Slashdot Mirror


Blaster Variant Creator Pleads Guilty

Hello Kitty writes "Robert Parson, the 18-year-old who modified and re-released a version of Blaster last year, is on his way to being made an example of, after pleading guilty Wednesday in a Seattle courtroom. According to AP, he can now look forward to 18-36 months behind bars and -- shades of Kevin Mitnick's phantom damages -- may be expected to pay millions in restitution. And then there's that lifelong 5cr1pt k1dd13 title. of course."

12 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. Re:And... by bwy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Next thing you know murder will be legal and the victim will be held responsible for not wearing kevlar.

  2. This guy is an idiot an deserves everything he get by l810c · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Idiot
    A Minnesota teenager known online as "teekid" was arrested and placed on electronic monitoring Friday for allegedly unleashing a version of the "Blaster" computer worm that infected thousands of computers.

    First for writing the damn thing in the first place

    Idiot
    Parson apparently took few steps to disguise his identity. As a byproduct of each infection, every victim's computer sent signals back to the "t33kid.com" Web site that Parson had registered in his own name, listing his home address

    Second for putting in a direct trace back to himself

    Idiot
    In court, the high school senior wore a T-shirt that read "Big Daddy" on the front and "Big and Bad" with a grizzly bear on the back. He sported a metal stud under his lip and his hair was dyed blond on top and shaved close around the sides and back

    Third for showing no humility in court

  3. Forgive Me by mfh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... but I think in this case, he *should* be made an example of. Virus writers need to *STOP*. Now.

    On the other hand...

    The fact that unscrupulous companies will bill in phantom damages just makes it worse. How are these kids supposed to have any role models when the establishment distances themselves from morality for profit? Phantom damages and those who issue them, ought be fined and sent off to jail with just as much enthusiasm as virus writers.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  4. Re:Nice. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "A smarter system would have this kid be a digital janitor for a year or so. Disinfect this computer, now disinfect that one. You know, like an intern, and maybe he could get a job out of it when he's done."

    Yea, cause hes just the type of person that I would want working on my computer. I also think that convicted child molesters should be put to work in day care centers. That'll teach em.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  5. Good by pherthyl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Harsh sentence, but I don't have a lot of sympathy. Idiot makes virus, idiot gets caught, idiot gets punished.

    Next please.

  6. We as a society need to decide how to handle this by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This kid played around with tech, in a very simple way, and got caught up in big legal trouble as the feds try to put fear into others thinking of doing the same. It's a complicated issue. We all hate these worms (well, those of you running Windows especially, but I personally hate it from a theoretical perspective, not personal). We know what he did was wrong. But boy these kids sure get the book thrown at them for what amounts to script kiddie penny ante stuff.

    He took a worm and modified it and released it. That's not much different in spirit from what many of us did at his age, playing with tech, poking at it, learning how things work. He just picked something that caused massive headaches to all concerned, so we have little sympathy for the kid. And he seems suitably contrite since his arrest, as well he might since that event probably shook him. But what do we do with such kids? We don't want worms being released, and we want to discourage this behavior. And yes, money is involved when businesses spend time to fix the problems. But asking him to repay "millions" is an order of magnitude wrong. Let's see Kenny Boy Lay repay millions, yes. But this kid?!

    Those of us who poked and prodded tech at his age, but did so in a way that didn't cause headaches to everyone, understand a little of his motivation. He was a dope, but a curious dope, and now he's learned a lesson. Will all the other script kiddie types learn from this? No way. What if he is told to pay back "millions"? Nope, they still won't care. We need to rethink how we deal with this sort of headache so that we encourage kids not to mess with worms and stuff, without treating them worse than violent criminals. I don't have the answers, but I can't see how throwing the book at this kid is going to solve much.

  7. Phantom damages?? by dedazo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    shades of Kevin Mitnick's phantom damages

    When the case is made against Microsoft (or "M$") and how "Windoze" is insecure and should be replaced by Leenucks, the argument is always "the worms and the viruses and malware cost businesses trillions and gazillions of dollars".

    But when they nail a dumbass kid who thought he was 1337 and releases a virus (or a variation of one) then it's "phantom damages".

    That's great.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  8. Re:This kid is no Mitnick by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All this idiot did was make a few changes to somebody else's virus, hit send, and get caught.

    Yes, and you know the saddest thing? Most talented hackers, like Morris or even Mitnick, can look forward to full time employment as a security expert at some IT company, due to their fame, after they're done being punished for their deeds. It's an expensive way to get famous, but at least they're famous, at least in computer circles.

    This moron on the other hand can look forward to be punished, like hackers, and then apply for a job at Wendy's, because in the eyes of any employer, he'll always be less desirable than a failed CS student, until his script kiddie fame fades away slowly.

    Honestly, that's the kid's real punishment...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  9. Re:*shudder* by MoneyT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're not sending him to prison for typing any more than they send rapists to jail for feeling good.

    He took a known computer virus, designed to cause damage. Modified it so that he would know which computers were infected and then willfuly and purposefully released said virus back into the wild to cause havoc.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  10. Re:And... by McSnarf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Grow up, people.
    The "Virus writers are cool heroes" attitude usually comes from non-professionals who would never, ever be allowed to touch a real installation...
    Breaking and entering is illegal - even if the victim knowingly employs bad locks.
    The main issue here is not the fact that the idiot just changed some lines, but that he knowingly released it into the wild again.
    If you use petrol and a lighter to burn down a house and people die, you deserve to be punished. The house could have been a fire trap - but that does not reduce your guilt. (Whoever built it will be sued, too, but the flaw in "virus lover" thinking is that the arsonist should go free because not all houses are fire proof.)

  11. Re:And... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because you perfectly knew their software was insecure, it's been commonly known for years.

    Granted. It's a shame there weren't more commercials stating that from competitors.

    You also waived all your rights to Microsoft when you clicked OK to the EULA.

    It's often the case that a judge will rule that sufficient negligence on the part of the contractor can void any "do not sue us" clause. Given the shear number of security flaws found and where Windows advertisements have stated Windows should be used (servers), it seems like gross negligence.

    People should take responsibility for their own actions, not sue left and right too..

    Right, this guy variant creator should be punished. The question was should MS be sued for making Blaster so possible. A simple analogy, from the start of this thread, is the case of Ford finding a defect in their car. Now, Ford has to go out of its way to fix this defect; they don't just tell the consumer "here's the part, you install it". They do this precisely because until the defect is fixed (or there's been a sufficiently long period of time for which the fix was easily accessible), consumers can go out and sue Ford and win the case.

    Now, at this point you might state that Blaster variants didn't start until 2 months after a patch was released. You'd be ignoring, though, that MS didn't mail out letters to its consumers. They didn't mail out CDs either. They didn't have local technicians to install the patch. So, while it's reasonable to say that a competent administrator for a server should never have let Blaster spread--MS did the equivalent of the first two for the technical user while the admin is the third--laying this charge on *all* computer users is like blaming all car defect victims for not being mechanics.
    This is why MS has pushed for their autoupdate tool as it can optimally fulfill all parts (ignoring it can't reboot).

    I can imagine in the future, MS try to claim not using the autoupdate tool to its full extent (ie, d/l *and* install) is paramount for grounds not to sue. But, will MS take responsibility for when one of their patches kill the network connection on a few million users and someone has to reinstall?

    --
    Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  12. Re:This guy is an idiot an deserves everything he by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm such a geek. Normally I don't really give a damn about what people think of what I wear.

    (It's decent. I'm not wearing a crotchless S&M outfit to work, or anything. If anyone is fundamentally offended the sight of a clean pair of jeans, they're just stupid. And I have better things to do than worry about stupid people.)

    However, in this case we're talking a court of law. You don't want to piss off the judge who might, on a whim, give you a suspended sentence or community service or send you behind bars for a few years.

    You _don't_ want to look like an unrepentant "fuck you all" rebel to the judge. You don't want to look like you're damn proud of what you've done. (Which is the impression that such a "Big Daddy" t-shirt would have given even me.)

    I'm not even saying he should have worn a suit and tie or anything. But, you know, even if you're gonna wear a t-shirt, make it a plain one.

    I mean, geeze, wear that t-shirt to school. Wear it at a party. Wear it even to a job interview if you honestly don't give a damn about the outcome. But a court of law is more serious: unlike a job interview, you can't just try again somewhere else.

    Basically all I'm saying is that there's difference between not caring about stupid people, and _being_ the stupid one. Freakin' big difference.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.