Trojan Using Sony DRM Rootkit Spotted 597
Analise writes "The Register reports on the first trojan using Sony's DRM rootkit. A newly discovered variant of the Breplibot trojan makes use of the way Sony's rootkit masks files whose filenames begin with '$sys$'. This means that any files renamed this way by the trojan are effectively invisible to the average user. The malware is distributed via an email supposedly from a reputable business magazing requesting that the businessperson verify his/her attached 'picture' to be used for an upcoming issue. Once the payload is executed, the trojan then installs an IRC backdoor on affected Windows systems."
A Natural Rights perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
One great force behind this right is that past acts bear no allowances for future acts. If I let you into my house yesterday, you have no right to be here today. I may contractually allow you to come and go as you please, but I have to willfully sign the contract with witnesses noting the act.
Sony's DRM uses government force (through copyright provisions) to settle its legality. They say that by using their property, you have to permanently give up your natural right to private property (free speech Statists wrongfully call it Right to Privacy). Sony is wrong.
By violating numerous natural rights, Sony has opened itself to a demand for restitution. I wholeheartedly believe that corporate protections are wrong, as is copyright. My solution? Go after Sony through the shareholders directly (they own the business and allowed the breach of a basic human right). Demand restitution for the trojan if you receive it.
Imagine if you buy a Saab and Saab has an agreement stating "If you turn the car on, you allow two Saab employees to ride in your trunk and search your house for proof you might install a non-Saab oil filter." You've signed nothing. The two Saab employees open your house door, take up residence and leave the door wide open. Two typical pro-copyright arguments: You're not allowed to install non-Saab oil filters or how else would Saab make money? Why would they design cars?
This is the problem with copyright. Instead of individuals protecting proprietary information of value (books, music, etc) and producing it in the best way over anyone else (live shows, subscriptions to new music, etc), they say "copy us and government will use force against you."
It's all wrong. Don't publicly say anything valuable to you. Don't think you can come in my home because you did once before. Don't think you can rape me because a note in your pocket says you're allowed to, and I let you in without checking your pockets.
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A Natural Rights perspective (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rant Time... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd prefer the cash alternative.
Re:A Natural Rights perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
One such right is the right to private property, closed to others' prying eyes or presence.
To me, this doesn't seem as "self-evident" as the other rights (Life, Liberty, freedom to pursue happiness, etc.) in the D of C. But it does seem to make sense as a possible necessary qualification to achieve the other three: I could live, be free, and try to be happy without owning anything, but it might be exceedingly difficult.
Just sayin'.
(Also, "irregardless" is not a word)
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the question is, what department thought it was a good idea? Sales and Marketing? Legal? Somebody had to think it was worth the money...
Re:From the article, virus firms response (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm loving this. I just can't wait to see what happens when antivirus/spyware vendors decide to consider the Sony rootkit as an attack vector and remove it accordingly... will it show up as "Sony.CDcopyprotection.malware"? "F4I.XCP.Aurora"? How about the information about it? Will we see legal battles between antivirus vendors and Sony? Class action lawsuits from consumers? I'm already preparing some popcorn for the event!
I take issue with this (Score:2, Insightful)
Irregardless of the existence of government, the natural rights of an individual cannot be given away (you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't tell a higher power that it's ok to kill you). One such right is the right to private property, closed to others' prying eyes or presence.
This is crap. If I want to end my life, I should most certianly be allowed to give someone the right to kill me. I tis *my* life, no one should have any say what I do with it but me. Same goes with the slavery question. Maybe I enjoy having a master? Who are you to tell me what choices I should be making?
The only right you are born with is the right to die. You are not born with the right to personal property or anything else. Do you think that a spider has a right to it's web? If so, then why do you shoo it out of your house? If you don't , then why do you for some reason think nature has granted *you* "fundamental rights", but not other forms of life?
"Rights" are granted by society, a human construct, not by nature. The only reason people have rights is because that we as a community agree that certain things are allowed, and others are not.
It is when two sets of belief systems conflict with each other that we have problems; just because you feel that someone in China should have a "right" to free speech, does not mean that they automatically do, any more than just because someone in a cannabilistic tribe teels that Americans should have a "right" to eat each other, mean that they do. They are totally seperate sets of beleif systems, neither is any more wrong than the other. The only thing that determines what is "right" and "wrong" is society.
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:3, Insightful)
I sure (Insert Your Favorite Murderer Here) didn't manufacture the bullets he used to kill his victims either.
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounds like you're letting Sony off the hook, but I don't think it works like that. I mean, suppose I were to sell you a poisoned soda and that as a result you nearly die. Would it matter if I bought the poison from someone else?
Not to mention trying to conceal its presence and lying about its function.
I think Sony stand to take a hiding over this one.
Legality (Score:3, Insightful)
If some bored teenager devised and distributed such a rootkit, he or she would be accused of costing businesses millions and thrown in jail for 10 years. Can someone explain to me why Sony is not getting prosecuted for "hacking" here? What makes them exempt (aside from whatever civil lawsuits are being brought against them)?
Boycott isn't going to do squat (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
wake up, this is Bush's Amerifka! (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sure Wal-mart is hiring, leave your rights at the door.
Re:A Natural Rights perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
One nit, Sony is almost certainly structured as a limited liability corp. specifically so that you can't go after the shareholders. Do you think that LLCs are wrong?
In my opinion LLCs are very valuable because they allow ordinary people to invest in corporations without becoming personally, legally and financially responsible for that companies actions. While this certainly can have the effect of diffusing fault, I feel that this is out weight by the positive economic impact of facilitating investments. Do you disagree?
You said that you feel that corporate protections are wrong, do you consider limited laiblity to be a personal or corporate protection? I tend to think that it is a personal protection.
Re:antivirus vendors violate DMCA? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bob
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, if I write software for a guided missile for example, and that missile happens to kill innocent civilians (even if by mistake) then I feel like there'd be at least some blood on my hands too - which I don't want.
i'm not questioning your stance, and i respect your opinion on this, i just wanted to express another opinion on working for the defence industry. my brother works for a company that makes tank ammo. and he's super anti-war and doesn't trust the government, and all that, so i asked why he works for the company. he said that his job is to design the safest tank ammo possible. so he can have a zero defect rate where a defect is something that ends up killing the soldiers in the tank. the man is always going to fight wars (he always has) and people are going to get killed for the sake of lining the man's pockets. but if you can prevent more of our young soldiers for dying, then i think you've done good. so don't think of working for the defence industry as helping the man kill people, view it as helping keep the wars shorter and saving more of our soldiers. the man will fight the war with whatever technology is available.
Re:A Natural Rights perspective (Score:2, Insightful)
You do, I do. Do you think the 'state' just pulled the property laws out of there collective ass (ok for some states i'll say yes). Most of Texas current property laws are an extension of 'natural' property laws.
Texas tresspass laws are great. If you tresspass on my property, you have the legal right to leave in a body bag. Not the states force, my own.
Maybe you should read around here a little. [mises.org]
This assumes your interpretation of Natural Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, in most (if not all) countries, "land ownership" does NOT include mineral rights (which are arguably a significant part of the land) and can often be overruled or dismissed by the Government should they decide they can make better use of the land (5th Amenndment in the USA includes this provision, I believe). As such, it is not really ownership and can - at best - be called borrowing from the State.
There are countries in which private ownership of any kind simply isn't recognized at all. Everything is communal. Such societies don't seem to be any less rights-respecting than any other. Indeed, the USA - which has more codified rights than almost any other country - has one of the worst records of any country for actually honoring what is codified. Indeed, not only is it not honored, even when the courts rule against it, the US Government doesn't always respect those decisions. (The Sioux won in the Supreme Court to have the Black Hills revert to them - that was something like 40 or 50 years ago and the US Government is still refusing to honor the ruling.) Even when it does respect them, it has the power to replace any judge that rules against them (as threatened by DeLay over the Terri Schaivo case) which does damage any semblance of independence or impartiality.
I do believe there are Natural Rights. I believe there is a Natural Right for any individual to be seen for oneself, that there is a Natural Right for any individual to improve their quality of life, that there is a Natural Right for any individual to hold to any beliefs they so choose, that there is a Natural Right for any individual or group to privacy and that there is a Natural Right for any individual or group to maximise potential and minimise harm.
Most of these are what Republicans and Libertarians would consider obnoxiously socialist. The only way to maximise potential is to maximise the flow of information and to guarantee the practicalities of learning that information in a manner that is useful and usable. In other words, maximal quality education and minimal restraint on learning. In practice, if you're from a poor family in a poor area in the US, the only way to learn is to be good at sports or be in the military. Oh, and be male. Poor females in the US are left to rot, regardless. The only way to be good at sports in the US seems to be to take dangerous (and eventually lethal) drugs. Brain damage and other sporting injuries are pretty common. The US military is routinely accused of fraudulant claims in recruitment efforts, violent abuse (sometimes lethal) against recruits and persecution of non-Christians. Rape of females in the US military also appears to be a common complaint - and rarely investigated.
Rights - Natural or otherwise - are only meaningful if enforcable. This is one reason the original version of the Magna Carta stipulated the right to seize (by force, if necessary) judicially-awarded compensation or enforce judicially-awarded rulings against the Government (in that case, the king). In other words, nobody - absolutely nobody - was above the law, and nobody could use executive priviledges to abuse the law or anything else. Name me one country that has such a provision today. (No, the US impeachment procedure doesn't count. The current Congress wouldn't impeach Bush if he was caught red-handed in an act of treason, and the population at large has no impeachment rights. The UK's vote of no co
Re:A Natural Rights perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
This drives me insane. What are they teaching kids in school these days anyway? Natural rights are not granted. They are naturally yours because you are human being. They can neither be granted nor taken away. That's why you cannot sign a contract (at least, you can't in the U.S.) that says "I agree to sell myself into slavery in exchange for $100." It's not enforceable, because you cannot sign away a natural right.
Small rant: This complete lack of understanding of natural rights leads to a lot of rotten decision-making. As soon as you start thinking the state "grants rights" (it doesn't), you start thinking it's OK for the state to take them away (it's not). In fact, it's exactly the reverse. You grant powers to the state, and you can take them away. The government has powers only at your whim.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony Rootkit News Absent From CNN (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:4, Insightful)
First 4 Internet made the XCP DRM system, rootkit and all. Their business model is to develop and sell DRM products to the music industry. So the programmers at F4I must have been deaf and blind in order not to know that the rootkit would be distributed on 'audio' CDs.
$sys$ now Sony's fnord? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:2, Insightful)
The real question is, how far up the chain did this idea get spawned from. I would bet that it started by one of the execs complaining about how easy their last DRM programs were killed (Everyone remember the hold-shift hack? Yes? Good, moving on).
In any event, remember, ethical choices require knowledge of intent.
I'll ignore the Godwin and move on. ;-)
Re:wake up, this is Bush's Amerifka! (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, I aggree with you 100%, but I also agree that you could get into some bad luck, get stuck with big bills because you couldn't find good work no matter how hard you tried, and up to this point you've tried to live your life in a fairly moral manner.
Even as a 26 year old with a pretty good paying job in IT, I wouldn't exactly just up and quit my job because of something like this. I would, however, raise serious objections that would probably get me put on the shit list eventually. But I wouldn't quit.
If the company were developing a way to secretly kill babies, I'd quit in a moment. But in the case of a rootkit for the purpose of copy-protecting a music CD? Well, I can live with that I suppose.
ALL GAMESITES SHOULD DROP SONY COVERAGE (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:4, Insightful)
profits yes. floating just above the poverty line, no.
but maybe when you get a real job and have a real "im going to be out on the fucking street again if i dont suck up my ego" moment, then you will see.
but yeah, im sure crazy joe down on the corner who dances for nickles every day is sure happy that his spine is in good health.
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:2, Insightful)
But looking at the following numerous AC posts:
You're right on some of this. I refinanced my inflated mortgage a few years ago and reduced it by $400/month, my cars are paid off (one was purchased outright when the stock market was low back in 2001), and I have no CC debt because I hate owing anybody anything. I live within my means -- there's a principle for ya. I have one child with another on the way. Next!
See above. BTW, class of '87. Next!
Reasonable people will recognize the difference between survival and living with no regard to any principles. If it comes down to survival (need income for food now!) then yes, that will trump being some paragon of virtue. You'd be foolish not to! You gotta live, even if that means resorting to....gonzo telemarketing.
But in the mundane daily exercise of life, you (the nonspecific you) owe it to yourself to stand for something.
Re:$sys$ now Sony's fnord? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Newer Sony CDs install a type of virus on your computer called a root kit."
The word virus is the key. If the president of Sony doesn't have a clue what a root kit is, then lets cut the BS and use the right word. It is a VIRUS in the since that the only term most normal people really "get" (I know, it isn't a virus as security people define it).
Re:Being ignorant == fair game? (Score:3, Insightful)
They do now.
Re:Jobseekers rejoice! (Score:3, Insightful)
"that damn engineer, he said he had the technology to fool the hackers out there so they couldn't detect our DRM. . .
Or, another phrase comes to mind; ". . . you have failed me for the last time. . . "
Anyone know... (Score:2, Insightful)