters to it.

Removing it would just mean it gets hidden from the 'good guys' as well.

Re:New ultra-stealthy Linux backdoor isn’t your everyday mal... by GekkePrutser on Friday June 10, 2022 @09:50AM (#31694177)
Not just anti malware companies. I work for an enterprise and I regularly use such malware proof of concepts to make sure our antimalware and EDR (endpoint detection and response) systems actually do detect these. Or if we have to sharpen the detection rules to make them work better. These disclosures are invaluable.

Most companies modify their detection rules because generic rules tend to cause false positives that could potentially overwhelm the SOC (security operations center). It really depends on your environment a lot.

Re:New ultra-stealthy Linux backdoor isn’t your everyday mal... by bediger4000 on Friday June 10, 2022 @11:51AM (#31695834)
The 1990s "antivirus" industry was able to suppress most malware source and executable distribution. You could only find it in small print run zines, or the very occasional book. All that led to was people typing the source in themselves. The result was a proliferation of minor variants.

My guess is the suppression held back the tide of Windows malware a year or two, but also gave MSFT a few years of fat, dumb and happy ignorance. Nimda, Code Red, Word macro viruses, etc hit Windows hard. If jokey small threats had been as available as they are today, MSFT might have been able to ramp up rather than get buried.