Slashdot Mirror
Inside the Mind of a Virus Writer
sebFlyte writes "news.com.com is running a very interesting interview with 'Benny' (AKA Marek Strihavka), a former member of the famed 29A russian virus-writing group, about what drove the group among other things. He's now one of several ex-virus writers working for security companies."
He's got a point there, but still, that stinks of "create a problem, then sell the solution".
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Q: How many viruses have you written?
A: A lot
Q: Why did you write them?
A: To learn and innovate, not to harm.
Q: Should virus writers like you work for AV companies?
A: Yes, of course. We know security the best.
Why is this an "interesting interview"? There is little to no content here. It's the same crap we've heard every virus writer say to every person who interviews them. While I agree that the best security people are probably the ones who used to break the system (aka virus writers and crackers) why does this need to be considered interesting news? I was more interested in the (FALSE) story about the fish from the tsunami.
It amazed me the way some people think. It sounds to me like he thinks he should be free to write virii because it's expression and protected under the first amendment? So by that analogy, someone who burns down a building shouoldn't be prosecuted because they are just expresssing themselves. Come on, him saying that he didn't distribute his "code" is complete crap. He wrote it and it got distributed. Anyone who thinks differently can buy some swampland from me at a steep price.
My sig of choice is Marlboro
There is something to be said for learning techniques for mitigation through hands-on practice. For example, I routinely attempt to crack my own web servers in an attempt to discover potential weaknesses. You can read white papers on XSS and privledge escalation and proper filesystem permissions all day, but you don't really ever learn the application until you try it for yourself.
If I were to hire another administrator to be in charge for securing my systems, I would want them to have that same internal drive and desire to explore the system, rather than having a checklist-mentality. Go down the list and assume the server is secure.
That said, I would _not_ hire someone who was actively involved in breaking into other people's systems. It's the mindset. They did it once, they can't do it appreciably any better than if they had probed their own systems, and they're likely to do it again. Part of being a professional means a mature respect for other people's beings.
So if this guy actually wrote viruses that were released, I would consider him probably a bad canidate. Otherwise, yeah, go for it. Good choice.
"Frank Abignail did steal millions of dollars. He was a criminal. This kid didn't do anything of the sort -- he simply wrote programs that exposed insecurities in operating systems."
And spam writers simply write spam that exposes weaknesses in baysian filters.
"I am of the mind that we absolutely need people like Benny -- someone MUST check the locks to ensure that we are indeed safe. If no-one is checking the locks, then we're just fooling ourselves that what we hold near and dear is safe."
I'll be over to check your locks. DON'T CALL THE POLICE!
He states that he publised his viruses. This is just as bad as actively releasing the thing.
Or maybe they're all just too stupid to think that some script kiddie will come along, compile and release the thing. Writing malicious code to see if something works is one thing, writing it and releasing/publishing it is another. One can help you understand the workings of another piece of software, the other makes a big mess of the internet and there's no excuse for it.
Silly rabbit
When you get down to it, who you employ is up to you. If you think that your customers would be best served by a former virus writer, then do it. If you think they are too dangerous then don't. It comes down to your economic choice.
This is another way of starting a sig with this and ending it with that.
Most viruses are designed to be friendly to the anti-virus industry.
There's always been an implicit synergy between the virus and anti-virus companies. They need each other. But now we know there's more than that.
"Who else (besides virus writers) should code antivirus programs? Who else has the experience and technical skills for fighting viruses?"
just because you can blow up a bridge doesn't mean you should be trusted to build one.
it takes a completely different skillset to defend against viruses than it does to write them.
doctors don't have to know how to create a disease in order to know how to cure it. i would trust a doctor to treat disease far more than a bioweapons engineer.
just like i don't trust a burglar to guard a bank vault, i don't trust a virus writer to write antivirus software.
...that stinks of "create a problem, then sell the solution".
Sounds like every consulting gig I've been involved with. Convince them they have a problem and that you, and only you, know how to fix it. Oh, and ummm, profit!
THAT would tell you whether he was as good as he claimed.Yep. And until I see him releasing code to fix exploitable holes in Open Source, he's still just another kiddie. Again, from the article: Pattern matching is nothing. And that's all that anti-virus software is.
Rather than spending his massive talent on pattern matching viruses, why hasn't he come out with something to prevent viruses in the first place?
Anti-virus systems are all re-active, not pro-active.
Re-active is easy.
Pro-active is hard.
This story is junk. Some "journalist" saw that a "criminal" had been hired by a "security" company and decided that it would be a good story.
Are serious? It's common to think that being near a problem lends special insight, but lets be clear: Doctors spend years studying how to heal, a bioweapons engineer spends years studying how to kill. If the objective is to save the life, the doctor is the clear choice.
who better to blow up the bridge than a guy who builds bridges?
The person who spends years studying how to blow up bridges would be a better choice.
Its not that people on the wrong side of the problem know less then the average person, they *do* know more, but they aren't the best choice for the job. Hiring a Virus writers also is an ethical issue. Separate from their technical abilities:
Can they be trusted?
Do we encourage bad actions by rewarding the authors?
Do the companies compromise their customers trust by hiring the people they are protecting against?
Thanks for putting on the feedbag. Thanks for going all out. Thanks for showing me your Swiss Army knife.
You're a little off here. If not for SPAM, we wouldn't need antispam programs and bays-filters. The filter is a response to the annoyance of the spam. You might argue that the SPAM is due to the lacks in SMTP et al but in that case why make new SPAMs once it's pointed out
The programs written by the kid, however, are targetted at vulnerabilities that already exist. Had he not written the code to expose the weakness, the weakness would still exist. Therefore he is responding to the weakness (and the weakness is the problem) whereas bays-filters are responding to SPAM (and SPAM is the problem).