Researchers Hijack Mebroot Botnet, Study Drive-By Downloads 130
TechReviewAl writes "Researchers at the University of California at Santa Barbara hijacked the Mebroot botnet for about a month and used it to study drive-by downloading. The researchers managed to intercept Mebroot communications by reverse-engineering the algorithm used to select domains to connect to. Mebroot infects legitimate websites and uses them to redirect users to malicious sites that attempt to install malware on a victim's machine. The team, who previously infiltrated the Torpig botnet, found that at least 13.3 percent of systems that were redirected by Mebroot were already infected and 70 percent were vulnerable to about 40 common attacks."
Re:arrest them (Score:5, Insightful)
so universities can break the law but common criminals can't? remind's me of nazi/japanese experiments on humans in the name of 'science'.
Really? Intercepting a botnet reminds you of experiments leading to the deaths and suffering of thousands of helpless adults and children? No I see your point, exactly the same thing.
Re:Like stealing illicit drugs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Like stealing illicit drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Strikes me that this is a "crime" somewhat akin to stealing money from a drug dealer. Sure, I guess you are doing something "illegal" since it's not your money, but it's not like the drug dealer is going to report you to the police...
Announcing this activity publicly doesn't strike me as particularly prudent, even if it is valuable information...
Not even that. There is absolutely no personal gain for them in this. Even stealing the money has a gain and this experiment neither hurts nor benefits anybody. It's a completely neutral act not to be trolled into some nonsensical paralell about murder or theft.
Re:Like stealing illicit drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Karma at it's finest (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:arrest them (Score:5, Insightful)
so universities can break the law
They broke the law? Citation needed.
Oh wait... you didn't even RTFA.
Re:Great idea, narrowly averted (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Like stealing illicit drugs? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more like a private investigation of a crime , finding proof and then making it public.
This is something journalists do all the time.
Re:Great idea, narrowly averted (Score:4, Insightful)
Rob Zombiemaster is robbing a bank. During the robbery, in a failed attempt to stop it, a guard shoots and misses Zombiemaster and hits the bank president in the head, killing him instantly, but also causing him to drop his cigarette into some flammable solvent someone was working with in the vicinity. The bank goes up in flames and burns down the whole block, killing everyone except Rob Zombiemaster and the guard. Zombiemaster escapes clean, with the money, and never killed anyone. The guard tells the authorities the tragic truth about his actions.
With whom does the liability for this catastrophe lay? With the guard? He did kill his boss and everyone on the block except the robber, so that's a reasonable assumption, though wrong. The liability for the deaths and property destruction still rests squarely on the shoulders of the wily Rob Zombiemaster, who, upon capture, will promptly be charged with multiple counts of murder long before he's charged with mere bank robbery. The guard gets off scott free.
Those lawyers sound more like lazy CIO's, but with no law degree, and less balls.
Re:Great idea, narrowly averted (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This could be avoided. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Like stealing illicit drugs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Without the details of their research methodology at hand, you have no basis for claiming they might have committed a crime.
Maybe if/when they publish their paper, you can reasonably assess that, not until then.