Printable View
-- Although nearly 63,000 viruses have rolled through the Internet, causing an estimated $65 billion in damage, criminal prosecutions have been few, penalties light and just a handful of people have gone to prison for spreading the destructive bugs.--
To read more http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/interne....ap/index.html
They should do some time because they have either written or modified the virus that has caused companies and people data loss,down time and loss of revenue. paying a fine is only half of it the other half should be sitting in a jail cell thinking about what damage they have caused and hopefully change their ways.
That kind of power is hard to just throw away and walk away from.
The pirates and pirated goods are hard to give up for many because when you get things for free, why buy it? Some that come to mind are some people I know that have hundreds of pirated programs they never use, but have them anyway.
The same goes for defacing. It's like a drug. You get into it and it's very difficult to shake it off. I have personally talked with former defacers that simply cannot help but to still dabble in it or simply fall full swing into it again. I find it sad, but I also understand the compulsion.
The same is true for virii. With a programming language you have a lot of power and there lies a certain responsibility not to abuse that power. With assembler, you have total control over every aspect of your computer right down to where an instruction will go in a register to a location on memory. That kind of power is intoxicating and very, very difficult to give up.
Will jail time change minds? I doubt it. It takes the person to actually look within themselves to make a positive change and use that knowledge for something useful, which unfortunatley does not always happen.
Lastly, it is difficult to find the origin of a virus, and even tougher to find a savvy enough jury to convict or not convict.
That is very true but I do believe that doing some time will hopefully change their ways to do postive things instead of creating problems that do nothing but waste peoples valuable time and resources.
I agree with all of you on all the points made but there is another thing to consider. Not all writers are trying to do something inherently malicious. Consider the writer of "Welchia" who was really trying to eliminate the "Blaster" worm or Robert Morris who's program was intended to shut-down stale processes on his internal network. In _some_ cases the writer intended no harm (very hard to subjectively show) and was just as shocked when the news broke about their program taking networks down.
I think something should be done for those writing malware strictly for the sake of wreaking havoc but how do you distinguish between the two?
I agree with Roadkill.
How do you prove intent? Don't get me wrong, worm writer's (even if they mod'ed an existing worm) need to see the consequences of their actions, but how?
It is a very delicate topic IMHO....
R.
The only way that comes to mind is to either look over the source code or test it out on a closed network that is not connected to the internet and view the results. That should be enough to make a judgement on which side the code belongs to. and I do agree with you that a very few virus writer's don't have a malicious intent to damage other peoples data their curiosity gets the best of them.
Would the source code necessarliy prove what hat the writer is wearing? There are many who would say the Morris was trying to knock out the internet but he maintains he was just writing a tape worm to clear his network of a problem.
The LoveLetter author swears (don't they all) that he wrote the worm because he was angry with a girlfriend but he only meant it for his school network (yeah - right!).
My point - albeit as a devil's advocate - is that even looking at the source may not always be conclusive. Things like code red are fairly obvious since it showed intent to run a DDoS on the whitehouse network.
:( the sad thing is most virii's these days are 85% script kiddies. And their not all that dum. Vary rarely does a MAJOR virii creator get caught(not including the fat kid from blaster ;) ) so everyone just makes "virii 's and walks". ah who cares a network down crashes some inoccent guys PC who cares right? and thats all they think.........
juts my opinion.......
CYPHERDIAS
I think if the payload is destructive to the point where it deletes data and does a DoS on servers then it should be a black hat (I do know that all black hats are not out to destroy data or do DoS attacks) If the virus is just being a pain in the ass as a example moving the mouse pointer icon around opening and shutting the cd tray just for laughs and after awhile it tells you how to remove it from the system then it should be considered a grey or white hat.And creating a virus for windows has become so easy now that it requires no programming skill to make one Just point cllick and type in a few words and bam new virus. now for linux and freebsd you do have to know programing language.
Good point DA, would you then logically assume it is either A) the level of the payload's intervention in the infected system or B) the programming language level that would determine the threat posed by a particular malware?
I'm not jerkin' yer chain, I am seriously curious because this has been a pet project of mine for a few years. If anyone knows of a VERY serious math-magician who can handle comples probabilities and calculations that border on the insane I would seriously like to talk with them - PM or e-mail me about it for more.
Back on topic. What truly defines the actual "threat" of a malware? And futher, what would decide the intent? I am drawing a conclusion that it is really based on how intrusive the malware becomes. Is this a wrong assumption? We already know the idea of a malware causing actual damage is out of reach (for now...) but damage defined as loss of time, data, service, etc. Would a damaging program alone demonstrate intent and therefore show that the writer is more deserving a punishment?
There are so many other areas we could get into but I will stop to stay on topic.
Regards
Well everyone has a different point of view of everything. and to answer your question I would have to say A Now I am no expert when it comes to creating viruses but If someone is smart enough to write or modify one then they should have enough common sense to unplug the Network or phone line from their computer to prevent it from being released. If the virus was released intentionally to the public and it did millions of dollars worth of damage then that should be enough to determine if they should have a hard sentence
"Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years! "
the same can be said for virus writers.....virii writers....repent or burn!!!!!! Just kidding....i am a Buddhist.....out
Having read this thread, and seeing some good points, I do wish to clarify a few things. These are my opinions, of course.
1 - virii writers, regardless of intent, should serve time. I don't care if someone's mad at their girlfriend, I don't care if they're trying to stop an internal network problem, I don't care if they're trying to shutdown stale procs...none of that matters because if you're smart enough to write something that can do that yet DUMB enough to FORGET possible avenues of escape (what if the machine you're attempting to do whatever is the DMZ or the only one allowed to the outside world?), then that tells me that proper programming techniques have not been applied or learned and further, that tells me more about the person who programmed whatever. To write something because you're mad at a girlfriend? Are you STUPID?! The kid who modified the blaster worm is DEFINITELY stupid for even WANTING to put his "work of art" out there. The list goes on. If you can't manage your anger or if you're so cocky or so desparate for attention of any kind, then guess what, you're going through what everyone else goes through at some point in their life and if I, and others, can deal with it accordingly, so can you.
2 - black/grey/white hats. A black hat, IMHO, is definitely someone who wants to destroy data, delete things, bring down networks, etc etc. Wanton destruction of someone else's personal data or a corporation's intellectual data/network grid. They don't care what damage they do because they know it's going to be done and it's 100% intentional. They're the equivalent of someone coming to work with a gun and shooting people, only it's dealing with data, networks, etc. A grey hat is someone who does something bad for a good cause. Prime example would be when a friend's linux box got hijacked (rooted) and he asked me for help. I openly told him I would probably have to get into said box illegaly to which he said "No problems, just get it back". So, I break the "law" and root his box the same way. Once I got in, I ganked the two guys on it after storing syslogs and fixed the hole they came in on, patched the whole box, and locked the box down. Only after I had done everything I could did I return ownership to my friend, who was more than grateful. But, if you look at it, I did just as much a bad thing as they did, breaking into a machine not mine, however, it was for a good cause and the owner knew about it. That situation qualifies me as a grey hat however, I'm a white hat by nature. White hats are those who are out to stop the bad guys, the ones who help in all situations by doing the right thing, and educate others how to protect themselves and pass on knowledge so that the userbase becomes that much more intelligent. I'd rather tell someone how to secure their network and internet connection rather than tell someone "how to hack hotmail". I don't even bother with such drivel. I don't write viruses. In fact, I've never written a virus and wouldn't know where to start. I do know how to exploit various windows holes but I don't because A: it's illegal and B: I'd rather educate myself and others on doing better things than piddly "oooo I made someone's machine freeze", etc...
Bottom line, a black hat writes a virus not caring what happens, a grey hat writes another program to kill off said virus and lets it loose into the wilds, and a white hat is running emergency fire control because both are on his/her networks...
PS - these are my opinions and are subject to being disagreed with, hehe...