Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MySpace Worm Creator Sentenced

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:27 AM
from the wear-the-hat-and-sit-in-the-corner dept.
Aidan Steele writes "Remember Samy? The creator of the infamous worm was unfortunate enough to be the the target in MySpace's latest litigation. As was said in the earlier story, the script was "written for fun" and caused no damage. The source and technical explanation for the "attack" was not even released until after MySpace had patched the vulnerability. Apparently this was enough to get the 20 year old (19 at the time of writing the worm) three years of probation, three months of community service, pay restitution to MySpace and is also banned from the Internet. Clearly, disclosing security vulnerabilities doesn't pay."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Cross-Site Scripting Worm Floods MySpace 321 comments
DJ_Vegas writes "One clever MySpace user looking to expand his buddy list recently figured out how to force others to become his friend, and ended up creating the first self-propagating cross-site scripting (XSS) worm. In less than 24 hours, 'Samy' had amassed over 1 million friends on the popular online community. According to BetaNews, the worm's code utilized XMLHTTPRequest - a JavaScript object used in AJAX Web applications and was spreading at a rate of 1,000 users every few seconds before MySpace shut down its site. Thankfully, the script was written for fun and didn't try to take advantage of unpatched security holes in IE to create a massive MySpace botnet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mfh (56) on Sunday February 04 2007, @10:29AM (#17881120) Journal
    Stop writing malicious scripts.
    • but Samy is my hero!
    • Re:Idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tomhudson (43916) <hudsonNO@SPAMvideotron.ca> on Sunday February 04 2007, @10:48AM (#17881236) Journal

      "Stop writing malicious scripts."

      1. Crack sites, get caught and punished
      2. Get job as internet security consultant
      3. PROFIT!

      The whole "It takes a thief to catch a thief" thing. Hey, it worked for Kevin Mitnick ... [kevinmitnick.com]

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2007, @12:18PM (#17881774)
      Stop writing scripts. Someone could deem them "malicious" and you're history. Just don't write any. To be on the safe side, do not engage in witchcraft practicing like IT, OSes etc. Leave dangerous experiments to professionals. It already takes a lot of time for them to manage their trade on bigger projects, so it's not for you anyway, you miserable kiddie.

      Which brings us to an analogous point, stop playing scientist, too. The government has extensive facilities to determinate current trends in climate behaviour change. Alarmist declarations which negatively impact sales by some of our respected oil industries will be considered criminal activity, for them deprive such noble corporations from their hard earned profits.

      Unfortunately, people won't get this, therefore I'm forced to explain the joke: it's sarcasm.
    • Re:Idea (Score:5, Informative)

      by jamshid (140925) on Sunday February 04 2007, @12:38PM (#17881902)
      It's insane that he is getting in this much trouble, myspace should instead be thanking him for making their site more secure.

      His explanation of how he overcame a series of lame myspace.com attempts at security (http://fast.info/myspace/) should be mandatory reading for anyone writing a web application.
      • Yeah. And banks should thank Bonnie and Clyde for making their banks more secure.
      • Re:Idea (Score:4, Interesting)

        by daviddennis (10926) <david@amazing.com> on Sunday February 04 2007, @01:47PM (#17882272) Homepage
        I can tell you that before I saw his account of the situation [namb.la], I wanted to let anyone do anything they wanted on my fledgling social networking site [amazing.com]. I agree, this account is required readng for anyone wanting to create a community site.

        What he did and how much time and effort he was willing to put into it shocked the heck out of me and caused me to put very strong anti-JavaScript code into my site. I didn't want to do it because I wish we could have given people the freedom to be creative in that arena. But after I saw what he did I felt I had no choice.

        That being said, the reality is that he did an enormous amount of damage. He says things were back to normal at myspace within a few hours, but I remember at the time that the system was highly unstable for a few weeks after the incident was supposedly cleaned up.

        From the point of view of the folks who ran myspace, what he did caused untold misery and pain for many people and i think he deserved a heavy punishment.

        Not that I really think he will avoid using the Internet for social purposes no matter what the courts say. And I really don't think probation or community service seems like that heavy a punishment for someone who deliberately disrupted a service, however disliked in some quarters, that many people rely on.

        Samy and people like him make it a difficult, miserable and thankless task to create services that hopefuly will do nice things for people. They make people like me waste our time trying to figure out how to restrict things, when we'd much rather produce fun features people will use and enjoy. Samy's account made me laugh, but it also made me furious that human nature is so pointlessly destructive.

        I hope the sentence deters people from doing similar things.

        I wonder how much he had to pay Myspace. Does anyone know?

        D
    • Re:Idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Sunday February 04 2007, @12:39PM (#17881910) Homepage Journal
      Stop writing malicious scripts.

      Indeed. When you discover an exploit, you should sell it to the highest bidder. It keeps your hands clean, and it punishes the people who would otherwise punish you.
    • Re:Idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by legirons (809082) on Sunday February 04 2007, @01:03PM (#17882024)
      "Stop writing malicious scripts."

      Sony only got fined $175 maximum per incident [slashdot.org], and they didn't get banned from the internet
  • Restitution? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jfenwick (961674) on Sunday February 04 2007, @10:32AM (#17881138)
    I'm curious what exactly paying restitution entails in this case, as there was no actual damage. The only thing I can imagine is paying the wages of the people who went into to remove him as a friend from all the people who were affected by the hack, and maybe the wages of the people who were analyzing what was going on.
    • Re:Restitution? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BasharTeg (71923) on Sunday February 04 2007, @11:15AM (#17881384) Homepage
      Being part of a group of Samy's RL friends, we're not sure what his restitution is, but he is very likely not allowed to disclose it. We're just glad he's staying out of prison. Everything else is a secondary concern.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        On one hand I feel really sorry for the guy. He didn't exactly get the whole book thrown at him, but being that young and knowing that something bad is going to happen to you for months and not being able to do anything except wait and see what the Judge says has got to be pure torture. On the other hand, using a flaw in somebody else's code to do something that benefits you (however hilarious and non physically damaging it is) is just ludicrous. If he stopped to think about it for just one minute he wou
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          The restitution was probably the cost of patching the vulnerability.
          That doesn't seem fair. They would have had to patch the vulnerability anyhow once they discovered it themselves, wouldn't they?
          The cost of the whole episode less the cost of patching the vulnerability seems more fair.
    • Re:Restitution? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eck011219 (851729) on Sunday February 04 2007, @11:24AM (#17881422)
      You've answered your own question -- that's where the expense is.

      More to the point, things like this statement (from the original post) get under my skin:

      Clearly, disclosing security vulnerabilities doesn't pay.

      That's not what he did. If that were his true intent, he would have contacted MySpace about the vulnerability. Instead, he pasted his name all over the place (I thought he was nineteen -- that sounds more like the actions of a nine year old). To call this an altruistic attempt to help MySpace is akin to calling the guy who broke into Buckingham Palace in the 80's [wikipedia.org] a security consultant. He didn't really hurt anything and clearly disclosed some problems with palace security procedures, but that wasn't his reason for doing it.

      You can't commit a crime and then claim you were simply displaying a flaw in the system. "But your honor, I was simply showing my friend here how lax he was about avoiding punches to the face!"
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I couldn't agree more. The 'slant' on this story is completely ludicrous. He never intended to disclose a security vulnerability. The completely ethical crackers that disclose their work send the information to the company who owns the product and tell them that if it is not patched in a reasonable amount of time that they will release the information. The quasi-ethical crackers that disclose their work send it to the mailing lists as a 0-day often with working exploit code as a proof of concept. This
      • Why not? It worked for Robert Morris, who is now a computer science professor at MIT after writing the most destructive worm in UNIX history. Of course, Robert's father was head of the NSA, which helps you get a "stay out of jail free" card when you go to court. Look for details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris [wikipedia.org].
      • One rule for Sony and one rule for Samy...

        Sony screwed up lots of computers too. But all they had to do was pay some fine that's just a small percent of Sony's profit.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          IANAL, but I seem to recall this very thing coming up somehow in the past. I think it may have been people leaving lawn chairs in their shoveled-out parking spaces -- a common (though dumb and also illegal) practice here in Chicago in the winter to "reserve" that spot for when you get home from work. They left the chairs out, the chairs were taken, and whoever took the chairs was convicted of theft. Even though the chairs were clearly not secured in any way and were, in effect, abandoned in a public street.
  • by andres32a (448314) on Sunday February 04 2007, @10:35AM (#17881156) Homepage
    I realize the sentence but... how can this be enforced? For how much time?
      • by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday February 04 2007, @10:49AM (#17881242) Journal

        How do you ban someone from the internet? What if he leaves the country? What if he tries to download movie times on his cell phone? I do not think any governing power would have the ability to ban someone from the internet.
        Samy is on probation.
        He now has a probation officer.
        If Samy violates the terms of his probation, he can go to jail.
        This is how they enforce the internets banhammer.

        If Samy leaves the country, much less leaves the state, he has violated the terms of his probation and probably goes to jail. If Samy downloads movies on his cellphone, for non-work related reasons, he has violated the terms of his probation and could go to jail.

        Being banned from the internet is no different than being banned from driving, or from going into [place of business] or going near schools, or from possessing [item X], etc.

        Judges have this type of power and use it frequently.
  • Banned from using the Internet? Is that like the opposite of house arrest?
  • Summary is wrong... (Score:5, Informative)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday February 04 2007, @10:40AM (#17881188) Journal
    "The creator of the infamous worm was unfortunate enough to be the the target in MySpace's latest litigation."

    AFAIK, a civil court (which is where MySpace would have to sue Samy) doesn't ban people from the internets or sentance them to community service. And TFA says he pleaded guilty in LA Superior Court... you don't plead guilty in civil court.

    Here's a better article [techspot.com]

    Samy Kamkar (aka 'Samy is my Hero') plead guilty yesterday in Los Angeles Superior Court to a violation of Penal Code section 502(c)(8) as a felony and was placed on three years of formal probation, ordered to perform 90 days of community service, pay restitution to MySpace, and had computer restrictions placed on the manner and means he could use a computer - he can only use a computer and access the internet for work related reasons.

    Undoubtedly, the prosecutor had MySpace's cooperation, but MySpace certainly didn't "target him" in court.

    P.S. of the 3 articles on Google News [google.com] submitter picked the least informative one.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2007, @10:45AM (#17881212)
    The kid wasn't malicious, it was a joke. If anyone should be punished it's myspace for having such a crap web application that allowed a worm to replicate so quickly.

    From what I've heard of the quality of MySpace code and given it's popularity, the site is the nets #2 liability behind Windows zombies.
  • Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cunamara (937584) on Sunday February 04 2007, @10:48AM (#17881234) Homepage

    Clearly, disclosing security vulnerabilities doesn't pay.

    The summary misses the point by a country mile, as do some of the comments in response. Disclosing security vulnerabilities is fine and appreciated. But doing so in the way that this clown did it is not. He used poor judgment and is paying the price for that.

  • Summary biased? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by anakin876 (612770) <anakin876@@@hotmail...com> on Sunday February 04 2007, @10:54AM (#17881276)
    Wow - what a horribly biased summary. Was it written as a deliberate troll? It reads like a deliberate troll! Disclosing a security problem does not usually entail creating a virus that uses it. I realize that his virus did not "hurt" anybody - other than, apparently, him - but he did not just disclose the security hole. It sure would be nice if Commander Taco would read this stuff before approving the submission.
  • by Geek_3.3 (768699) on Sunday February 04 2007, @10:55AM (#17881288)
    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Inter net [uncyclopedia.org]

    he's not from detroit is he? :-P
  • No Damage? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thedbp (443047) on Sunday February 04 2007, @11:44AM (#17881544)
    I guess you don't value other people's time. Time spent cleaning up their profile. Bandwidth wasted on this stupid little look-at-me script.

    Punishment more than suits the offense. If you don't want to be inconvenienced and have your time taken from you by the legal system, don't inconvenience other people and steal their time.

    Simple formula.
  • The problem is that judges, juries and prosecutors aren't really comfortable and familiar with technology so they apply the law stupidly and literally. Kinda like the same way some earlier comment took 'no internet' to mean not using any device that happens to utilize the internet.

    I mean consider an appropriate physical analogy for what this kid did. It would be like if he walked into a bookstore that looked to be open but turned out that the staff had taken the day off and gone home but forgot to lock up but then instead of stealing anything rearranged all the books so they spelled out funny comments and left a little note on the cash register suggesting they lock the store next time. Now obviously it would be a bad idea to do this as it would be a bad idea to run this myspace worm, however, because the prosecutors, judges and juries would correctly see this as a mere youthful prank rather than a serious threat to public order and give him community service. This to a large part is how a good legal system operates, having strong punishments for behavior that can be used maliciously but showing mercy when used more innocently.

    In the computer case the offended company (and eventually the prosecutor) talks about how the offender used "sophisticated computer hacking techniques" and spouts off all sorts of words the average person doesn't understand. Thus in their mind far from a kid playing a trick on a company that left the door open the situation becomes a precocious teen who used sophisticated criminal techniques to break into a locked store and thinks it's all a game. What is the real world equivalent of rearranging the books can be made to seem the activities of some kind of online underground.

    Even the harm caused is easily distorted. While it might be clear to us that this kid was taking steps to avoid causing harm (not releasing info etc..) the prosecution just talks about how it was a DOS attack and the jury isn't going to know any better. In fact it is all to easy to spin horror stories about what the attack 'could have done' if it hadn't been dealt with by their computer people (the equivalent of saying what could have happened if the bookstore never resorted the books). Finally this lack of knowledge and the difficulty valuing IP makes it super easy (as in the mitnick case) to over estimate the seriousness of the harm. Even if it may have actually made more people visit myspace (I looked).

    Obviously it isn't a good idea to release a javascript worm like this but it surely doesn't deserve more than community service and a good scolding. If the people in the system understood the technology it would do just that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Ah, the plague of "If we can make it into a bad analogy, then obviously it's okay."

      Other people have pointed out that the physical behavior you described actually would be illegal and could have noticeable consequences. But I want to pick on the analogy itself: this was not a case of "it looked like the store was open, the door was unlocked, so I went in and messed around with things." The store did not look open. He did not enter through the front door. It was very clear that he was exploiting something

  • Liability (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bryan1945 (301828) on Sunday February 04 2007, @11:48AM (#17881566) Journal
    I'm taking a grad course in infosec, and our prof told us about a case where an engineering student found a vulnerability in his department's website. Wasn't even looking, just stumbled upon it. He reported it to his adviser, who told the department, and it got fixed. The next semester someone exploited the mathematics department's site, and the first person they questioned was the engineering student. Different department, different exploit, but they focused on him first since he reported a vulnerability. They eventually found the real person responsible.

    We ended up having a good 30 minutes of discussion about IT ethics. Obviously this case is different, but look at the case with the engineering student- what if they didn't find the person? Would they blame the engineering guy just to have someone to blame?

    Just makes me wary of ever telling someone that their front door is open- "How did you know! You trying to break in!"
  • by Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) on Sunday February 04 2007, @01:07PM (#17882042) Homepage

    and is also banned from the Internet.

    Actually, he probably can't get a job as a programmer anywhere. What good is a programmer who can't search Google?

    I'm very disappointed with courts' willingness to ban people from computers and/or the Internet. I think they fail to understand the full impact that has in this part of the 21st century.

  • by jjshoe (410772) on Sunday February 04 2007, @01:21PM (#17882114) Homepage
    What you don't read is that Samy actually settled with Myspace, which is what they probably planned to do in the first place. They obviously wanted to make an example of him and they did. Samy was on every one's profile twice, once was his doing, and once was Tom's doing... [joel.io]


    Yes he could have fought this further in court but when my $fighting > $settlement there's only one move to take. Plus if he went to jail then who would I go to Chipotles with? :(

  • by oohshiny (998054) on Sunday February 04 2007, @04:11PM (#17883254)
    It seems, however, that creating security vulnerabilities does pay. Why, companies like MySpace and Microsoft can always shift the blame on some teenager or "computer error" or a careless employee.

    Unlike physical security, making a computer system secure against teenage hackers is not rocket science. This vulnerability was clearly a MySpace screwup, and they should be held responsible and pay the price for it. That principle may not be so important when it comes to MySpace (because there is little of value there), but it becomes of paramount importance when it's your bank or your hospital.

    People who offer commercial services using software should be responsible for the safety and security properties of that software. And in order to prevent those companies from blame-shifting, the people breaking in should be held responsible only if they demonstrably attempted to commit a real-world crime other than simply breaking into the computer system.
    • by Alioth (221270) <no@spam> on Sunday February 04 2007, @11:12AM (#17881368) Journal
      Sigh. He released a frikin' worm, he didn't just pick up the phone and say "Your service is vulnerable to X". He actually exploited the vulnerability. It's like instead of telling someone that the lock doesn't work on their door, you instead go in, sleep in their beds, drink their beer and rearrange their furniture. Telling them the lock doesn't work? A nice neighbourly thing. Going in and rearranging their house without their consent? Criminal trespass.
      • Precisely (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday February 04 2007, @11:42AM (#17881532)
        This is something I just don't get, the mindset that so many people seem to have that when it comes to comptuers, if you can do it, that should make it legal and acceptable. No, that's not the case. Being able to do something doens't make it ok. I highly doubt there's more than a handful of peopel on Slashdot with houses so secure that I couldn't break in to them. Home security is usually pretty basic. However that doesn't make it ok for me to do, even if my intent is simply to prove that it can be done. It's your house, I'm welcome to stay the fuck out unless you give me permission.

        Same is true of a computer. Just because there's a security hole on a system, doesn't give you any right to access that system. You need to leave it alone unless you have permission from the owner.

        In general, you shouldn't even go looking for security holes without permission. If you notice my door is hanging open and tell me, I'll be appreciative, however if I catch you jiggling the door knobs, checking the windows, etc I'm likely to interpret that has malicious, even if you intent is just to check for vulnerabilities. Ask first. Same with computers. If you run across something, by all means tell the person in charge. However don't sniff around looking for holes unless they've given you the OK.

        This isn't complicated and really just comes back to basic kindergarten morals: Don't take things that aren't yours, ask before playing with someone else's toys, don't break things on purpose, etc. The rules don't change just because it's computers and not something else.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          The worm didn't do anything

          I was under the impression that it:

          added Samy as a friend of anyone hit by it
          used computing resources without permission
          required human intervention to clean up afterwards (removing the data, not just patching the hole)

          Even if you discount the second two points, the first is indisputable - it had a payload. The payload wasn't malicious, but it was still a payload.

          It's like trying to rob a bank with an orange water gun.

          Depending on the circumstances and how you do it, that could get
    • Re:I still insist (Score:5, Insightful)

      by @madeus (24818) <slashdot_24818@mac.com> on Sunday February 04 2007, @11:44AM (#17881538)

      Why don't they put in jail everyone who creates real viruses in the labs, but do put those away that create computer viruses (and do not even use them out of a controlled enviroment (lab))??
      (a) I don't know of anyone who's ever been 'put away' for developing a computer virus in a lab.
      (b) Kamkar used this exploit in the real world, effecting one million accounts (and even he isn't being 'put away').

      The writeup is misleading when it says:

      The source and technical explanation for the "attack" was not even released until after MySpace had patched the vulnerability.

      The author used the script it to add over one million 'friends' to his profile, MySpace then addressed the issue. Obviously the source was released *before* it was patched (that's fundamental to how the exploit worked). All he did after the event was post a more detailed explanation of how he developed the exploit.

      Note, he didn't circulate that that to anyone before hand or tell MySpace about what he had found - he just decided to go right ahead exploit the vulnerability.

      I don't believe for a minute MySpace - as much as I dislike the site and most of it's users - would go after someone who, on discovering the issue, actually went to them first and told them about what they had found (or even if they'd just published notice of a theoretical vulnerability via something like a known and respected security mailing list).

      Kamkar did none of those things, he just decided to go right ahead and exploit the hole and play at being a haxor. Given he was 19 and so clearly old enough to have known better, three months of community service and being forced to pay restitution to MySpace sounds about right to me.

      One less guy like that on the Internet for a while is something I'd welcome too.
          • by Teun (17872) on Sunday February 04 2007, @01:46PM (#17882256) Homepage
            A nice example of how to deal with friendly hacker/crackers in an adult way is in the Terms and Conditions of Dutch ISP xs4all:
            http://www.xs4all.nl/uk/overxs4all/voorwaarden/ind ex.php?taal=en [xs4all.nl]

            4.4 Without prejudice to article 4.3, customers are permitted to hack the XS4ALL system.

            The first customer who succeeds in attaining a position equivalent to that of the XS4ALL system administrator will be offered six months' free use of the system, provided that the said customer explains how he or she succeeded in hacking the system, has not damaged the system or other customers and has respected the privacy of other customers. Each customer hereby gives consent for other customers to attempt to hack the system under the aforementioned conditions.


            Would more companies have a similar and well published policy guys like Samy might not have to go through all this legal grief.
            And the companies would gain a lot of security.