Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Worms Security Spam The Internet IT

Anti-US Hacker Takes Credit For Worm 221

Posted by timothy
from the sociopath-with-a-heart-of-gold dept.
angry tapir writes "Credit for the "Here You Have" worm (recently discussed on Slashdot), has been taken by a hacker known as 'Iraq Resistance' who says the worm was designed, in part, as a propaganda tool. He said he had not expected the worm to spread as broadly as it had, and noted that he could have done much more damage to victims. 'I could smash all those infected but I wouldn't,' said the hacker. 'I hope all people understand that I am not negative person!' In other parts of the message, he was critical of the US war in Iraq. For a brief period early the worm accounted for about 10 percent of the spam on the Internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-US Hacker Takes Credit For Worm

Comments Filter:
  • Luddite victims. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jonescb (1888008) on Monday September 13, 2010 @08:15AM (#33559848)
    I can understand his message, but unfortunately this sort of things always backfires. I'm not sure how he thinks a virus is going to convince the super patriotic Luddites who support the war that their beliefs are totally wrong.
    • Re:Luddite victims. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Monday September 13, 2010 @08:26AM (#33559906)
      Backfire, true: It will just be held up as an excuse to Kill Switch the internet [youtube.com], remove anonymous access - China's state media is already calling for teaming up with the US [xinhuanet.com] to remove anonymous internet access. Sure any registration system will be far from a perfect net - full of holes and work around's for the technically adept - but they only have to get the majority to use it and it will be enough to destroy the Internets potential to bring true accountability and openness to our respective governments. Something that our traditional media channels have utterly failed to do [wordpress.com].
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13, 2010 @08:33AM (#33559946)

        Backfire suggests unintended consequences.

        On the contrary, it's been proven that a tiny poke in the Achilles world trade centre, causes the land of the free to implode in a counterproductive, authoritarian cluster fuck.

        It has a certain beauty to it. Much like a slow motion train crash.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          On the contrary, it's been proven that a tiny poke in the Achilles world trade centre, causes the land of the free to implode in a counterproductive, authoritarian cluster fuck

          That may be true, but that wasn't what they wanted to have happen. They wanted the US to remove its armies from muslim lands . It resulted in even more American troops in Muslim lands.

          • by Shompol (1690084) on Monday September 13, 2010 @10:30AM (#33560924)
            You are wrong. Obviously they just wanted to clear some downtown space for a mosque. [humanevents.com] "Remove your armies and bring world peace" act it was not.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by ScrewMaster (602015) *

            Backfire suggests unintended consequences.

            On the contrary, it's been proven that a tiny poke in the Achilles world trade centre, causes the land of the free to implode in a counterproductive, authoritarian cluster fuck.

            That may be true, but that wasn't what they wanted to have happen. They wanted the US to remove its armies from muslim lands . It resulted in even more American troops in Muslim lands.

            Yes. In other words, Al Quaeda's plan backfired, in an (ahem!) Biblical sort of way.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by DrSkwid (118965)

            1991
            Bin Laden says Al-Qaeda main policy is to get US troops out of Saudi

            11th Sep 2001
            Al-Qaeda attack NYC and Pentagon

            29th April 2003
            US announce that virtually all US troops will vacate Suadi Arabia
            http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm [bbc.co.uk]

            May 1 May 2003
            George Bush gives the "Mission Accomplished" speech
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Mission_Accomplished_Speech [wikipedia.org]

            Conspiracy away

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Falconhell (1289630)

            They wanted US troops out of Saudi arabia, and they are out! Sounds like they got what they wanted.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ScrewMaster (602015) *

          a tiny poke in the Achilles world trade centre

          I gather from your smug demeanor and spelling of "centre" that you're not American. Let me ask you something: if someone performed a similar act of mass-murder in your country ... would you consider it as inconsequential? Would it be a "tiny poke"?

          Whether you agree with the direction our government and law enforcement have taken in the years since 9/11 (and I, personally, do not) dismissing the deaths of so many people, of so many nationalities in such a cavalier fashion is decidedly uncivilized.

          Just

          • by lwsimon (724555) <lyndsy@lyndsysimon.com> on Monday September 13, 2010 @12:22PM (#33562166) Homepage Journal
            I'm an American, and I agree with GP.

            On a human scale, 9/11 was a tragedy of epic proportions. It is a day and an act that I will never forget or forgive, period. From the standpoint of a nation of 300 million people, it was a pinprick. The impact of the domestic policy enacted in the wake of 9/11 an order of magnitude larger than that of the work of 12 nutjobs.
            • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Monday September 13, 2010 @01:10PM (#33562792)

              On a human scale, 9/11 was a tragedy of epic proportions. It is a day and an act that I will never forget or forgive, period.

              I agree.

              From the standpoint of a nation of 300 million people, it was a pinprick.

              I agree.

              The impact of the domestic policy enacted in the wake of 9/11 an order of magnitude larger than that of the work of 12 nutjobs.

              I agree, which is why I said, Whether you agree with the direction our government and law enforcement have taken in the years since 9/11 (and I, personally, do not) .

              However, I dislike it when anyone says that twenty-thousand-odd deaths are of little consequence, and the GP's tone was indicative that he felt so because they were Americans.

              More to the point, however, is that you (and many other people, I might add) have this idea that everything bad that's happened since 9/11, regarding overreaching government behavior, is a direct result of 9/11. It was not: 9/11 was an excuse, a rationale, that permitted the Federal Government (certain parts of it, anyway) to re-assume powers it had had taken away from it some time ago.

              Start with the Patriot Act: everything thinks that it just magically appeared in front of Congress right after 9/11. That's a huge document, however, and a lot of thought went into it. Those who put it in front of Congress had it ready, just waiting for the right situation to occur so they could ram it through. And they did. I'll leave it up to you conspiracy types to decide if 9/11 was allowed to happen for just that reason.

              Keep in mind that law enforcement, specifically the FBI, was just as abusive during the early stages of the Cold War as they are now. It got so bad that Congress had to step in and limit their power. And those limits were in place for decades for good reason until the Patriot Act stripped them away. Now we're right back where we were, only worse because they have a hell of a lot more technology at their beck-and-call than they did then.

              Terrorism actually offers much better justification than the Red Scare ever did. There's no overt enemy to point at and say, "there's the bad guy ... get him!" It's just this miasma of fear that can be used to get anything through Congress.

      • by Moryath (553296) on Monday September 13, 2010 @09:04AM (#33560160)

        If China wants to try to kill anonymous access, that's all the more reason our laws should say no logging, no tracking, EVER.

        And fuck the MafiAA and the fascists, who are the only ones who think differently.

        As for traditional media channels - let's face it, they failed us a long time ago. The simpering, fawning "yay Obama" types in 2008 were just the most blatant, but most of the world has seen that kind of behavior for years - chinese media, iranian media, russian pravda, BBC, and pretty much everything else.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)

          If China wants to try to kill anonymous access, that's all the more reason our laws should say no logging, no tracking, EVER.

          That's terrible logic. China has laws against murder, does that mean the USA should have laws requiring you to shoot everyone you see? There are rational arguments against logging and tracking online, we don't need irrational ones.

      • Right. I see *more* rabid ideology on the Internet than I ever saw in the Old Media. We seem more polarized than ever, and I blame the ability of people to go to various ideological sites and sit around in echo chambers while they fine tune their reality distortion fields. And by "we" I mean you lot out there. I discarded ideology decades ago when I realized what a mug's game it was.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by FriendlyLurker (50431)

          I discarded ideology decades ago when I realized what a mug's game it was.

          Sure no problem - but do you really want to discard "news" backed by independently verifiable facts while you were at it? That is all most of the "we" in the "you lot out there" you are referring to want - news along with the source material free of spin... pretty simple really, and nothing to do with ideology. We can all pile our own ideology on top afterward.

          Old Media is mostly echo spin chamber devoid of any verifiable facts - the "polarization" you observe on the internet is the opposite beginning to se

          • Sure no problem - but do you really want to discard "news" backed by independently verifiable facts while you were at it?

            Um, what?

            That is all most of the "we" in the "you lot out there" you are referring to want - news along with the source material free of spin... pretty simple really, and nothing to do with ideology.

            No, that's not at all what I was referring to. I'm no defender of Old Media. Far from it.

            Wow. I don't think it's possible for you to have misread what I said any more than you have. This is some sort of record.

            but this one happens to include more on your point of view that the internet is nothing more than a bunch of rabid ideology.

            I didn't say it was "nothing more" than rabid ideology. You know, that's another problem with people these days- they any comment they see to an illogical extremist strawman POV.

      • by jandersen (462034)

        ... destroy the Internets potential to bring true accountability and openness to our respective governments

        I like your unlimited idealism; I just don't like to be immersed to my neck in the cesspit of SPAM and other duplicity that the internet so uniquely enables.

        Apart from that - what makes you think that anonymity makes it possible to hold governments and big business to account? All this is just a dummy; something to keep potential troublemakers occupied with thundering impotently on their soapboxes instead of organising something more worthwhile.

        The real problem is not "censure", but the complete lack of et

        • I just don't like to be immersed to my neck in the cesspit of SPAM and other duplicity that the internet so uniquely enables.

          The real world has crime - even turning a country into some kind of controlled Stazi state in the name of defending against "crime" will not change that. Most of us are not prepared to live in a police state/baby pen internet under the (fake) pretense of knocking a few percentage points off the crime stats or child porn bogymen population.

          Apart from that - what makes you think that anonymity makes it possible to hold governments and big business to account? All this is just a dummy; something to keep potential troublemakers occupied with thundering impotently on their soapboxes instead of organizing something more worthwhile.

          As for holding governments and big business to account here is one example (Disclaimer: In My Opinion) on an issue that indirectly affects most Americans in a big way :

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ailure (853833)

      If it's even meant to backfire, if there was a group I wanted to discredit I would spread a virus in the name of said group instead of the group I take part.

      I don't believe it's the case in the situation though. Experience tells me that most people don't realize that protesting through destructive means rarely works well...

      • by lgw (121541)

        It's particularly silly in this case, since US involvement in Iraq is already winding down. Somehow I doubt this is someone shouting "and stay out!" after we've already left - it seems much more likely an excuse invented after the fact (by the actual author, or as you mention, a Joe-job).

    • by lxs (131946)

      Wasn't the 'plan Colombia' worm designed to do the same? Didn't work a decade ago and it doesn't work now. Unless it's a false flag operation.

    • by umghhh (965931)
      why cannot we bomb the guy out of existence? Ohh wait - have we not tried to do just this for few last years? Ohhhhh.....
      • why cannot we bomb the guy out of existence? Ohh wait - have we not tried to do just this for few last years? Ohhhhh.....

        Sure, but then people get all riled up about "collateral damage". Just send in a hit squad to "disappear" the bastard. Do that enough times, and you might have an effective deterrent. Matter of fact, I understand the Mossad has some experience with that, so long as we don't insist they use Blackberries.

    • by feepness (543479)

      I can understand his message, but unfortunately this sort of things always backfires. I'm not sure how he thinks a virus is going to convince the super patriotic Luddites who support the war that their beliefs are totally wrong.

      You guys need to keep up on current events. The war in Iraq has officially been over for nearly two weeks!!!! Mission accomplished!

      Of course, we're still in a state of national emergency [whitehouse.gov].

  • "Anti-US" Hacker? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by geminidomino (614729)

    Where do they get that? Plenty of Americans with functioning synapses say the same damn thing about the Iraq Clusterfuck, and Terry Jones *IS* a fucking troglodyte.

    I mean, okay... There's not really any excuse for releasing malicious code on anyone, so he gets no pass there. But if the only communication from him and info about him is from that video... shit, he addresses "Americans" more rationally then the two sides of the idiot aisle do each other.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by interkin3tic (1469267)

      From TFA:

      SecureWorks Researcher Joe Stewart believes that Iraq Defense is a Libyan hacker who is trying to gain followers for a cyber jihad hacking group called Brigades of Tariq ibn Ziyad.

      It definitely sounds tenuous, my first thought was this was some bored kid in suburbia who accidentally caused some damage and was trying to throw off the trail. It sounds though like Robert McMillian of PC world is convinced. Stewart's article is a little more skeptical about that group being the actual perpetrator, bu

    • by gad_zuki! (70830)

      >Plenty of Americans with functioning synapses say the same damn thing about the Iraq Clusterfuck, and Terry Jones *IS* a fucking troglodyte.

      Pardon me, but my memory of 2003 is pretty good. Plenty of Americans were chomping at the bit to start a war they couldn't afford for reasons based on intel that was obviously massaged. I remember almost zero skepticism about this. Tthe US's view on Islam is pretty low, to the point where we are having a national discourse on why you can't build mosques in certain

      • Pardon me, but my memory of 2003 is pretty good. Plenty of Americans were chomping at the bit to start a war they couldn't afford for reasons based on intel that was obviously massaged.

        It's not 2003 anymore. Many of us know better now, and being against the stupidity over there is only "Anti-US" in the tiny, deranged minds of the furthest of far-right wingnuts. Even the mainstream right has laid off the "Unpatriotic" bullshit lately.

        Please don't make the US out to be this enlightened culture...

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA...

        Don't worry. I would never, EVER do that. I'm just saying that anything in that video to label the guy as an "Anti-US Hacker" requires some SEVERE FoxNews'O'Vision.

        Virus-writing script-kiddie scumbag? Abso-fragging-lutely.

        Anti-US? [Citation Needed]

  • Profiteering (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This guy is just another Spam king Profiteering. He is trying to spin a political message on top of the spam but that's about it.

  • by phantomcircuit (938963) on Monday September 13, 2010 @08:26AM (#33559910) Homepage

    Seriously a bunch of consultants are about to become filthy rich.

    If his plan was to slowly bleed the US to death with enormous security consulting fees, I suspect his plan will be a success.

  • Not negative? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alwin Henseler (640539) on Monday September 13, 2010 @08:32AM (#33559942) Homepage

    Two points:

    1. Writing malware has 0 effect at large, until it's put out into the wild. Once out, damage is done & cannot ever be undone. Yes it might help to increase OS security over time, yes it'll keep anti-virus companies in business, but it's always a net negative for society. Prevention & cleanup takes time. Time that will not be spent on more useful things.
    2. What that malware will do over time & for what other purposes it might be used, will have little (if anything) to do with your original intentions. It's a vehicle, and if it works, others (with a different agenda) will ride that vehicle too.
    • Re:Not negative? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nedlohs (1335013) on Monday September 13, 2010 @08:53AM (#33560106)

      Not necessarily. Active malware tends to get the software producer to fix the bug faster. Hence less damaging malware now, might see the issue fixed before more damaging malware is released - that would be a net positive for society.

      Of course you can never know, all you know is the damage done by the malware that was released.

    • >>>1. Once out, damage is done & cannot ever be undone.
      >>>2. It's a vehicle, and if it works, others (with a different agenda) will ride that vehicle too.

      3. Even if a virus is completely harmless, it can still cause unintended consequences. For example the early Commodore Amiga viruses were just simple things that said, "Hello I am Hacker XYZ." Unfortunately this friendly hacker forgot that his virus would overwrite boot sectors on copy-protected video games and commercial software

  • Worm smash! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Issarlk (1429361) on Monday September 13, 2010 @08:37AM (#33559986)
    "I could smash all those infected but I wouldn't..."

    I personnaly find it _amazing_ that none of the worm writer so far used them to destroy the computers. Really, that must be tempting, isn't it? Hundred of thousands of computer that you wipe with the push of a button.
    • If you have control over that many computers, there are far more interesting/lucrative things you can do than just wiping them all.
    • by Zironic (1112127)

      For one the worm wouldn't spread very far if you did that, for another you'd get the international police after you for gargantuan damage penalties that you wouldn't be able to pay of in your entire life.

      • For one the worm wouldn't spread very far if you did that,

        It only takes a few days to propagate around the Internet. The kill can be time-delayed to occur a month after release and it will cause significant damage. for another you'd get the international police after you for gargantuan damage penalties that you wouldn't be able to pay of in your entire life.

        If they can find you, you'll be in prison anyway, so not much of a disincentive.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bsDaemon (87307)

      Yeah, but then you lose your spam net. He may not be a "negative person," but his positive attitude creating 10% of all spam on the net over a period of time isn't exactly a charitable gesture. But then, I think spammers are worse than terrorists.

      • by wvmarle (1070040)

        I wonder about this 10%-of-all-spam claim. I haven't seen this worm. I haven't seen any increase in spams that I receive over the last few days.

        And I should have seen a serious increase as this worm spreads through Outlook, using proper smtp servers, which will pass through my greylisting (>90% of spam is stopped that way already). And as I'm doing business with dozens of companies all over the world, and possibly hundreds have my e-mail address in some address book or so, it's surprising to simply not

    • But then you wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of computers to play and that would be no fun/not profitable.

    • by jeffmeden (135043)

      Those looking at this from a long term perspective wish he would smash them already! Seriously, nothing sends a message of "you better learn how to use your f****** computer" like waking up one day, turning it on, and finding it completely wiped of everything. I had that experience when I was about 13, and have been extremely vigilant against malware (and malware-free) ever since. As it is, all those computers are spewing spam and infections out and the operator will probably never know.

      • >>>nothing sends a message [than] finding it completely wiped of everything.

        Yep. Likewise we should sabotage people's tires so they go "pop" after they pass 55mph, and leave them stranded along the highway. Nothing teaches a person how to change his own tire (and remember to inflate the spare) faster than a broken down car.

        /end sarcasm

        Stop being a dick. WANTING people to have their computer wiped and precious data lost makes you no better than a grumpy old man ("get off my lawn you stupid brats

        • by phillymjs (234426)

          Besides most of them are running Microsoft antivirus software by default.

          [citation needed]

          I'd be more inclined to think that most of them are running [the possibly expired trial version of] whatever came preloaded on their machine when they bought it, which most certainly would NOT be Microsoft Security Essentials, lest the antivirus vendors go crying monopoly.

          In any case, antivirus software did not help. I know of at least one large company with very well locked down machines and a very well locked down ne

          • Good point. When I bought my Win7 machine it had MS Security enabled by default, but my brother's had stupid McAfee with an annoying opup window asking for money.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      I find it unfortunate. That's the ONLY thing which will force lusers and PHBs to take security seriously because, unlike merely parasitic malware, a nuked system isn't fun to play with any more. A fish can still swim with a lamprey attached.

      FFS start breaking shit so we build more immunity.

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      Botnet creators sell to the highest bidders. They normally sell their services, but I bet if the price is right they will sell the master keys (passwords, update codes, whatever) too.

      What is an enemy organisation or country stopping from trying to buy such keys? How about the US and China would manage to start a war (or slightly less unlikely China and Japan), then one of them would track down the creators of say Storm or Conficker or whatever is today's major botnet, and buy the master keys for maybe half

  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Monday September 13, 2010 @08:41AM (#33560016) Homepage Journal
    If his payload was something *OTHER* than spam I might be more inclined to believe him, but delivering spam to people usually also involves delivering money to his bank account. He is just looking for a nobler purpose to game some "cred" I guess, and opposing the Iraq war in the cracker community is 99% of the time a pretty safe bet.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    This guy sounds like a drunk I saw getting arrested at a club recently. He tried to throw a punch at a bartender, got tackled by club security, then started screaming that he deliberately didn't hit hard or wasn't trying to aim accurately as he was being held down for the local police to haul him off.

    This worm writer was too incompetent to actually have done more damage. I'm sure he was trying to, but because IT people and AV makers reacted to it in a fairly short amount of time, he is just excusing it as

  • by geekmux (1040042) on Monday September 13, 2010 @08:46AM (#33560054)

    "He said he had not expected the worm to spread as broadly as it had..."

    Gee, we've never heard that one before...

    At one point it accounted for 10% of the world's spam, but "I'm not negative person!"

    Yeah, I guess he's right. There's a difference between a "negative" person and an idiot.

  • by couchslug (175151) on Monday September 13, 2010 @09:48AM (#33560508)

    Certainly any such story on /. should point out the affected operating systems...

    • by bartwol (117819)

      Certainly any such story on /. should point out the affected operating systems...

      ...and the hacker's religion, too (especially if he's a Muslim).

  • I'm not a burglar either - I was just breaking into your house and messing it up to show you how unsecure the locks are.

  • by wealthychef (584778) on Monday September 13, 2010 @10:45AM (#33561052)
    Just because the worm author makes statements agains the US war in Iraq and calls himself "Iraqi resistance" does not mean he is anti-US. I too am agains the war in Iraq. Is it possible to disagree with US foreign policy and not be accused of being a traitor? Yes, I know he crossed a line making a (fairly harmless) worm, but this guy sounds as much aligned with US interests as most beer-swilling, harley-riding, pit bull owning flag wavers.
    • by Shotgun (30919)

      Is it possible to disagree with US foreign policy and not be accused of being a traitor?

      No. Ron Paul suggested we bring our troops home from foreign bases and let those countries pay for their own defenses. He was derided and laughed at for the very suggestion.

      • by lwsimon (724555)
        Not by all of us. I think Paul wants to do things far too quickly, but I generally agree with his desired state.
  • Time to grow up (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Citizen of Earth (569446) on Monday September 13, 2010 @12:37PM (#33562368)
    I wish these pussies would stop fooling around. They need to make their worms destroy all data on every computer they touch. This is the only way that anyone will ever take security seriously, including Microsoft.

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of. -- John D. Rockefeller

Working...