Microsoft Conducts Massive Botnet Takedown Action 302
h4rm0ny writes "Microsoft, in cooperation with Federal agents, conducted what the Wall Street Journal described as 'sweeping legal attacks' as they entered facilities in Kansas City, Scranton, Pa, Denver, Dallas, Chicago, Seattle and Columbus, Ohio to seize alleged 'command and control' machines for the Rustock botnet — described as the largest source of spam in the world. The operation is intended to 'decapitate' the botnet, preventing the seized machines from sending orders to suborned PCs around the world."
Microsoft helps the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's not really Microsoft's problem, but they still help to solve it."
Wiki says: The Rustock botnet (founded around 2006) is a botnet that consists of an estimated 150,000 computers running Microsoft Windows.
It could be suggested that, at some level, it *IS* a Microsoft problem, in the same way that it would be Nintendo's problem if everyone's Wii suddenly started joining a botnet. Yeah, partly the user and partly the malware author, but also quite a bit the OS insecurity too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft helps the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
What MS really need to do is educate people - instead of an intimidating dialogue that says "DO YOU WANT TO ALLOW THIS YES | NO" there needs to be an explanation of the consequences.
If they don't care, they don't read it. For those people, any kind of message box is in the way of them getting to what they wanted to do and thus they click on YES just to get rid of the it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you really want is some sort of puzzle - a CAPTCHA like dialog that pops up, with detailed warnings and a multiple choice (non-yes/no) input requirement so you can't just click-thru without thinking...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft helps the internet (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
See Episode 2
Re:Microsoft helps the internet (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that you can have as much security as you want, but there'll still always be people who click yes to every message box because they want... I dunno, whatever the craze is these days. 100 free animated cursors or whatever. It's not the fault of people like us, who would know how to spot a botnet, it's the fault of people that don't know, and don't care. The same would happen on *nix if you had huge quantities of people who would give anything and everything root just because it asked. What MS really need to do is educate people - instead of an intimidating dialogue that says "DO YOU WANT TO ALLOW THIS YES | NO" there needs to be an explanation of the consequences.
Actually, my parents and my neighbor are all all of the ilk that click yes to everything. They constantly infected their machines until I installed Linux for them (I used the Vista is crap FUD wars in my favor). The UI difference between XP and Win7 or Vista is somewhat similar to the difference they encountered on Linux, and there are FOSS replacements for all of the things they need to do: Email, Web, music & video, simple games, Create / Open documents & PDFs (Open office actually opens a few of my mom's MS docs that MS Office wouldn't, and the OS's print to file:PDF is a brilliant built in feature.)
My neighbor (a 75yr old retired mechanic) has actually commented that he finds the Linux OS prompt dialogs easier to understand & more informative.
Windows: User Account Control stops unauthorized access to your computer. If you started this action, continue. ____(Program/Action)____
____(Publisher)____
Linux: To install or remove software, you need to authenticate. (An application is attempting to perform an anction that requires privileges. Authentication is required to perform this action.
Password: ____
(click here for details)
Action: ___
Vendor: ____
He has less problems using Linux (shaky hands -- Gnome has drag & drop threshold, no more accidental file copy or moves).
The yes-clickers still click yes to everything, they have tons of software installed from the repositories that they don't really need, just because they never uninstall things after they try them. They have yet to contract a virus. Theoretically they are still at risk, and if the Linux using crowd becomes a large enough target, we may see more viruses in Linux (this theory has yet to be proven, and fails to consider that, unlike Windows, Linux has many different distributions and a better update policy).
However, right now, Windows is the only OS that has rampant malware problems. If you are concerned with the rampant virus problem, it would be wise to not willfully expose yourself to it by not using the only OS brand with such a problem... It seems like a simple solution, UI difference FUD & incompatible application FUD be damned; I've found that most people who actually give desktop distros of Linux an earnest try have no more problems than people upgrading from XP to Win7.
Yes, there are people who must use some program that just doesn't have a FOSS replacement or run well in WINE -- These people are not the average user that has been trained to clicks yes to everything and hosts botnets.
Re: (Score:3)
Your absoulutely right, and hostages are at fault for being in that bank at that time. Of course the bank robbers don't have anything to do with it. Thats their job, they are just part of nature. The hostages should have been carrying guns, trained for years in martial arts and been wearing armored vests and carrying secure military style communcations systems, driving hum vee's with automatic weapons on them to protect against the threats in their neighborhood bank.
I think this is a good analogy to the env
Re:Microsoft helps the internet (Score:4, Interesting)
there'll still always be people who click yes to every message box because they want
I'm not a network admin, but sometimes I wonder if the place to trap this is upstream at the ISP - So if my mum's box is a bot it doesn't matter (other than the slowdown) because the "bad" traffic from her machine is stopped at the ISP?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Microsoft helps the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you secure an OS against users who click "yes"?
Windows is already a total pain in the butt trying to nanny/protect people but it's made no difference whatsoever to the amount of spam arriving here.
Re:Microsoft helps the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Make cut down systems with limited functions aimed at end users (eg ipad), this will serve end users much better since they no longer have to worry about the complexity of a general purpose os...
Advanced users can still use more complex computers, on the basis that advanced users are far less likely to fall for social engineering tricks, you don't see many such attacks aimed at people using a cli based unix system.
Too true (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing happened with cars; when they were rare and and expensive, the people who bought them either employed someone to drive them or were sufficiently interested to learn to do it properly themselves. When the mass market really took off, driving licences followed, along with compulsory insurance. But, at the same time, the "user interface" got simplified and standardised.
The iPad, or a laptop equivalent, is what most people actually want. But Microsoft's entire consumer business model is currently based around not giving it to them. It looks as if we are going to have to rely (currently) on Apple, HP and perhaps Motorola to come up with a reasonably secure solution to letting the monkeys into the banana plantation, since most of us are never going to be in a position to force them to use Windows 7 with a non-Administrator account.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Vast majority of users are stupid, because they fall for the same tricks over and over and over again.
Is someone who crashes their car while texting stupid? Not necessarily.
If, after getting into an accident because of texting, they continue to text while driving? Then I have to question their intelligence.
Face it...computers are no longer just an interest. Anybody who uses a computer for more than 5 hours a week should be competent enough to avoid the vast majority of attacks. The fact that
Re: (Score:2)
These people are not stupid, they just have interests other than computers.
Agreed. Computer enthusiasts forget how much effort went into learning how to interface with computers without problems. Unfortunately, when you try to explain it to someone who doesn't want to spend months or years learning, an endless stream of "All you have to is A, all you have to do is B, all you have to do is C" for the simplest concepts is a source of frustration.
The biggest problem, I imagine, is that when they ask for assistance, they aren't wanting or attempting to learn something complex, they'
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen people who got infected from an e-mail, with a password protected zip file. They had to copy the file, open it, enter the password, then run the file in there, then click through UAC, then got infected.
There is no level of technical protection that can protect that user.
Re:Too true (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely agree. For the great majority of users, computers have become just too complicated and confusing to operate, and the great majority of users are also stupid. Microsoft is part of the problem because, in its effort to gain consumer market share, it has just allowed those users to do far too much, in ignorance.
The same thing happened with cars; when they were rare and and expensive, the people who bought them either employed someone to drive them or were sufficiently interested to learn to do it properly themselves. When the mass market really took off, driving licences followed, along with compulsory insurance. But, at the same time, the "user interface" got simplified and standardised.
The iPad, or a laptop equivalent, is what most people actually want. But Microsoft's entire consumer business model is currently based around not giving it to them. It looks as if we are going to have to rely (currently) on Apple, HP and perhaps Motorola to come up with a reasonably secure solution to letting the monkeys into the banana plantation, since most of us are never going to be in a position to force them to use Windows 7 with a non-Administrator account.
I call BS. Anytime MS even tries to look at that route, Slashdot screams bloody murder.
Read the comments:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/16/2259257 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/story/08/07/30/204241/Dual-Boot-Not-Trusted-Rejected-By-Vista-SP1 [slashdot.org]
And the iPad comes with a 30% tax on developers and services like Netflix which they or users have to pay. Do you want a future where companies can reject their competitors' apps 'just because' ? See what happened to Google Voice on the app store, and how an Android magazine app was banned. Do you really want to go that route? There would be no Firefox or Chrome, or even podcast players for 'duplicating functionality' because that would confuse users.
Re: (Score:3)
And developers don't have to pay anything for the bandwidth to have their app downloaded; nor do they have to with companies like Digital River and pay them a percentage of sales; nor do they have to try to get into various distribution channels since they're included in the now de-facto standard distribution channel for all Macs. Developers are getting something in return for that 30%. Also, for free apps, 30% of $0 is $0.
Re: (Score:2)
And developers don't have to pay anything for the bandwidth to have their app downloaded; nor do they have to with companies like Digital River and pay them a percentage of sales; nor do they have to try to get into various distribution channels since they're included in the now de-facto standard distribution channel for all Macs. Developers are getting something in return for that 30%. Also, for free apps, 30% of $0 is $0.
Your point would be more valid if it was an optional thing instead of forced. Then people would've gone to the best choice.If Digital River changed to take only 10%, some developers might go there putting pressure on Apple. But there's nothing of that sort allowed.
And maybe you missed the latest news ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021902399.html [washingtonpost.com]
They provide nothing of what you said for in app subscriptions(except exposure), but they still want a 30% cut of revenue. Yo
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. People keep spouting such untruths that it's increditble.
The 30% tax applies only on on-device subscriptions. How they generalize "I subscribe to service on my iDevice" to "I subscribe to service" is... incredible.
If you subscribe to Netflix via the iDevice app then yes, Apple takes their 30% cut, as Apple brought you a subscriber. Think of it as a referral fee.
If you subscribe to Netflix via the
Re:Too true (Score:5, Insightful)
For the great majority of users, computers have become just too complicated and confusing to operate,
I think a part of that is people just don't accept that they have to learn how to use a computer. If they actually accepted that maybe they couldn't just sit in front of this complicated piece of equipment and magically do everything, then perhaps they'd take a few moments to think or read about it and then it wouldn't be so complicated and confusing to them.
...person... and their inane comments of "oh, I'm so bad at computers", I made the mistake of pointing out the Help option in Word and saying: "you know, there's documentation on this. It would be worth taking an hour to read through it all.". Instant snappy nastiness ensued. I seemed to have called them a liar when they said that they were bad with computers and somehow implied that it was their fault. Goodness me! How dare I?
There was someone extremely irritating at a place I worked some years ago, who asked me to help them line up the paragraphs in Word (some older version than the latest). After helpfully pressing a few buttons to line things up on the left again, accompanied by the cooing wonder of this
If someone who uses Word every working day of their life can't be bothered to spend an hour (less, really) reading through a little bit of documentation or a tutorial, then what hope is there? Must we all suffer from locked down, dumbed down systems because some people expect everything in life to be super-easy?
I see the point you're making. I fully understand it. But those of us who actually use our brains despise a looming future in a world where we're not able to because some people might injure themselves if they tried.
Re: (Score:2)
This is on Vista or Windows 7? Most of those issues should be fixed in Vista.
If you're still running XP, you should check out the MakeMeAdmin [msdn.com] script. It makes this *way* easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could make a cut down system with limited functions aimed at end users (eg Android) and advanced users can use the same operating system and run applications directly on the kernel to do heavy lifting via the NDK.
There is absolutely no reason for an either-or approach. Much of the stuff that goes into an enterprise-grade, server-class operating system is useful on a handheld, too... which is why neither iOS nor Android involved a kernel-writing project, only modifications to an existing, mature piece
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that Android is the best example of a secure operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
The attacks generally arrive through Java, or Flash, or PDF, and are in many ways browser and OS agnostic; they simply have to be tweaked to run on a different OS. The only thing saving you in that CLI scenario is the fact that Lynx doesnt have a PDF or flash plugin.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't give them the option to click Yes to incredibly stupid things like "Run this program every time I start my computer, with no easy way to monitor it or stop it from loading" (the latest one I've seen is viruses that replace the user's shell value in the registry - somewhere not listed in startup lists - and then re-execute explorer).
Or "Allow this program to spam the hell out of everyone with no controls on what they are doing on the Internet on SMTP ports and whatever it likes, as much as it likes, wi
Re: (Score:2)
Clicking yes isnt the problem. If a virus is prompting you to do things, most malware authors will not release it. The good ones you see in the wild exploit browser plugins and then check their permissions-- if they are admin, they rootkit, of they are a normal user they install userland junk. No UAC prompt is ever triggered, nor is there a "are you sure you want to run" box-- the code is already running.
All this armchair discussion on how to fix the virus issue is wonderful, but one suspects that most p
Re: (Score:2)
Make it easier to say No, for example by requiring a password to install it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if you're not running an admin account, Win 7 will ask for the admin account password for anything that gets a UAC prompt. I know this because the demo machines are work are secured suchly, and the box has popped up with password requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, hilariously, it asks for a password even if one isn't set up. Found out the fun way when I needed to install something on a computer, and the password didn't work on the prompt. After contacting the tech-in-charge to double-check the password, I tried logging on to the admin account, and it went right in without asking for a password. Pointed out to TIC when he got in that he'd missed the password on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
This can be reconfigured to prompt for a password. I have no idea why it isn't by default.
Of course, finding this setting is a pain... you have to run secpol.msc (msc files open Microsoft's Management Console) and find the entry named "User Account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt for administrators in Admin Approval
Re: (Score:3)
The only difference is that most Linux distros will ask you to enter your password and click OK, whilst Windows 7 will display a big yellow-topped box and just ask you if you're sure.
Only if you're already running as Admin.
If you're really concerned about security, you should be running a normal User account, and then UAC will ask for a password to perform administrative tasks.
I believe that setup is identical in every OS-- I haven't tried every Linux, but Windows Vista/7 and OS X certainly behave the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Microsoft helps the internet (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, partly the user and partly the malware author, but also quite a bit the OS insecurity too.
But... it's not "partly" the user, it's like 80% the user. And "OS insecurity" is more often insecurity in Adobe or JavaVM or QuickTime than it is in Windows itself. (Although there is some Windows in there, admittedly.)
So, I agree with the OP here. If it was a fair world, every software vendor on Windows whose software was full of security holes should be helping out with this... Adobe is responsible for a lot more attacks than Microsoft has been in the last decade. It's been a long while since Microsoft was the main cause of the problem.
Re:Microsoft helps the internet (Score:4, Informative)
OS insecurity has very little to do with it. Make 'rootkit_and_sendspam.sh' and run it from a Linux box, it will work just as well. Whats that, gksu will prompt you if you really want to do that? IIRC Vista and seven do as well, and if people actually followed Microsoft's best practices for XP, youd get a runas prompt on that as well.
In 5 years, the story will be about Apple viruses; that doesnt mean Unix is insecure (though it may indeed be because of Adobe flaws).
Re: (Score:2)
Because no virus in the world would disable automatic updates once it had infected a machine via a method that had not yet been detected and patched in a monthly update.
And automatic updates do not save you for the MONTH before that tool is updated. By which time, you're already dead.
And automatic updates, especially around SP time, is a good way to end up with several machines that are dead or in a bluescreen loop (has been every since 95 and 7 SP1 is still doing the same).
And automatic updates do NOT sav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It really is Microsoft's problem. The majority of the systems in the compromised botnet are running their software, and since they don't allow their customers to upgrade to Win7 for free, they're still responsible for patching security holes in old systems. If they have in any way made it difficult to apply these updates, or if they're discouraging people from applying these updates (WGA anybody?), then they're directly responsible for the insecurity of these systems.
That they're helping to track and destro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> they're still responsible for patching security holes in old systems.
What security holes in which old systems are unpatched? WGA doesn't stop security updates, MS even provides known pirated machines security. Stop spouting BS.
Re: (Score:2)
>But Vista and 7 offer a better security model with things like UAC. XP has an obviously a very old and flawed security model.
Don't run as Admin on XP...then? Why should MS be forced to backport all new features many of which need faster hardware anyway? They still provide security updates to XP. And they have one of the best backward and forward compatibility track record in the industry, see how quickly Apple drops support for their OS versions, forcing users to pay to run the latest version of the ap
Re:Microsoft helps the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, you cannot change stupid people but you can make it more difficult for their stupidity to be exploited...
Similarly windows 7 may be better than previous versions, but it's no magic bullet and does nothing to remove all the existing old versions out there either...
MS are directly responsible for many insecure design decisions and technologies which make it easier for malware, such things as hiding file extensions by default while relying on file extensions to determine executability, activex, allowing/encouraging users to run with admin privileges by default, having extremely complex network services (msrpc, netbios etc) running by default even on standalone workstations, making it simple to execute email attachments, using obfuscated file formats which make it easier for malicious code to hide, automatically executing programs when removable media is inserted, no centralised way to update third party applications... not to mention an os which is insanely complex and containing years and years worth of cruft giving huge numbers of places for bugs to hide and often making it more difficult to fix them.
Sure, malware would still exist if linux or macos were the most common end user platform, but i don't believe the problem would be as serious as it is with windows.
Re: (Score:3)
Occam's Razor: more likely they're tired of dealing with spam going to Hotmail/Live, and this is an expedient way to reduce it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it says, that "Law Enforcement" does not have the technical abilities nor a direct interest in taking a lead in these sorts of operations.
It also concerns me because the government is turning to corporations to take the lead. This is how corporate entities, like the RIAA and MPAA, gain overwhelming political power to push their agenda. We just get a a government that becomes an extension of a corporations will.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really Microsoft's problem, but they still help to solve it.
Bad engineering isn't their problem? You seem to lack a basic understanding of computers yourself and shouldn't be operating the one you are on. I hereby revoke your license.
Re: (Score:2)
Please acknowledge that Microsoft has a great deal of self-interest in this. It is rarely reported that it's mostly about Windows machines being compromised and such. (Yeah, it's also not frequently mentioned that Adobe products are among the more commonly exploited points of entry into these Windows machined)
There is also a certain responsibility behind having achieved "monopoly" status and maintaining their "critical mass." It's a huge job and Microsoft certainly needs to take it seriously. Government
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft helps the internet (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux marketshare is huge everywhere but the desktop...
Supercomputers - 80-90% linux, who wouldnt want to hack into a top500 supercomputer?
Phones - android linux, iphone running an osx derivative..
Servers - linux is pretty big in the server market, servers make far more attractive targets for hackers since they're usually more powerful and have more bandwidth.
Embedded - linux is pretty big in the embedded market too, lots of networking equipment runs linux, lots of pvr devices too, ip telephony handsets, all kinds of stuff.
In terms of overall installs, i wouldn't be surprised to find that linux actually outnumbers windows quite considerably.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, what makes your bias more acceptable than one that were pro-bias? I think bias is bad generally, but you seem to think a strong anti-Microsoft bias is a good thing which makes it acceptable to dismiss news because it's about a company you don't like doing something good? I'm finding it hard to tell whether you are serious or
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if the shill was right in this case or not - in fact I agree with most of his post (although saying Win7 is as secure as Linux overall (look at the number of infections allowed by IE, and until recently, Autorun), and comparing Linux's to OSX's security, is quite a stretch). But that does not excuse him from being a shill - like I said, look at his post history. I take back nothing I said earlier.
Private Corporations (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when do private corporations get to conduct raids and other police actions?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a kick the door down and handcuff the drug-dealers sort of raid. Its a highly technical and fragile situation; the slightest misunderstood keystroke, unplugged wire etc. could destroy all the evidence they hoped to gather. If you were conducting a raid on a warehouse making bio-weapons instead of cyber-weapons, would you rather
Re: (Score:2)
- "Microsoft officials brought with them a federal court order granting them permission to seize computers"
Sounds like corporatism to me. A hundred years ago in a small country called Italy, it was called a different word, starting with "F".
No (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps you should upgrade your nick to a more modern CPU.
Re: (Score:2)
That all started back in 1997 when slashdotters stopped reading the fucking articles.
You must be new here... (Score:2)
http://www.cultofmac.com/did-apple-order-cops-to-raid-gizmodo-editors-house/40211 [cultofmac.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is probably just providing technical assistants to the Feds doing the raid, and the article and Slashdot summary are very poorly-written. Would be my guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Cooperating on the sidelines is one thing but it is improper to have Microsoft employees actively participating in the execution of a warrant. The proper thing to do would be to have the federal agents seize the computers and then hand them over to Microsoft. The last thing this country needs is for corporations to be given police powers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've done this (gone on a "hacker" bust with the Secret Service). At that time, the feds would serve the warrant, do a lot of documentation (videos, photos, etc.). and the technical consultant would take apart the hardware (under supervision of agents) and do forensics.
It's not like MIcrosoft would bust in doors. Educated guess: They're providing technical know-how that the feds lack.
Re: (Score:2)
*chair flies through the front door*
Ohshit it's STEVE!! Run, everyone! We just have to get outside - he'll get out of breath after 20 metres of monkey skipping!
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
MS wouldn't bust down doors. It's too easy to get in thru teh windowz
Re:Private Corporations (Score:4, Informative)
I'll admit that I haven't read TFA but I don't see any problem with MS (or other companies' employees for that matter) joining the police in the raid to make sure it doesn't turn out like the raid against TPB here in Sweden (where the cops basically raided the datacenter and took pretty much every machine they found, turned out that the vast majority of those machines weren't related to TPB and were in fact owned or rented by various businesses who were not all that happy about the cops being unable to just grab the machines they were looking for).
Re: (Score:2)
There are certainly circumstances where a non law enforcement person is an active part of serving a warrant, and should be. For example, a chemical or explosives expert going along to identify unknown substances in a drug lab or suspected bomb factory raid. I could see a Microsoft employee going along just to identify what machines were capable of running the bot and what peripherals might be capable of storing a copy, so the law enforcement agents didn't seize any business equipment that couldn't possibly
Re: (Score:2)
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! Hey Microsoft, keep up the good work, I look forward to you further aggravating terro.. uh, saving the world!
Re: (Score:2)
That still doesn't give corporations the constitutional authority to conduct their own raids. If they wish to file a civil action against the EULA violation, that is one thing. And then they can get a court order to seize the computers for their own discovery process. The enforcement of the court order, however, should be carried about by law enforcement officials, not by a private security force. After the law enforcement officials seize the computers pursuant to the court order, they can then turn th
Re: (Score:3)
And no one dare give any of the "It's MY PC, I will use it however I choose!" bullshit. The EULA CLEARLY states the contrary.
Are you serious? EULA's don't contradict the laws of the land. If I break the terms of a EULA, then the company can go to the courts to seek redress, but they'd better not try kicking down my door and coming after my computer. In this instance, it's probably a red herring because the Feds probably needed Microsoft's assistance and it was at the Fed's invitation. But your proposal that EULA violations should empower corporations with Super Viglante Powers of Justice is either silly or scary depending on whet
Ummm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scranton? (Score:3)
So that's why Micheal left. He knew the Feds were closing in.
Suborned? (Score:2)
Suborned? Really? I had to look it up. freedictionary says: 1. To induce (a person) to commit an unlawful or evil act.
Was this supposed to be subordinate or simply sub machines?
I prefer minions myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since the control servers which were siezed sent the commands to the zombies which caused them to commit unlawful acts, I think suborned is probably appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Suborned? Really? I had to look it up. freedictionary says: 1. To induce (a person) to commit an unlawful or evil act.
Ahhh, you learned a new word - don't complain! ;)
I don't understand... just follow the money... (Score:2)
All you need to do is actually buy something from spam. Whomever takes the money and where is goes should tell you who did the spamming. Buy stuff from multiple email and triangulate who is doing what. I would think Visa and Mastercard in cooperation with the big banks could track down everyone profiting.
I think it's reasonable cause that if you profit from spam your probably paying for it somehow and should be enough to get your financial records.
Re: (Score:3)
What about the actual bots? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Well its about time... (Score:2)
I guess maybe that now they realize people just wont pay for their updates and patches anymore, and do not care to upgrade, they have not choice but to pro bono this move to help with the spamming situation. I applaud their effort, but did they have to wait so long?
They have the source code to all this, and could have sent this out 10 years ago to all xp pcs....but i guess they think its all about the green backs now don't they.
I guess I can give them points for making the internet that much safer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who "entered" the facilities? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, the idea of Steve Ballmer running into a hosting facility swinging a chair around kinda has me in stitches.
Please say it's true.
And that there's a video.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're a bastard. You should have labeled it "NSFW" or "nudity" rather than than to get people fired off their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you shouldn't be reading /. at work!
Just a thought.
Re: (Score:3)
Only a dumb fuck would say taking down a botnet is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess on leap years, you could get an extra day to go out and not post on Slashdot or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Order the infected computers to attack 127.0.0.1
Re: (Score:2)
Now that they have control of it, can they send the infected computers orders to delete the malware that makes them part of the botnet?
Also, even though that would be a Good Thing, are there legal implications in doing so?
Probably, but who would care?
"Can you re-enable the malware so I can get my spinng cursor back?", clueless grandma ---- IGNORE
"My entire network crashed when you disabled infected computers." , lazy sysadmin ---- FIRE
"Our entire security and defense network crashed", M. Khadaffi ---- DERP
Re: (Score:2)
Identify one of the software architecture flaws in Windows that make it insecure and how would you fix it?
... and we can all do this because Microsoft has made the Windows architecture documentation freely available along with the source code to ensure that the architecture documents are actually correct???