 
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY
1 edit |  Great...
The open source communities (IE Sourceforge) should not allow such crap to enter the internet. | |
|  | | | |
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Re: Great... I meant the legit communities should keep the crapware away from the legit stuff if someone tries to submit a scumware app/source code to SF. | |
| | 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by mrchris  :
The open source communities (IE Sourceforge) should not allow such crap to enter the internet.
Huh? "Open Source Communities" is about as concrete a concept as "users of the internet", and just because I participate in open source doesn't mean that I have anything to do with anybody else who claims to be part of that movement.
There is no central registrar for anything like "open source".
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
| | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| said by mrchris :
The open source communities (IE Sourceforge) should not allow such crap to enter the internet.
The legitimate open source communities have nothing to do with this. It's all underground. Malware writers are simply sharing their source code, so others can use it. This is why there are so many Bagle, Netsky and Mydoom variants.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
| 
Trakker
Danger
Premium
join:2003-01-12
ß
1 edit | And how is this different than using the Internet? I mean back in the day when Wildcat! BBS ruled the world, there was the VCL of any various versions, there were groups like MOD and Legion of Doom, all trading warez and virii code all over the place. It would seem that we now have to tag and qualify "open source" as a movement and label the sharing of any idea or code (good or bad) as opensource...Hey people wake up the Internet was founded on the concept of "open source"
--
»www.cqbarms.com | |
| | toddinpal
join:2002-09-18
Palatine, IL
| Re: And how is this different than using the Internet? said by Trakker :
Hey people wake up the Internet was founded on the concept of "open source"
Sorry, but that's not really accurate. The Internet was founded on the idea that disparate computer systems and networks could be linked together for mutual benefit. Although Stallman probably forged the concept of open source with the Free Software Foundation, that occurred after the Internet and more than a decade past the founding of the Arpanet which preceded the Internet. Also the concept of open source has certainly made the Internet more prevalent than it might have been (thank you Apache!), yet it wasn't a founding concept of the Internet. | |
| | | Urzumph
join:2002-11-06
Australia | Re: And how is this different than using the Inter Open Source != Free software.
Open source came first, yes, the internet was open source (the first browser, the first webserver (IIRC) and all the standards were open), but not Copyleft. | |
| | | | toddinpal
join:2002-09-18
Palatine, IL
| Re: And how is this different than using the Inter Sorry, but the first browser came long after the Internet. The first web browser marked the begining of the World Wide Web, but the Internet itself existed for nearly a decade before that using protocols such as FTP, SMTP, etc. As for Open Source != Free software, it's more like they overlap in more ways than they don't. I can't say which came first as there has been free software for as long as I've been a developer, which makes free software at least 25 years old and that software included source. Open Source now seems to mean software source that is covered by one of several specific set of terms and conditions. | |
| | | | 
sarcastic
@rr.com
| Sarcasm 101 I think open source is bad. If open source helps viruses and spam then open source is bad. We should pass a law to make open source illegal.
And if P2P applications carry open source then they should be illegal too. Now that I think about it, any internet site that carries open source should be blocked by ISP just because some of the open source might be bad.
Open source is bad, M$soft been telling me that for years and I believe them cause they can't be wrong. | |
| | | 
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| Which is why being reactionary is ineffective This adds to my belief that given an almost complete lack of laws and law enforcement, with ISPs hosting whatever, there is no way to win the battle against crackers.
Yes security fiddling with our own computers can be an interesting hobby.
But no, such fiddling on its own will not win the battle against crackers.
Winning, even in the medium term, requires that someone go after the collaborators / conspirators, and put them behind bars for a few years. This would effectively isolate the criminals from one another, slowing down their development.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
| | 
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Re: Which is why being reactionary is ineffective said by keith2468 :
This adds to my belief that given an almost complete lack of laws and law enforcement, with ISPs hosting whatever, there is no way to win the battle against crackers.
Hi Keith...
What you will eventually discover is that there is no way to win the battle against crackers, period, end of story.
Now before you go off, hear me out.
I was once an advocate of licensing ISP's, and I am one. I no longer hold that position. I was once an advocate of banning 802.11b because of the security problems it has created. I no longer hold that position. I was once an advocate of the idea that we could legislate these problems away, but I've seen the legislators screw it up every single time. I no longer hold that legislators can help us much at all.
Here is my reasoning:
The Internet is simply a microcosm. People populate the Internet and they populate the world. In both places there are good people and bad people. In both places the right to privacy has to be balanced against the need of the established authority to be able to locate, arrest, and prosecute, evil people.
It is this balance between the right to privacy and the need to prosecute which creates the gray areas where the bad guys search for new ways to hide and the good guys search for new ways to locate the bad guys. This is the technology race to which you allude. It too, will always be with us.
In some five thousand years of making laws we have failed to put an end to bad guys. The same will be true on the Internet because it is the nature of all men to seek gain and it is the nature of some men to seek gain by any means available. What laws do is pretty much the same thing that locks do, they keep honest people honest.
What needs to change is the nature of man, not the law.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. | |
| | | VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| Re: Which is why being reactionary is ineffective said by DaDogs :
I was once an advocate of licensing ISP's, and I am one. I no longer hold that position. I was once an advocate of banning 802.11b because of the security problems it has created. I no longer hold that position. I was once an advocate of the idea that we could legislate these problems away, but I've seen the legislators screw it up every single time. I no longer hold that legislators can help us much at all.
Still an advocate of censorship of your opposition though, I see.
Remember, "actions speak louder than words".
Put up an MD5 of your firmware publically, or shut up. That is all. (And no, I don't like getting some of my posts deleted, thanks.)
PS. I actually agree with your point though, it is impossible to "win" a "war" against "crackers".
I'm not really sure that I understand what winning that supposed war would mean, anyways, other that perhaps a complete loss of liberty for the entire population.
said by DaDogs :
Here is my reasoning:
The Internet is simply a microcosm. People populate the Internet and they populate the world. In both places there are good people and bad people. In both places the right to privacy has to be balanced against the need of the established authority to be able to locate, arrest, and prosecute, evil people.
It is this balance between the right to privacy and the need to prosecute which creates the gray areas where the bad guys search for new ways to hide and the good guys search for new ways to locate the bad guys. This is the technology race to which you allude. It too, will always be with us.
In some five thousand years of making laws we have failed to put an end to bad guys. The same will be true on the Internet because it is the nature of all men to seek gain and it is the nature of some men to seek gain by any means available. What laws do is pretty much the same thing that locks do, they keep honest people honest.
What needs to change is the nature of man, not the law.
Which is exactly why the abolishment of all bad deeds can never happen, unless it is accompanied by the abolishment of all people. Aka. armageddon. | |
| | | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Re: Which is why being reactionary is ineffective I'm pleased to see that we agree, Larry. I was beginning to think you were an advocate not of free speech but of irresponsible defamation of character, obviously I was wrong.
You are right actions speak louder than words. 
Have a nice day.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. | |
|
HangTheFckers
| Hang the F*ckers !!! If you Hang these F*ckers by their balls for a month, then beat them with a baseball bat for a week, then castrate them with a branding iron, I damn well bet money they won't SPAM again!!! And I'll bet the "financial incentive" to illegally SPAM and illegally download Spyware/Malware will loose much of it's appeal to other criminals.
When society fails to make the punishment for a crime significant, many scumbag people will commit the crime for financial gain. It's all about greed!!! When the punishment is greater than the potential gain for committing the crime, criminals re-think their options. While you'll never 100% prevent crime, you damn well can eliminate most of it if you make the punishment a real deterrent. It isn't like these criminals don't know the cost to society of their illegal Spyware/Malware activities. Failing to impose a REAL deterrent is why laws become ineffective.
DEATH and PRISON is too good for these scumbags so hang 'em by their BALLS !!! | |
| 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| nothing wrong with this Trojans are not a problem. They only infect stupid people who run them. Hopefully soon, people running the trojans will be charged as a spammer. If your computer is sending out spam, ignorance is no excuse. To see someone who had no idea their computer was sending a million spam messages an hour, be sent to prison for 5 years would be awesome. It would put a stop to dumb people on the internet over night. | |
| | | |
|
|
Open Source Malware
·
·