Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Worms Security Government The Courts The Internet News

Botnet Brain Pleads Guilty 137

Posted by Zonk from the there-are-better-ways-to-make-a-buck dept.
spge writes "Now that Jeanson James Ancheta has plead guilty to spamming, computer misuse and fraud, it might be worth scanning through the original indictment document, which includes a step-by-step account of how someone goes about setting up an adware business, manages botnets and (thankfully) gets caught." From the BBC article: "'Mr Ancheta was responsible for a particularly insidious string of crimes,' said a spokesman for the US attorney's office in Los Angeles, Thom Mrozek. 'He hijacked somewhere in the area of half a million computer systems. This not only affected computers like the one in your home, but it allowed him and others to orchestrate large-scale attacks.'" We discussed Ancheta's arrest back in October of last year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Botnet Brain Pleads Guilty More

Botnet Brain Pleads Guilty

Comments Filter:

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @01:36PM (#14549675) Homepage Journal
    Security-testing software creator pleads guilty to helping thousands of Internet users see the security issues they're unwilling and too irresponsible to fix, opening the door for other security experts to blog about easy fixes to prevent attacks in the future.
    • He is a fool and an ignorant idiot... He should have settled for $7.50 per infraction with one audio album (created by himself) downloadable free from his site.

      Don't these fuckers learn anything from news?

  • Come on, (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Let the worm off the hook. He's learned his lesson. Look at how bad he feels!
  • "...includes a step-by-step account of how someone goes about setting up an adware business, manages botnets and (thankfully) gets caught..". Free and legal guide for spybot attacks

  • Hmmm... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Otter ( 3800 )
    Now that Jeanson James Ancheta has plead guilty to spamming, computer misuse and fraud...

    I read that thinking "Jenna Jameson did what? And how badly did the submitter mangle her name?"

  • First banner ad, spammers, this must be They've-secured-their-place-in-Hell day at /.

  • Problems with today's internet. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PlayCleverFully ( 947815 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @01:43PM (#14549742) Homepage
    I am a teenager and I have gotten in trouble with school for "hacking"

    I had no malintentions, but I see why they have to do such penalties.

    However, the main problem is that the code is not secure, not that I was messing around during a free period and found a way to bypass the "security."

    I encourage students and others curious to set their own "box" up and use that to "hack" into.

    I do not see hobbyist computer hacking as a REAL threat, because if they can hack into a system, that system is definitely NOT secure from true hackers with illegal, immoral fraud schemes, etc in mind.

    Remember, set up your own comp to hack into, you will gain the knowledge from seeing how these things work, and not get in trouble.

    • Re:Problems with today's internet. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SnarfQuest ( 469614 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @01:58PM (#14549865)
      1. The correct word is cracking not hacking. Hacking was originally a word representing something good and useful, but has been taken over by the news media to bean somethine vile and disguisting. Cracking means breaking into something, in order to do vile and dispicable things. What you were doing was cracking, not hacking.

      2. However, the main problem is that the code is not secure, not that I was messing around during a free period and found a way to bypass the "security."

      So, if I threw a brick through a window of your home, would you thank me for showing that it was not "secure"? Especially after I backed up a sewage truck to the broken window and unloaded it into your house? Why shouldn't IT people be upset when you dump your shit into their systems?

      3. I do not see hobbyist computer hacking as a REAL threat, because if they can hack into a system, that system is definitely NOT secure from true hackers with illegal, immoral fraud schemes, etc in mind.

      I don't think you should get upset when I dump a tanker full of shit into your house, because it's possible that someone who was a REAL threat might someday come around, they could do something worse. Your house isn't completely secure, so you should thank me for that tanker full of shit.

      4. Oh, and every time you fix your house, I'll just try to find another way to fill it full of shit.

      You can thank me in advance.

      • Re:Problems with today's internet. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mooingyak ( 720677 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:28PM (#14550114)
        The correct word is cracking not hacking

        Language evolves over time, and sometimes out of the control of the group that originally coined the phrase(s). Of course the real problem is that the word 'hacking' (or hacker or any other variation) is a piss poor choice of a word if you want it to be associated with something good. His use of the word hacking is just fine, even if it doesn't mean now what it used to.

        Second, while I agree that he has no right to bypass security and enter other people's systems, he's also not dumping shit all over. He's not doing any permanent damage or anything that takes time/effort/money to fix. It's much closer to noticing that someone's front door is unlocked, and then letting yourself in and looking around a bit. He might see some things that no one wanted him to see, and they might have to take some steps to convince themselves that he really didn't steal or damage anything. That's about it. No dumptrucks full of sewage.

        Again, that doesn't make it okay, it just means that the real damage isn't quite what you described.
        • Of course the real problem is that the word 'hacking' (or hacker or any other variation) is a piss poor choice of a word if you want it to be associated with something good.
          Is cutting wood something fundamentally wrong???
          • The word 'hack' has many definitions. Some of them are neutral (like cutting wood). Some of them are negative, in ways completely unrelated to each other. Some examples:

            * A rough, dry cough.
            * One who undertakes unpleasant or distasteful tasks for money or reward.

        • Second, while I agree that he has no right to bypass security and enter other people's systems, he's also not dumping shit all over. He's not doing any permanent damage or anything that takes time/effort/money to fix. It's much closer to noticing that someone's front door is unlocked, and then letting yourself in and looking around a bit.

          Note that in meatspace, this changes the nature of the crime quite a bit. If someone's door is locked and you kick it in and enter their house, then you're "breaking

          • I suppose this is really closer to breaking and entering than trespass, since it's not a case of the door being unlocked but the lock on the door being worn out and rusty or very trivially picked. The lock is obviously insecure, but you still have to bypass it somehow to get in. Which in turn might make it a kind of attractive nuisance.
            • I don't know the details of the hack but it seems to me more like a doorknob that when you try to turn it lightly, seems locked, but when you wrench on it, it opens just fine, and it turns out to not have been locked. However, I really think that all of these metaphors disintegrate when you get close to the system and so IMO you really have to look at the damage done, and the intent. The first should be the most important factor, but if no damage is done, then you can look at the intent and decide if you sh
              • From the Nth degree ancestor post (the one from playfullyclever):

                I am a teenager and I have gotten in trouble with school for "hacking"

                I had no malintentions, but I see why they have to do such penalties.

                However, the main problem is that the code is not secure, not that I was messing around during a free period and found a way to bypass the "security."

                It sounds like he wasn't supposed to go in, knew he wasn't supposed to go in, and tried to find a way anyway. We still don't know what he did, but it sounds

                • Do you have any links to research that indicates that prison time causes crime? I've heard various opinions on the subject, some of which are logical and support your position, but I don't know of any actual research done on the matter.

                  This isn't quite what you're looking for - so the short answer is no - but I find the following interesting: Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Offenders Statistics on Recidivism [usdoj.gov] (and other info.)

                  The best part: "Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15

                  • The problem with recidivism stats is that we don't really know what they would have done had things turned out different (not been caught) or with some alternate punishment/rehabilitation/whatever. The only way to be sure of what could happen is to execute everybody (which obviously has its own problems) or devise an acceptable but non-prison based form of punishment and see how the recidivism rates between the groups compare. And even then it only matters if the alternate does not incorporate the charact
      • Hacking was originally a word representing something good and useful...

        Useful yes. Good... err.. no. A Hack = shortterm gain in trade for long term pain. If you fix something with duct tape thats probably a hack.
        When I make certain code changes I might refer to them as hacks. "Yeah. I put a hack in place to fix that." Basically I'm saying I put a sucky and hopefully temporary solution in place for a very specific problem that just happens to work. Hack usually implies that a solution was clever yet suc
      • 1. The correct word is cracking not hacking. Hacking was originally a word representing something good and useful, but has been taken over by the news media to bean somethine vile and disguisting. Cracking means breaking into something, in order to do vile and dispicable things. What you were doing was cracking, not hacking.

        You're a complete moron and you're wrong, ESR Junior. You're either clueless and haven't been around long, or you're purposely trying to mislead people.

    • Re:Problems with today's internet. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrotherNO@SPAMoptonline.net> on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:01PM (#14549892) Journal
      I am a teenager and I have gotten in trouble with school for "hacking"

      Good. That's the idea.

      I had no malintentions, but I see why they have to do such penalties.

      Word of advice: instead of hacking, trying paying attention in English class, specifically grammar.

      However, the main problem is that the code is not secure, not that I was messing around during a free period and found a way to bypass the "security."

      The problem is that you don't see your hacking as a problem. No one asked you to hack their system, it is not your job to test the school's security, and frankly it is irresponsible. That's like saying the main problem is they lock the vaults, noth that I'm trying to break in and rob the bank.

      I encourage students and others curious to set their own "box" up and use that to "hack" into.

      That's fine, though perhaps instead of hacking you could be learning to churn out first-class code to do useful work.

      I do not see hobbyist computer hacking as a REAL threat, because if they can hack into a system, that system is definitely NOT secure from true hackers with illegal, immoral fraud schemes, etc in mind.

      Since when is hacking a hobby? You're trying to compromise a computer system, which is fine if it's your own system, but illegal if it's not. The level of security of the system does not matter, what matters is the system is not your plaything.

      Remember, set up your own comp to hack into, you will gain the knowledge from seeing how these things work, and not get in trouble.

      Try simply reading books and taking courses in computer programming from people with knowledge and passion and you'll learn a lot more.

      • Re:Problems with today's internet. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by javaxman ( 705658 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:35PM (#14550177) Journal
        You are dead on with most of your comments, except...

        Since when is hacking a hobby?

        Pretty much since computers had a way to communicate with one another... actually, before then, surely someone here has a story of trying to escalate their user privileges on some mainframe system somewhere. For most people who get into what should more correctly be called cracking, it's just something done for fun- trying to do something you aren't supposed to be able to do.

        Yea, it may seem to you like breaking into computer systems is a hobby like breaking into houses is a hobby, but really, it's a hobby and it's been a hobby for a long, long time. Not a great hobby, not one that should be encouraged, but it's still a hobby. I'd encourage anyone thinking about picking up that hobby to waste time writing games, creating websites, and reading instead, though... it's best to have a hobby that can't result in jail time.

        • No, before computers could talk to each other. How many of used the INIT program RSTS/E to log into a priveleged account, so that you can change the MONEY program to treat your account as privileged and then changed the protection code to 232?

          The difference is one is done for the fun and challenge -- hobby, and the bad form is do to harm or make a profit.
          • No, before computers could talk to each other.

            Funny, I thought I'd covered the "before computers could talk to each other case"...

            Pretty much since computers had a way to communicate with one another... actually, before then, surely someone here has a story of trying to escalate their user privileges on some mainframe system somewhere.

            I guess we get to agree on this one :-)

      • The problem is that you don't see your hacking as a problem.

        Yeah? What's your point? You don't see insecure deisign as a problem? Even for a bank vault?

        To tell these kids that stealing your money is wrong and slap their hand does nothing to protect your money from the real threat, people like me. We won't just stop at taking your money, we'll steal your whole identity and use whatever we need to get the next set of credentials. You're just a small fish in a big pond. I think you would be wise to liste
        • Yeah? What's your point? You don't see insecure deisign as a problem?

          You better believe it's a problem. If he's so interested in programming and security, let him take classes and develop some skills and then get a job writing and testing virus scanners, or firewalls, or encryption algorithms. Just because I see someone make an illegal U-turn doesn't give me the "right" to stop and arrest them, and just because a system is insecure doesn't give a script-kiddie the "right" to hack it.

          • I guess we'll have to wait until he takes some classes and developes some skills and gets a job writing and testing virus scanners or firewalls or encryption algorithms before we'll get that securely designed system.

            But you don't actually seem to care about real security. I think you're only interested in punishing people you consider beneath you, children, script-kiddies, etc.

            Its the same problem we get from multi-billion dollar corps like Microsoft. Its not like they couldn't solve their security proble
      • Word of advice: instead of hacking, trying paying attention in English class, specifically grammar.

        Pot... Kettle.
        Kettle... Pot
      • Let me just say, that (assuming the OP wasn't karma whoring, which My karma-dar is going off pretty strong on) here you've got a kid who is genuinely fascinated with doing something with the computer beyond playing sims and halo 2 and you are chastising him? He even here admits to setting up a sandbox for the benign exploration of his curiosity, which he must be pretty passionate about to go to all the trouble.

        You have a kid with a passion and you just can't wait to knock the wind out of his sails on Slash
        • Let me just say, that (assuming the OP wasn't karma whoring, which My karma-dar is going off pretty strong on)...

          To which I reply, what would be the point? Karma doesn't interest me, except in the concept of your actions and their results having an influence on your future.

          You have a kid with a passion and you just can't wait to knock the wind out of his sails on Slashdot?

          You bet! Because this is kind compared with what happens in the real world. He wants to hack his own box, fine (and that is precise

          • I wasn't implying you might be karma whoring. PlayCleverFully is the one that sets off the radar ;)

            I'd have to disagree with you that the hacking(cracking) bug seldomly goes away. It did with me and everyone I knew. A hacker's life tends to be one of curious exploration where you know just enough to be dangerous. Once you get good and the mystery on that level is gone, you have reached computer science and that's where you can do anything you can dream. Hacking is messing around with people's creations
    • On one hand I agree, on the other I cannot.

      The system you hacked and you got in trouble for has one big problem for you: It ain't yours! You have no right to hack a system, no matter how insecure and no matter how good your intentions. I can sympathize, I was like you about 10 years ago. I thought people ought to be thankful that I show them the flaws in their systems and even more thankful that it was me (someone with "good" intentions) to hack them and show them their flaws instead of someone who might ha
    • There's a time and a place for security testing other people's systems. If you're playing around, and notice something that might be a security hole, correct solution is to find an admin that knows what they're talking about, and say "Hey, I see your system does , isn't that a problem?".

      The real problem with "hobbyist" cracking is that, as a sys-admin, I have no way of telling that you're just playing around with a few things, as opposed to you've managed to rootkit my computer, and it's now running half a

      • There's a time and a place for security testing other people's systems. If you're playing around, and notice something that might be a security hole, correct solution is to find an admin that knows what they're talking about, and say "Hey, I see your system does , isn't that a problem?".

        Hear, hear.

        This kid has learned the same lesson that I did when I was at Uni (=college). Twice I got a slap on the wrist and a thread of Academic Misconduct hearing for "hacking". The first time, a friend left himself logg

    • However, the main problem is that the code is not secure, not that I was messing around during a free period and found a way to bypass the "security."

      Found a way? Now, if you had spent your free period roaming around parking lot checking teachers' cars for unlocked doors, and then one of them turned out to be unlocked, would you then hasve simply been "messing around and found your way" into that car? Would someone who is just "messing around" and finds that only a simple hammer or two-by-four is needed

      • Found a way? Now, if you had spent your free period roaming around parking lot checking teachers' cars for unlocked doors, and then one of them turned out to be unlocked, would you then hasve simply been "messing around and found your way" into that car?

        It's not illegal to open car doors and look inside, as long as they're not locked and you don't touch anything. Breaking into a car is illegal, damaging a car is illegal, and taking things that don't belong to you out of it is illegal, but it's not ill

    • Re:Problems with today's internet. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DeanFox ( 729620 ) * <spam DOT myname AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @03:07PM (#14550471)

      Imagine a time when you're no longer a teenager and have your own home.

      If while at work, some neighbor kid is picking the locks to your home. He's pushing and pulling on the windows to see if they'll open. Perhaps seeing if reaching in from a dog door he can open the door lock.

      After discovering the "insecurities" of your home, he lets himself in and does a walk through of your house. Perhaps taking a mental inventory of your music collection and admiring your PC setup. He leaves, stealing nothing.

      You get home from work and figure out someone has been in your home. You call the police and they catch this kid while he's looking around inside another neighbors house.

      Taking him to jail, all the time he's crying "but I just did it out of curiosity! They should be thankful I wasn't a *real* burglar". On and on he cries...

      Grow up and start respecting other people's property. They didn't use you as an example; they punished you for the crime you committed.

      JMHO
      • Yeah, he stays in jail until he gets bailed out, then he gets busted for trespassing, but since you left a door/window open he didn't have to break in which is what changes it to B&E, and then he gets 20 hours of community service and a strong admonition to stay out of other people's houses. Some kid who noses around in a computer system could get years in the lockup. At least one of these situations should change.

  • Every once in a while I misread the Slashdot article titles - albeit because they're worded in such as way as to be easily misconstrued. Do the editors do this on purpose just to mess with my head? Is that part of the fun of being an editor? :)

  • 'He hijacked somewhere in the area of half a million computer systems

    One assumes these were all systems running MS Windows? Firewalls, spyware detection software, alternatives to IE and Outlook express - the world needs educating.

    :)

  • Thats all? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by catahoula10 ( 944094 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @01:47PM (#14549783)
    From the link:
    "Under a plea agreement, Mr Ancheta is expected to receive from four years to six years in prison when he is sentenced on 1 May, though the deal has to be approved by a judge.
    He also agreed to pay $15,000 (£8,800) in restitution to the military facilities affected and forfeit the proceeds of his illicit activities, including more than $60,000 (£35,000) in cash and a 1993 BMW. "

    Anyone believe he had only 60 thousand in the bank?

    4-6 years, will probably get out in 2.

    Just a slap on the hand.
    • Just make sure everyone in the prison knows what the guy did, and the sentence will get extended with lifetime requirement to use diapers.

    • Re:Thats all? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:26PM (#14550096) Homepage
      > Just a slap on the hand.

      Even two years in prison is certainly not a "slap on the hand". The problem here is not insufficient punishment. it's insufficient enforcement. If he had not made the mistake of breaking into military computers he would have never been prosecuted.

    • Re:Thats all? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by abbamouse ( 469716 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:28PM (#14550111) Homepage
      This is a federal trial. There is no parole in federal prison. Six years means six years. Oh, and I suspect they'll insist on the standard "you can't work with a computer" clause that will keep the guy from making a decent living for another decade after he leaves prison.

      Not that I have any sympathy for the scum.
      • > Oh, and I suspect they'll insist on the standard "you can't work
        > with a computer" clause that will keep the guy from making a decent
        > living for another decade after he leaves prison.

        Such "clauses" are always conditions of parole and expire at the end of the sentence.
        • Exactly. Restricting freedom after someone does their time is wrong -- they either do their punishment and rejoin society (perhaps losing some rights, like the right to vote) -- or they are still being punished.

          Also, that why some "hard" cases tell the state they don't want parole. Because when they get out, they want the freedom to be bad to the fucking bone.

          Mr. Ball Peen hammer killer was like that: he killed his math prof with a ball peen hammer in front of his class. He didn't want parole, with its irri
    • 4-6 years, will probably get out in 2.
      Just a slap on the hand.

      Yeah but this is 2 years in an U.S. prison... do you know what they do to a chubby tech guys with soft hands in a federal prison?!!!

      I give the guy 2 days before this happens:

      "Oh, so you think you're smarter than me cuz work on 'em magic box things?"

      *ziiip*

      GAME OVER!

    • Anyone believe he had only 60 thousand in the bank?

      I'm actually impressed he had $60K sitting around. Most of these guys blow every penny on stupid shit.
    • I would think that if you were in this guy's line of work or other similar occupation, you'd strongly consider buying some rural land under a fake name and burying money in a pvc pipe for later.
  • ...some assembly required.

    Now that I vented a bit I'll grant that this statement is probably excessive, but - dammit! - this guys crud affected us all. Throw the book at him. He should never be allowed access to the net or a PC again.
  • he'd have made sure his bots don't infect .mil and .gov computers, and nobody would've cared...

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @01:54PM (#14549839)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • He also agreed to pay $15,000 (£8,800) in restitution to the military facilities affected and forfeit the proceeds of his illicit activities, including more than $60,000 (£35,000) in cash and a 1993 BMW.
    If he hadn't have gotten that BMW, they might have never suspected...

  • So he serves two years with good behavior, comes out to enjoy his earnings a little later and in the meantime gets to pick up lots of useful contacts inside.

    I'd recommend the complete stripping of all assets as a two year community service order upgrading spam filters.
    • No he'll serve a minimum of four years inside, and to get out early he'll have to
      agree to the terms of parole which will cover at least the remainder of the six years
      1. no computer or internet access
      2. his residence is searchable without probable cause
      3. he'll have to pay the restition (at least $15,000) and for his weekly appointments with his parole officer.
      4 he'll have to pay interest and penalties to the IRS for the income on ttheillicit proceeds he had to surrender.
      5. and of course he'll have to mainta
      • Maybe they will make him take some english classes. Or was I the only one to read and laugh at the quotes in the pdf file?
        • To look good to the parole board
          1. High/school completetion or GED backed by some college or trade school while in.
          2. AA or NarcAnon, maybe joining a religious group
          3. no tickets, they'll set him back about 6 mo.s for a minor, a major will basicaly eliminated his early out.
          4. good job record on that prison job paying $0.28 an hour
          that's a Lot of tickets to get punched in four years
    • Actually, since it's a federal case and he's in a federal prison, he'll serve the full term. There's no parole in the federal prison system. You serve what you get.

      -h-
  • Mr Ancheta admitted selling access to his botnet to firms which fed pop-up ads to the infected computers.

    This sounds like some B-rate horror movie about a blackmailing mad scientist finally getting his revenge.

    How do these 'firms' escape prosecution when they contributed to this whole mess?
    Why is it that this one guy gets singled-out for wrongdoing, isn't this a collaborative affair?
  • Summary: "includes a step-by-step account of how someone goes about setting up an adware business, manages botnets and (thankfully) gets caught."

    1. Setup adware company.
    2. Manage botnets.
    3. Skip getting caught step.
    4. Profit!
  • The botnet brain plead guilty. That's really something. Now that a neural network of computers can be put on trial in court, what's next for our judicial system? Also, when did a "brain" of computers gain the ability to reason its own guilt?

    Well, no time to read the summary. Gotta go to class!
  • Botnet Brain Pleads Guilty
    Wow. The AI in botnets must have come a really long way while I wasn't looking.

  • I wonder if MS could get more bang for its buck... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by buddyglass ( 925859 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:06PM (#14549925)
    ...by just offering bounties to law enforcement agencies for the arrest and incarceration of guys like this? I mean, they've got cash to burn, and are by all accounts sinking alot into security enhancement, regardless of how effective you think that effort has been. Maybe offering $100k to the individual(s) responsible for getting a conviction would motivate law enforcment officials to devote more energy to these types of crimes. MS could also supply engineers with technical expertise if a smaller agency didn't have the requisite know-how in-house.
    • There are ethical issues associated with tipping law enforcement officials. Police, etc. are supposed to be unbiased, responding equally no matter who has been harmed. When rich people or corporations start paying for better service, genuine gratitude becomes bribery rather quickly.

      You can offer them some coffee and cherry pie, but that's about it.
    • That ain't something you can hand to your marketing department as a hook to make managers buy your junk. If you put a bounty on every head that hacks your system, a manager will only ask "yeah. But how does that make MY system more secure?"

      On the other hand, if you, an (amongst managers) highly respected, company tell him that you invested $100k into making your system "more secure" (don't bother trying to tell him how, he won't understand), he'll buy it. Because you spent $100k to make it more secure.
    • > ...by just offering bounties to law enforcement agencies for the
      > arrest and incarceration of guys like this?

      Trouble is, if he had stayed away from the military computers he'd be safe. Taking over 500,000 home computers is not a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act.
    • While I agree with you that I'd like to see more arrests of this type, corporate-funded bounties are not the answer.

      The practical consequences of such a scheme are that the police will have added incentive to pursue crimes/criminals with bounties than those without. This would give large corporations undue influence over the police, who are supposed to be acting in the interests of the community at large.

      The logical extreme of this is the privatisation of the police and a 'user pay' scheme, where if you wa

  • FTFA "Among the machines infected were US military computers in California and in Virginia."


    nice to see my tax dollars hard at work first buying redmond software, then being exploited for profit. i am disappointed that a 1993 beemer was the best they could do vehicle wise. what do gates and ballmer drive?
  • ..... Is the botnet that he created and sold access to still around? Is it still a potential threat?

    TFA isn't clear on this point.
  • Well thank god I just upgraded to AOL 35.0 for broadband, now with Uber anti-hax0r security suite!
  • He was accused of taking advantages of flaws in Microsoft's Windows operating system . . .

    Exactly what portion of liability is Microsoft's? If I were to manufacture and sell any tangible product with so many demonstrable flaws, I would be spending my days making out judgement checks and issuing product recalls.

    Which reminds me . . . has this kind of thing (cracking) ever resulted in a fatality? I would be very interested in seeing how our courts adjudicate a proceeding in which someone has been ki

    • Read the comments above about breaking a home window and filling that home with shit.

      Microsoft has no liability, nor should they.

      • Re: Liability (Score:3, Funny)

        by mmell ( 832646 )
        Poor analogy. A computer OS is not like a pane of glass; it's understood that the glass windows on your house are subject to breaking easily, it's inherent in their nature. You can't say the same thing about Microsoft Wind. . .

        Oh, wait. Never mind.

    • I'm not aware of cracking resulting in a fatality, but I remember reading about people breaking into the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Maybe a safety-critical communication system, e.g. air traffic control, being cracked could result in fatalities.

  • heh (Score:4, Funny)

    by JavaLord ( 680960 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:23PM (#14550070) Journal
    From Page 2 of the pdf:

    ACHETA used the following usernames ...., IamJames85@yahoo.com...

    That must have been a tough catch. Obviously this man is a super hacker.
  • He'd be rich now if he hadn't forgotten this little snippet:

    if (hostname == chinalake.mil ||
            hostname == disa.mil ||
            hostname == *.mil) { /* don't try to exploit this network */

    }
  • 'He hijacked somewhere in the area of half a million computer systems.
    Sure 500,000 PC's is quite a few - but does this really stack up as a MAJOR botnet? I would have thought multiple millions of devices would be involved in the really major league events. No?

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close