INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3   
   REPLYADDR 68g.1499@etr6.net   
   REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP   
   MSGID:  04d6036e   
   REPLY:  741ce9b7   
   PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
   On 1/30/24 4:11 PM, druck wrote:   
   > On 30/01/2024 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   >> On 30/01/2024 10:08, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:   
   >>>     How much is a botnet node worth ? In CPU-seconds ? Or to invert it   
   >>> how cheaply can they be obtained in CPU-seconds. I prefer that my   
   >>> systems   
   >>> aren't at the low end of the list but rather far enough up it that   
   >>> the bulk harvesters won't bother me.   
   >>>   
   >>>     It's like bicycle locks, nothing will stop a determined thief but   
   >>> any thief will go for the easy ones first so fit something half   
   >>> decent but don't go over the top.   
   >>>   
   >> Its also like bicycles in that a thief wont spend time on a worthless   
   >> kids tricycle. When there is a carbon fibre mountain bike parked next   
   >> to it.   
   >   
   > It's nothing like bicycles, botnet hurders don't care what they are   
   > cracking, adding another node to a botnet is the goal and one is pretty   
   > much as good as another. Also they aren't putting their own effort or   
   > their own CPU cycles into cracking new machines, it's being done by a   
   > script running on other peoples machines already in the botnet.   
      
      Doesn't hurt to run a few utils like top and htop and ps   
      every so often. Bots use cpu, memory and bandwidth. Some   
      might do a fair job at disguise, others won't do so well.   
      Simply re-booting, like a cron job at midnight, may be   
      enough to mess up their function.   
      
      "Popular" systems - Win/Android/Mac - are going to be the   
      primary targets, bots and such optimized for them. Linux   
      proper is there, but not super-popular by the percentages.   
      Win in particular is a security disaster and most users   
      are know-nothings, best to put efforts there.   
      
      "Perfect" security does not exist, not even for mega-corps   
      or federal/defense systems. Automated defenses are always   
      behind the curve - the attackers always have the advantage.   
      BUT - attackers DO want a decent investment/return picture   
      and infesting my old C-64 or even my Pi-2 is not a good   
      investment. Low exposure is also a priority for bots, if   
      they show up everywhere then there will be detections and   
      automatic responses made and the useful life of the bot will   
      be short. In short, there's an economy to it to achieve   
      maximum bang/buck.   
      
      Philosopher is almost TOO extreme, loses a lot of utility   
      in order to be safe. That's his call. I'd like to be THAT   
      stealthy, THAT much of a cyberverse ghost, but can't quite   
      go that far (yet).   
      
      I'll still say the greatest risk is not hackers, but   
      USERS. They fall for all the tricks and install evilware   
      themselves.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)   
   SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 15/0 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 128/260 129/305 135/225   
   SEEN-BY: 153/757 7715 218/0 1 601 700 840 870 930 220/70 221/1 6 226/17   
   SEEN-BY: 226/30 100 227/114 229/110 112 113 200 206 307 317 400 426   
   SEEN-BY: 229/428 470 550 616 664 700 240/1120 266/512 267/800 282/1038   
   SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 301/1 113 812 310/31 320/219 322/757 335/364   
   SEEN-BY: 341/66 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 3 100   
   SEEN-BY: 770/330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 1042 5058/104 5075/35   
   PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 301/1 218/700 229/426