Slashdot Mirror
BBC Links Linux To MyDoom
minus_273 writes "It seems the BBC has a story on their front page titled 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty', very specifically linking Linux users to the MyDoom virus. Some lines to note: 'If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source). So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge.'"
I would argue that this violent reactionism is one sign that OSS is on the verge of mainstream acceptance. Throughout history, as new ideas have supplanted older, closely held ones, the group that holds fast to those practices and principles becomes more and more marginalized and reacts by lashing out viciously. Could this be the case here? I think it is. Hopefully these opposing voices will continue to get smaller and more violent, alienating even more people from their cause. Besides, who can argue with free publicity?
Also, I, being a 'run-of-the-mill geek', am quite flattered that I now have the ability to gleefully (and apparently psychotically) 'wreak damage' on people's computers. Guess I picked that up and didn't even realize...
[BBC: "Deep in the darkness of the psyche, vandals and arsonists no doubt have their reasons - and so, presumably, do the run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage on the unsuspecting computer user."]
"For good measure, SCO is seeking at least a billion dollars from IBM....
SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred principles, as they would see it."
I don't think this article sees very much of the issue. Why didn't they do a more serious analysis of SCO and the fact that many top executives are dumping stock? Why didn't they look at it from a legal standpoint focusing on the etymology of the code supposedly in question? Why didn't they point out keenly that SCO has not produced any real evidence?
Regardless of what side you're on, you have to look at these things. These facts at least are concrete, vs. the complete lack of evidence specifically implicating a linux user as the author of MyDoom. For all we know, it could be SCO spreading FUD over linux and painting themselves as the victim when they in fact are responsible. We don't know now, do we?
I'm a little confused. The BBC website has this in the news section. Now I've always understood news to be the (hopefully) unbiased reporting of facts. The "article" seems little more than the rambling musings of someone who clearly doesn't understand the situation at all - which ordinarily would put it under "editorials".
This sort of baseless conjecture should always be clearly marked as such. To pass this off as "news" smacks of the kind of wild sensationalism the BBC is world famous for.
"And then I visited Wikipedia
I wrote some feedback:
0 4/ 28worm.htmls news/detail/d efault.asp?contentItemId=733®ion=america
>>>>>>>>>>
There are several points completele missed in this article. Evidence for my claims is given by the links mentioned below.
1) The main function of the worm is not to attack SCO Servers but to turn the infected desctop into a remote controlled robot with a keylogger.
2) The worm is _very_ likely not written by a private person in his freetime but by the russian Spam mafia wich needs those remotely controlled desktops as mail-relays to send spam.
3) The big majority of the Linux-Community does not think at all that all Software (or even all Operating Systems) have to remain free. They just expect that a license applied to a software is to be honored. This claim should be valid for any license, even the GPL.
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/01
http://www.messagelabs.com/news/viru
For more evidence about the complete voidness of SCOs IP-Claims information is gahtered at
http://www.groklaw.net
All information there is elaborated and with information where the source of the information is.
regards
PS: I'm a progammer earning my money with closed source. That does not hinder me to be a fan of Open Source products and to publish something once in a while.
Hope, it was politely enough and the spelling ok. I'm a native German, was never very well in foreign languages.
Trolling is a art!
Bill Thompson (BBC Technology Guy) spins conspiricy stories that suit /. frequently... they generally appear on the front page and are applauded by the posting community.
Although you're right, the journalist has buried the "no proof" statement deep in the article after making countless statements that do affirmatively link MyDoom to Linux (including the subtitle of the article).
I have a lot of respect for the BBC as a news source, but this is a fine example of poor, lazy journalism. Considering the fact that scores of readers don't make it past the first few paragraphs of any given article, it's also deceitful and misleading.
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill
No, you obviously don't, because if that's all you believed you'd release your code under the BSD licence, or simply into the public domain - both of which would do just as good a job at it.
The point of releasing under the GPL is to require other people using GPLed code as a base to develop and distribute their own work to also GPL *their* code. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "preserving the freedom" of *your* code.
I also replied......
Your article "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" published on the 5th February 2004, is, in my opinion grossly misleading.
The article builds a picture that the Worm/Trojan/Virus that was unleashed was designed, implimented and unleashed by a member, or member of the Linux Open Source community.
Now while I cannot say for certain that this is wrong, the title of the article seems to say that this is indeed the case, even though it goes on to say "there is no proof".
An equally valid argument could be that SCO engineered the whole thing as a publicity stunt to gain public sympathy and to vilefy the Linux community due to the problems that it is facing in its court case against IBM, a case that has caused SCO to go from being on the verge of bankruptcy to stability based on the rise of their share prices, triggered by the instigation of the case.
Whoever modded the above comment flamebait should be ashamed. The BBC has historically been a good source of news, but has been roundly criticized in recent years for taking a more commercial (and, as some have indicated, sensationalist) slant to its coverage. The resignation of 3 BBC principals in the past few weeks are an indication what this new direction has cost the BBC.
Fact of the matter is, where is the proof? The correspondent himself says "There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.", referring to the thesis of his article, that "The MyDoom virus represents a new level of sophistication in attacks on company websites. It is also a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system."
On one hand, he says there's no proof. On the other hand, the tagline accuses open source as the origination of the MyDoom worm, and slyly insinuates that the reason for this worm is revenge against SCO. This isn't investigative journalism. This isn't even biased reporting of somebody's opinion. This is rumor-mill gossip, and somebody ought to call the BBC on it.
Note the "Business" part. The guy has absolutley zero techno savvy and is just parroting the most juicy rumours.
Although, after the Hutton reporty, I am suprised that the BBC would let him get away with statements such as "There's no proof, of course". But I guess as Linux users aren't a particularly organised bunch the BBC feels it can get away with shoddy journalism and unsupported inuendo in this case.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
I've also complained - text below
... believe that code should be free to all (open source)." They do not. "Open source" means that the source code may be viewed. It does not mean that it is free. It can be checked worldwide and modified (under license) as needed by individuals, corporations and countries.
------
Dear BBC,
Your story "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" by Stephen Evans has caused me to write in to point out a number of issues with both the tone of the story and the "facts" portrayed by it.
Firstly, Mr Evans has stated that the virus was unleashed by Linux advocates to damage SCO. He has stated this as a fact, not an allegation. The MyDoom virus has, in fact, been traced back to Russia and is believed to be the work of organised crime. Most reputable news sources have reported this and it saddens me that the BBC, which I have always believed to be one of the best news sources, has fallen down badly in this respect, reporting an unsubstantiated allegation (which was easily checked) as fact.
He also states the virus is written specifically to take down SCO's servers. It is not. It appears designed to turn desktops into remote controlled robots that log keystrokes (such as credit card details) and act as spam relays. Thus it would be of great use to organised crime.
He further states that "internet zealots
Overall, the story appears to be slanted unquestioningly against the Open Source community, accepting allegations as facts and ignoring available contradictory evidence. Could you explain why this line has been taken?
It does seem to me to fall well short of the BBC's standards of reporting. It also fails to highlight the largest concern that may affect your readers - the fact that the virus turns their machines into remote controlled traitors, logging their keystrokes (and jeopardising their privacy and any banking details) and relaying illegal spam. A reference to the story of the Dorset father who lost custody of his daughter after a similar trojan deposited child pornography on his computer, acting as a safe remote storage site from a technologically skilled pervert, would not have gone amiss here , to highlight the severity of the case and remind your readers to take care online.
For information on SCO's IP claims against Linux, please see www.groklaw.net.
I am writing concerning the article written by Stephen Evans entitled 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty.'
While I agree with the author that the MyDoom virus is a sophisticated way of attacking companies, I find that his links to any 'preservation [of] the open-source Linux operating system' to be rather lacking (if not downright non-existant.
Let's get facts straight first:
Sco is not seeking at least 1 Billion dollars. Initially this was true, but it has increased its litigation to 3 Billion dollars.
There is no court case between linux users and SCO. The court case is between SCO and IBM. The actual litigation is to decide whether IBM breached their contract with SCO and allowed SCO code into the Linux Source Tree.
Now let's look at his theory that should be 'at the top of any investigator's list'.
A grudged Linux user writes a virus to attack a company that is attacking the very foundation of his/her own business...Linux.
I concur that this is a possible reasoning, especially in the mindset of SCO and any other corporate software (especially Operating Systems) makers. To enforce this idea, let's look at SCO claiming that the GPL (General Public License) is unconstituional:
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31975.html
Bear in mind that we know that SCO refuses to allow us access (albeit under a re-inforced Non-disclosure agreement that prevents us from working on linux afterwards) to the code that they are complaining about. Also remember that SCO wasn't always SCO. In fact it was Caldera (a linux distributor) and that original SCO is now Tarantula (spelling???).
Now, how about this for a theory:
SCO knows that they're attacking Linux users. They know that their site is currently redundant. They realise they can black the name of all Linux users quite easily by attacking themselves. After which, they can claim, possibly, that Linux users are terrorists against the proper functioning or corporate America and therefore should be prevented from distribution and/or continuation. Considering Miscrosoft is the biggest contributor to SCO currently this would not be too far from reality, especially considering that Microsoft have already been found guilty of law in California. If they can abuse their monopoly in one way it is only natural that they could do it in another. They also have the perfect access to their code that allows them to exploit their opertating systems.
Now, this is also a theory based on 'non-facts' but just as valid a one. Print it, if you so wish because it is just as valid as the above mentioned article.
So my complaint is that while it is all well and good to print articles based on non-facts, please look at the whole range of possibilities rather than just the one that, unsurprisingly, supports the corporations.
Yours sincerely,
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Wow, what an article, it brings journalistic research and factual accuracy to new lows with some baseless assertions thrown in for good measure. I thought the BBC just got spanked over poor journalism.
Factual Errors:-
1. "bringing down its website with a barrage of emails"
The MyDoom virus used a barrage of HTTP requests to bring the www.sco.com website down. Websites and mail systems are different, they use different protocols, ports and servers. The virus spread by email, it *did not* use email to perform a DDOS on www.sco.com.
2. "Two years ago, SCO claimed that it owned more than 800,000 lines of the system which had always been available for free and to anyone since its invention in 1991."
This is actually a few errors in one, bravo!
"Two years ago" - This is incorrect, SCO first claimed that Linux contained improperly contributed Unix code in early 2003, this is not two years ago! At that time it did not claim "more than 800,000 lines" that came later.
"...claimed 800,000" - SCO expanded its PR claims in mid 2003 to include the "more than 800,000 lines" quote. This is only 6-7 months ago, not two years ago.
"since 1991" - SCO has claimed that contributions to the Linux kernel post v2.4 impinge on its rights - this is not the code from 1991. It has not yet claimed rights to any of the 1991 code!
3. "On top of that, SCO has sued IBM, accusing it of using SCO property because it too uses Linux."
SCO has sued IBM over a contract dispute, it has not sued IBM because it uses Linux! SCO has claimed that IBM has used Unix methods and trade secrets improperly in its contributions to Linux (SCO claims it is a succesor in interest to Unix copyrights, methods and trade secrets which Novell sold to Tarantella - this is also in dispute).
4. "Despite the law-suits against users by SCO,"
SCO has not sued any Linux users. It has sued IBM, it has been counter sued by IBM, Red Hat has sued SCO, SCO has sued Novell. At no time has SCO sued a Linux user.
5. "Meanwhile the court dispute between SCO and Linux users (rather than the cyberspace war between SCO and the hackers) is scheduled for next year in a court in Utah."
There is no court dispute between SCO and Linux users (see above).
So most of the article is factually incorrect, and then he casts baseless assertions with a follow up disclaimer.
"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted - illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt - because it has enraged many people devoted to the Linux operating system"
"There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list."
What sort of journalism is this? This should be in a crappy tabloid not a government owned and respected news service.
Here is a piece that comes from Lessig and was found in Free Sklyarov mailing list.
Fact of the matter is, where is the proof? The correspondent himself says "There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.", referring to the thesis of his article, that "The MyDoom virus represents a new level of sophistication in attacks on company websites. It is also a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system."
At present, the opening line of the article reads "... It also looks like a new front in a war..." Assuming you're quoting accurately, someone at the BBC must have decided to tone the statement down a bit. It's still irresponsible journalism, though.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
I had the page loaded in the browser and blindly reloaded the page (not sure why), something changed!
I'm not sure how much changed but the line you quoted is now
The MyDoom virus has triggered a new wave of attacks on company websites.
Apparently, it was last updated 10 hours ago, which is wrong by about 9 hours.
The attack also raises the possibility of internet blackmail, with companies threatened by individuals or even an individual who might be anywhere.
Say what now?
BB
Thanks for providing a link to the form. Here is what I just sent:
- SCO website down - does it hurt their business? I guess not much, however, it does give them good publicity - that of a victim; Link #1 for Linux (Linuxoid SCO haters).
- Microsoft website targeted but not down -- good publicity for Microsoft; Link #2 for Linux (Linuxoid MS haters).
- Millions of losses and aggravated users - extremely bad publicity for the virus and people associated with it, of course;
So, the net effect of the virus has certainly hurt the reputation of Linux/OpSrc world, because its targets can try to link the virus to L/OS by its choice of targets.Based on the current knowledge of the virus and the above, I would say there are 3 basic motivations for the virus creator(s):
- Spammers testing their tools, as indicated in the above
/. comments. In that case SCO/MS attack would simply be a way to have publicity for checking to see how their virus is doing.
- A zealot trying to hurt SCO/MS. In that case he was very dumb -- of course it is not impossible though, so we can't rule this possibility out.
- It was a publicity stunt by Microsoft. Could be linked to first motivation too. Note that the net effect of the virus for Microsoft has been beneficial PR wise. After all, their systems withstood the attack -- never mind it was said that the attack on MS was much weaker.
Noting also that the virus creator has had considerable Windows programming skills (which is not the experience generally associated with OpenSource programmers), I believe that the 3d motivation is not entirely impossible either. Especially if it was linked with first.I have provided this comment to them in the feedback form they have provided. The BBC are good at listening to comments by the viewers/readers.
---
This particular story is factually incorrect, and details contained within could be used inappropriatly.
As it stands there is no evidence to prove that Linux users created this virus. Thats just consequential speculation.
FACT 1: In fact all the major developers of the Linux Kernal and the wider Opensource/Free Software movement have been very quick to condemn the actions of the Virus writer and have gone on record to disassociate themselves from the actions of the writer. This invalidates the implication in the report saying that Linux Developer
FACT 2: The major antivirus vendors and security have formed the conclusion the attack on SCO and Microsoft were most likely a "smokescreen". The main purpose of the virus is that of a Trojan for stealing credit card, and other security info.The attacks on SCO appears to be a topical divertion.
FACT 3: Open Source advocates to not believe all software should be "free" as in free in price. It advocates freedom in development, and access to code. It works on the belief that software will be of higher quality if the development is open allowing anyone access to the code in the help for fixing bugs and adding features. The software itself can be "charged for". It is the difference between free in price, and free in freedom.
FACT 4: Open source advocates are NOT activists on a par with terrorists, etc as your report suggests. Open source advocates act on their principles by creating software that follows their ideals, such as the Linux Kernel, the GNU system, the Apache webserver (used by the BBC), Mozilla Web Browser (used by AOL and Netscape), Sendmail (used to deliver the majority of internet email), the BIND server (used to resolve DNS names, vital for operation of the Internet).
FACT 5: the implication that Linux developers are teenage geeks working in garages is also incorrect. Sure it started as a enthusiasts Operating System, however currently developers and contributers to Linux now include major firms such as, IBM, HP, Silicon Graphics, NASA, Oracle, Samsung, and even SCO.
Please read the GrokLaw website at http://www.groklaw.net/ which assists in making clear the legal and historical contexts of Linux, as well as the hidden danger of publishing misguided articles like this.
Best Regards,
Have a nice day!
There. I filled out the BBC News feedback form to let them know their columnist needs some adjusting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281777.stm
[my feedback to BBC news]
I have just finished reading the article on your website which is entitled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty", written by Stephen Evans. I am perplexed at the biased content of this article.
The writer of the article has applied the actions of a (possibly) single individual to an entire group of people. I don't see how that is fair, or responsible reporting. As a Linux user, this article has now portrayed me as fraudulent, unprincipled, and deceitful.
I should note also that the content of this article paints the BBC News with the same fraudulent, unprincipled and deceitful brush that Stephan has attempted to paint the Linux community with. It is cheap and irresponsible reporting.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
These sigs are more interesting tha
...the same BBC that helped drive a man to suicide with their ill sourced, inaccurate, ill founded, politically motivated claims?
The same BBC that has in recent years showed a steady decline of journalistic integrity?
The same BBC that has had a string of resignations at high levels because of the fallout for such things?
I never would have guessed....
To whom it may concern,
In the article "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" Stephen Evans seems to suggest that the MyDoom worm was perpetrated by users of the GNU/Linux operating system, commonly called "Linux."
In fact one of the article's section headings is "Wrath of the geeks." It might be more accurate for it to say "Wrath of the geek." As in the case of suicide bombers, a single person can cause a lot of damage, but that single person should not serve as an indication of the temperment of an entire group of people. The writer of the MyDoom worm might not be a Linux user at all. He or she might have used the DDOS (distributed denial-of-service) attack to cover other, real motives. Or the writer might be exactly what Mr. Evans suggests, and in that case would be disowned and condemned by other Linux users such as myself.
In either case the sentiments of one person should never be used to draw conclusions about a group. This attack on SCO is counter-productive, not to mention morally wrong. Bruce Perens, a leader in the open source community, condemns the attacks and urges others to do the same. In his press release to this effect he also explains some of the reasons this virus may exist:
http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/DOS/
And these following articles indicate that the worm probably has ties to spammers:
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/010 4/28worm.html/ 2376200
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business
Finally, this LinuxWorld article explains an investigation into the origins of the virus, which seem to be from an IP address in Russia, according to the Moscow Times:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/42125.htm
The SCO suit against IBM, if successful for SCO, will not be enforceable in Russia, so why would a Linux user there care?
Before suggesting that an entire community is made up of law-ignoring zealots it might be good to remember that one rogue can cause a lot of headaches, and also that it's important to do a little research before casting stones. I hope that the BBC will follow up this story with the counterpoints I have raised above.
Regards,
Ed Holden
Medford, Massachusetts
It is my perception that many people who use and advocate Linux are also in favor of eliminating spam. It's perhaps one of the major reasons they prefer Linux. We know that virus/trojan horse/worm writers prefer to attack Windows-based systems because of the multitude of security holes it has.
What's happening with the MyDoom trojan sounds like spammers are trying to use the attacks against SCO and Microsoft (and maybe more targets) as a diversion for what they really want to do: send spam and discredit the groups that seek to eliminate spam. In their perception, Linux and the anti-spam movement are closely related. Discrediting one side of the pairing will eventually weaken the other.
Ask yourself this: If SCO wins and starts charging $699.00 per copy for Linux, what's the average user of Linux going to do? Probably switch to a Microsoft product and give spammers another system to use for a DDOE (Distributed Denial of E-mail) zombie.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?