Slashdot Log In
MySpace Worm Creator Sentenced
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:27 AM
from the wear-the-hat-and-sit-in-the-corner dept.
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."
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This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
"Stop writing malicious scripts."
The whole "It takes a thief to catch a thief" thing. Hey, it worked for Kevin Mitnick ... [kevinmitnick.com]
Parent
Re:Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
A much better (and safer) idea (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Idea (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony only got fined $175 maximum per incident [slashdot.org], and they didn't get banned from the internet
Parent
Re:Idea (Score:5, Funny)
RonB
Parent
How can anybody be banned from internet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How can anybody be banned from internet? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Banned from internet == banned from using phone (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Banned from internet == banned from using phone (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How can anybody be banned from internet? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Banned from using the Internet? (Score:5, Funny)
Summary is wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
But Samy is my hero (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Too Bad People Don't Understand Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Re:The moral of this story... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Precisely (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Restitution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Restitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Parent
Re:I still insist (Score:5, Insightful)
(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.
Parent
Re:disclosing arrogance doesn't pay (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.xs4all.nl/uk/overxs4all/voorwaarden/in
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.
Parent