Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Phatbot Trojan Suspect Linked To Half-Life 2 Code Theft?

Posted by simoniker on from the uh-oh dept.

Thanks to Gamers With Jobs for its story claiming possible links between the theft of the Half-Life 2 code and the Phatbot trojan writer, following the arrest of the alleged Phatbot creator in Germany last week, as the site claims, regarding "Axel G., 21 years old and known under the nick 'Ago'", that "German IT news mag Heise.de did some investigation [German-language link] and according to their research Axel G. probably also was heavily involved in the Half-Life 2 code theft that happened more than 7 months ago", pointing particularly to an IRC log, available on a Half-Life 2 leak page since late last year, which has Ago allegedly saying "[Download speed] suxx, especially from valve to germany... i coded myself my own sourcesafe client to get it at full speed... i only used a simple null-session to a pc in valves net, that wasnt directly controlled by valve."

60 comments

  1. Hmm... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let me guess, he also blew up the World Trade Center?

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always knew Osama was a HL fan. This proves that violence and video games are inexorably linked.

    2. Re:Hmm... by irokitt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not only that, but authorities suspect that he may have killed Kenny. Gifs at eleven.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    3. Re:Hmm... by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

      That German Bratwurst can give you the worst gas...

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
  2. Was the code actually stolen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Did he actually steal the code? Or did he duplicate it in an authorized fashion, leaving all original copies intact? If it is the former, this is unusual. If it is the latter, there is no way that theft occured (it's just unwanted duplication).

    1. Re:Was the code actually stolen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thank you. I am so sick of this "theft" crap. It's akin to claiming someone made off with the Mona Lisa because they took a polaroid of it.

    2. Re:Was the code actually stolen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Give me a break, of course it was stolen. He was not authorized to copy the source code. And it's not akin to someone taking a picture of the Mona Lisa, it would be more like someone taking a picture of blueprints to an automobile. That would let them build the same product, even though it is clearly IP for the original owners.

    3. Re:Was the code actually stolen? by oskillator · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seriously. I'm really at a loss to why Valve blamed the delays on the code theft. Valve didn't actually lose anything -- even if the cracker had trashed their code repository, they could've just grabbed the code from Kazaa.

    4. Re:Was the code actually stolen? by Spleener12 · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's not that they lost the code, it's that the fact that the code is availible makes it really easy for people to make cheats for HL2 and any mods, so they now have to re-write an assload of protocols in order to prevent this.

      I have no doubt in my mind that they're also using this delay to add some new features/areas/nifty stuff, tho.

    5. Re:Was the code actually stolen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me think. You find out that someone had access over weeks to your code. Remember that kernel exploit they tried to sneak in the other day by changing a == to a =? Do you have an idea what several weeks of source access can do?

      I agree that Valve used the code theft to cover up their broken releasedate promise, but even if the ocde would have done, it would have taken several month of serious code audits to enure things are is no trojan horse somewhere in the code

    6. Re:Was the code actually stolen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valve was just doing damage control. The true reason for the delay is that they weren't finished with the game. Who knows what they would have said if it wasn't for the source code leak. Maybe they were already aware of some sort of trespassing ahead of time and decided not to announce a delay until after the crap had hit the fan because it would sound like a better excuse?

    7. Re:Was the code actually stolen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Incorrect.

      If he isn't the original owner, then he is unauthorised to have a copy of it. Ergo, theft. This has been challenged with computer/IP laws before.

      Furthermore, since the company held off on the release of HL2, if they can, with any certifiable evidence, link this guy to the theft of the source, they can link damages to him. (Damages being cost to investigate mess, secure network, lost productivity as well as loss of profit for delayed release).

      Except him to pay lots of money and/or go to jail for a long time.

  3. People actually use SourceSafe? by Nasarius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Incredible. Even CVS works better than that particular piece of MS garbage.

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
    1. Re:People actually use SourceSafe? by bigbigbison · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, the founders of valve did used to work at Microsoft, so they probably either felt loyalty to their old employer, or had used it at MS and were used to it.

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    2. Re:People actually use SourceSafe? by HalfFlat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Even Microsoft don't use SourceSafe.

      It's that bad.

    3. Re:People actually use SourceSafe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why was that modded funny? It's true! When I was there, any self-respecting group used SLM (Source Library Manager), aka "Slime". Only a few random groups in consumer division used VSS.

    4. Re:People actually use SourceSafe? by Kynde · · Score: 1

      Why was that modded funny? It's true! When I was there, any self-respecting group used SLM (Source Library Manager), aka "Slime". Only a few random groups in consumer division used VSS.

      "any self-respecting group" working for Microsoft? Oh please... any one of my hot chick slaves knows that's just hot air. ;-)

      --
      1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
  4. Logs of private channels by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    <Unknown__> hostmask of Ago on the 11th of october: frb9-d9bb4a51.pool.mediaWays.net
    <Unknown__> earlier this week
    <Unknown__> in a private channel....
    <Unknown__> the person having access to the beta, sources and other released stuff

    You know, it sounds as if they could have dug this up from IRC server logs. Now, obviously it's quite *possible* to log all channels on an IRC server (it still boggles the mind that IRC clients don't have encryption support as standard), but I wasn't actually aware that this was being actively done -- and it would have to be in order to snag this from a minor, private channel well in advance of anyone knowing who the responsible parties might be.

    That's a bit Orwellian.

    I've never actually looked up whether AOL's privacy policy says anything that would keep them from logging all ICQs/AIM messages, but that could be quite a valuable storehouse of information as well. The only mainstream IM protocol that I know of where clients support end-to-end encryption as standard is Jabber.

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:Logs of private channels by asdfman2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Chances are he was IN the channel at the time. And many IRC clients will log EVERYTHING.

    2. Re:Logs of private channels by nexex · · Score: 2, Informative
      aim has supported encryption for about a year

      ignore the bit about the cost, its free...

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
    3. Re:Logs of private channels by ffsnjb · · Score: 1

      The new version of mIRC has SSL support, according to my brief look at the changelog when I updated.

      --
      "Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
    4. Re:Logs of private channels by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      SSL support to the server doesn't do you much good -- the server still gets to see things in plaintext. You need end-to-end encryption to help on this point.

      --
      May we never see th
  5. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hey you jerk! I was going to say the exact same thing! You stole my idea!

  6. Bash.org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    <Ago> i only used a simple null-session to a pc in valves net, that wasnt directly controlled by valve
    <Ago> then I got caught by the german police, and here I am in this prison.
    <Ago> Crap guys, gotta go, they need me again in the shower-room.
    *Ago is now known as Ago|sodomy
    1. Re:Bash.org? by eduss · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      that's fucking funny man.

    2. Re:Bash.org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahaha

  7. Re:Hmmm...let's do some legal math... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A failed attempt at acquiring karma through humor: PRICELESS!!!

  8. Of course it wasn't stolen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Give me a break, of course it was stolen."

    No, theft/stealing requires taking. If you leave something sitting there after you make your copy, you have not taken it.

    "He was not authorized to copy the source code"

    So he did something unauthorized. Here's a clue: not every single crime or unauthorized activity is theft.

    "That would let them build the same product, even though it is clearly IP for the original owners."

    "IP" is a misleading term that has caused much confusion. IP has nothing to do with actual property. IP as such cannot be stolen.

    1. Re:Of course it wasn't stolen by Leffe · · Score: 3, Informative

      The code is of course copyrighted, meaning that he broke international copyright laws. That is kind of illegal.

    2. Re:Of course it wasn't stolen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It is news to some that there are certain actions which are illegal that are not theft.

    3. Re:Of course it wasn't stolen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How about someone breaks into your house and photographs everything you have, photocopies every bit of paper, writes down all the phone numbers you have on your phone and takes a copy of everything on your computers. Nothing physical would be taken, only copies of information.

      Maybe not theft, but I bet you'd feel pretty lousy.

    4. Re:Of course it wasn't stolen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It has been my experience that the only people who spend a lot of time arguing "theft" vs. "copying" vs. "taking" are whiny little pedants who think that their astonishing wordplay will distract the world from the fact that they're a) just to cheap to pay for music or software, and b) too much of a pussy to say "I steal."

      Not that I'm talking about you or anything...

    5. Re:Of course it wasn't stolen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why don't you write the headline "Phatbot Trojan Suspect Linked To Half-Life 2 Code Theft?" while conveying the same idea and without losing any of the seriousness of the situation. I'm sorry, but "unwanted duplication" isn't going to cut it.

  9. "theft" vs. "unwanted duplication" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In this digital age, must "theft" always have to mean the unauthorized procurement of physical material from another's possession? (Actually, no, since meanings of words can and do change over time. While a legal definition of theft may, or rather must, be more strict, dict.org kindly gives me "the act of taking something from someone unlawfully," which, unless you're about to start bickering about the word "take," does accurately describe this situation.) By claiming that it was not "theft," are you attempting to lessen the seriousness of the person's act? If he had taken from Valve a harddrive containing the source code, he would have indeed stolen the harddrive, but, according to you, would still not have stolen the source code, even though the harddrive (the physical item alone)'s importance to Valve would be a lot less than the harddrive's actual contents. "it's just unwanted duplication"? Give me a break.

  10. Re:Hmmm...let's do some legal math... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hint: those jokes work a lot better when they don't drag on and on and on with a dozen different over-explained items and prices. Short and simple is better.

    And where the hell are you paying $16 for a case of Dew? I've never paid even half that. Unless by "case" you mean something bigger than a 24-pack, which I've never seen anywhere...

  11. It is not theft unless theft occurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "By claiming that it was not "theft," are you attempting to lessen the seriousness of the person's act?"

    Since it was not theft at all, the problem is those who are mis-using the word "theft", such as the RIAA, to make something seem worse than it is.

    "he would have indeed stolen the harddrive, but, according to you, would still not have stolen the source code"

    Of course in this case the source code is stolen, because it was on the hard drive which was taken. They programs are stolen because, well, they are stolen. It is not like when someone makes a copy of the programs and leaves the actual programs still sitting there.

    ""the act of taking something from someone unlawfully," which, unless you're about to start bickering about the word "take," does accurately describe this situation.)"

    Bickering? You are the one using it in a totally inapplicable fashion. If something is still there when the action is through, that action certainly did not involve taking.

    "it's just unwanted duplication"? Give me a break."

    Yes. It is just unwanted duplication. Get over it. Stop using inapplicable words. It's not theft, just like it isn't rape, murder, or arson.

    1. Re:It is not theft unless theft occurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh well... if you don't want to "get it," I guess you'll just have to keep living in ignorance. Who put you in charge of word definitions! Words change, and just because a word was defined one way long ago, doesn't mean it can take on new meanings later on. In the other post, you paste the legal definition, but perhaps try asking a lawyer or judge if he'd call it theft. I don't understand why you feel so strongly about this word... maybe you are one of those staunch Free Software advocates that insist on everyone saying GNU/Linux, or someone that loves downloading copyrighted material (games, music, video) left and right. Even if it wasn't "theft," it still doesn't make the situation any less serious. It's unwarranted duplication and exposure of a copyrighted work and trade secrets, theft or no.

      In the harddrive example, by your definition the source code still wasn't stolen, because it's pretty safe to say that there is more copies of the source code exist on other harddrives, and the source code on the stolen harddrive isn't an unique physical property of the harddrive. If the thie.. person deleted the source code from the stolen harddrive, would the source code then be somehow unstolen? Here's another point you didn't seem to make: if he "stole" it, he can't exactly give it back! etc. etc.

    2. Re:It is not theft unless theft occurs by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Since it was not theft at all, the problem is those who are mis-using the word "theft", such as the RIAA, to make something seem worse than it is.

      Oh here we go, I could see this coming a mile away. SCO, the RIAA, and now Valve must be in bed together in a mass scheme to misappropriate the word theft! Damn you scoundrels! You've convinced people on the street, you've convinced the media... there's only several Anonymous Cowards left to convince that illegally copying something is considered theft these days.

      Make no changes to the English language! It shall not budge. Thou Anonymous Cowards henceforth shalt use the glorious language afforded by the King of Britain inasmuch as you commune with one another. Pray tell you oppose all such grievances as such besmirch our culture! Rollback the book of words, Webster, for it doth displease the simple minded!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  12. From your own dict.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I see you ignored the note with the dict.org definition you looked at. Here it is "To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery."

    The emphasis is mine. The bold parts never occur in any way with file duplication. You are not only outright wrong: you are not even close.

    1. Re:From your own dict.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a legal definition. But we aren't lawyers, are we?

    2. Re:From your own dict.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a second... Didn't you even check to see the date of the dictionary used? It's freakin' Websters, from 1913! You think I used the tacky phrase "in the digital age" because I like to type? Sheesh! At least WordNet is reasonably up to date. And what about phrases like "he stole my idea!" which have been commonplace for quite a while...

  13. You are missing the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read somewhere in the parent items that acknowledges the obvious fact that there are a wide variety of illegal actions/ crimes/ violations/etc which are not "theft". Here's one: Murder. Ever hear of it?

    1. Re:You are missing the obvious by cujo_1111 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Isn't murder the act of taking one's life and not returning it? That is theft in my book :)

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    2. Re:You are missing the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't murder the act of taking one's life and not returning it?

      Yes, but it was only half of a life, not an entire one. Also, half life 2's official logo has the 2 written as a power. So, one could argue that it was only a quarter of a life that was taken.

    3. Re:You are missing the obvious by cujo_1111 · · Score: 0

      So, one could argue that it was only a quarter of a life that was taken.

      But 1^2 = 1, so taking half a life would still be half, not a quarter. It would be a quarter if you squared the half a life after you killed it, but then the life doesn't have a value so you haven't even taken a life. Therefore, no murder charge.

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
  14. Re:Hmmm...let's do some legal math... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting modded offtopic to point something out to an AC: PRICELE.... um, nevermind, but thank you, I was unaware of that.

  15. Re:Axel G? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Axel Foley.

  16. You are missing the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck does murder have to do with the poster's hypothetical situation?

  17. Flaw in your math. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    .5^2==.25
    1!=.5

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  18. Jayson Blair, is that you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So a headline that doesn't lie "isn't going to cut it"? You tell 'em, Jayson!

  19. Re:Axel G? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Joke attempt....YOU FAIL IT! HARD.

    -AC the way to be....

  20. In related news, this hacker released... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This hacker apparently compiled a hybrid of the two source codes, calling it Phat Life 2.

  21. Re:Bash.org quote anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weirdness. The above text was posted by two AC's, yet the *first* of the two posts is marked Redundant. It's two minutes before the other. How does that work? Does Slashdot work outside of time?

  22. Re:Hmmm...let's do some legal math... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd pay $16 for a case of Mingus Dew!

  23. SourceSafe Bugs Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SourceSafe is bad. Here is some detailed info on bugs in SourceSafe:

    http://www.michaelbolton.net/testing/VSSDefects. ht ml