Slashdot Mirror


Sony Rootkit may Lead to Regulation

An anonymous reader writes "Computerworld has a story about DHS officials meeting with Sony to read them the riot act, following the rootkit fiasco. From the story: 'A U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official warned today that if software distributors continue to sell products with dangerous rootkit software, as Sony BMG Music Entertainment recently did, legislation or regulation could follow.'"

73 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. WTF? by smash · · Score: 5, Interesting
    So if a 15 year old crashes his school's webserver by getting a bunch of friends in IRC to click on it too many times he can be prosecuted, but if a global megacorporation does something far more insidious (effectively, SELLING you TROJANED media), then "we need regulation"?

    Why are people not in jail for this yet?

    (yes, that was a rhetorical question).

    smash.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    1. Re:WTF? by lennart78 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      According to www.opensecrets.org Sony has, over the years, ponied up millions of dollars in contributions to political parties. I haven't seen that 15 year old script-running-juvenile matching that.

    2. Re:WTF? by smash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't need opensecrets.org to tell me that. :)

      I was merely trying to point out how "fucked up" the system is - we live in a world that allowed the two events described above to have the outcomes they did...

      smash.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    3. Re:WTF? by luvirini · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the 15 year old is a terrorist for attacking national infrastructure. The company is just trying to protect it's godgiven right for profits.

    4. Re:WTF? by jozi · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Corporation: An organization created in order to generate individual profit without individual responsibility.

      That is why no on is in jail, it goes against the very idea of corporations. :o)

      --
      "If you can't live without me, why aren't you already dead?"
    5. Re:WTF? by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have the sudden urge to vomit on my playstation. And my girlfriend's playstation 2. And my friend's psp...

    6. Re:WTF? by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is a non-voting entity allowed to give political contributions?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:WTF? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Because its shareholders are largely voters. The Supreme Court has ruled money to be speech, and the Right of the People to assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances is in the Constitution. Like it or not, a corporation is an assembly of some of the People, just like a union, or political party.

      I agree it stinks, but I'm not exactly sure how we stop it short of a constitutional amendment, and if that amendment is too broadly worded, the cure could be worse than the disease.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    8. Re:WTF? by philipgar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would say the most important reason is to avoid unfair competition. Imagine this, 2 companies are competing, one a corporation, the other is set up such that one family controls it (and it isn't incorporated). Normally the family controlled business would incorporate to give it limited liability etc. However as it would stand under this situation they'd have a huge advantage.

      The family owned business starts sending lobbyists to congress, and gets a law passed that basically makes it such that they're the only ones allowed to do business (and yes congress has done similar such things before), or more likely they have more capital available (as the other company spent theres on upgrading technology etc) and lobbied congress to pass massive pollution control laws . The pollution control laws are laregely irrelevant, but would cost each company billions of dollars in expenses. Luckily the family owned company had "saved up" for a rainy day and previously bought many patents to help with such matters (overpaying in the process because they knew these companies would soon be much more valuable). All of a sudden the corporation goes out of business because the individuals managed to lobby congress for a less efficient economy that they could rule.

      Or we could always stop anyone from directly giving money to political campaigns, which of course would mean that the richest people would have an even bigger advantage in running for office (why do you think congress fights attempts to give themselves a bigger salary. .. yes, to make it so only the richer people have a chance at holding office). Of course you could then start attack problem after problem, but if there's one thing you'll quickly learn (as 70 years of big government has shown us) is that big government is incapable of solving big governments problems. While it still has problems when it's smaller, at least it's just that, smaller.

      Phil

    9. Re:WTF? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's more of the baseball three-strikes mentality getting into the law. You did it once, fine, strike one. Do it again, that's strike two and we legislate. Once more and then you'll be in trouble.

      Except with enough campaign donations they can keep hitting foul balls without ever facing a real penalty.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    10. Re:WTF? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree it stinks, but I'm not exactly sure how we stop it short of a constitutional amendment, and if that amendment is too broadly worded, the cure could be worse than the disease.

      Outlaw campaign contributions to anything other than a central fund. Cap campaign spending at a dramatically lower level. The n candidates with the most petition signatures get on the ballot, and get equal campaign funds.

      This prevents people from buying elections...

      The only missing piece here is who pays for advertising. I propose that all media outlets be required to dedicate a certain percentage of their space to this purpose. It can be part of their licensing fees. After all, the FCC is supposed to hold the airwaves in the public trust and manage them in the public's interest. It's not an unreasonable thing to do. Campaign funds can be spent on travel, newspaper ads, et cetera.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:WTF? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I propose that all media outlets be required to dedicate a certain percentage of their space to this purpose. It can be part of their licensing fees.

      Including Slashdot? Or does "media" not include the net?

      Furthermore, with the ruling that cash == speech, there is no way to cap or equalize spending. It's unconstitutional prior restraint. Yes, it sucks, but that is the law as written. You can force someone to forgo government assistance if they spend beyond a certain limit, but you cannot limit the amount of someone's personal fortune if they choose to spend it on their personal candidacy. I fully expect the next GOP candidate for President to reject matching funds so he can spend without restraint. There's no legal way to stop it from happening and they are the party of money.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    12. Re:WTF? by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm entertained by the knee-jerk reactionism that has allowed this "sociopathic corporation" meme to float around. Corporations are held responsible. They get sued for breaking the law and then bankrupted--a death sentence. Ask Kenneth Lay what he thinks about the dearth of individual responsibility in corporate law. Furthermore, we all have a god-given right to make profit. No where do we have to act for the benefit of my fellow man; I just cannot hurt him. So if I should vote to say, fight a war in Iraq because I own lots of stock in military suppliers, I just sent a whole bunch of people to die killing a whole bunch of other people. Am I held individually responsible for my individual profits? Uh, no. So why can't corporations do the same?

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    13. Re:WTF? by logicpaw · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's very simple, and I don't think it'd be that dangerous: repeal the ruling making corporations people (because they aren't), and repeal the ruling declaring money as speech (because it isn't). See? That wasn't so hard, and it fits in so nicely with reality!

      OK, let's plan how to do this. We need to elect a lot of legislators who will confirm judges leaning towards the repeals you suggest. The best way to do that is to form some political action corporation to help elect those candidates by giving them lots of money to help finance their election campaigns.

      Oh wait...

  2. You haven't figured it out yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The world runs on money.

    1. Re:You haven't figured it out yet? by smash · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You clearly don't know what a "rhetorical question" is, or didn't read my post.

      :)

      smash.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    2. Re:You haven't figured it out yet? by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. The principle of capitalism ist: Privatize profits, communalize costs. Sony BMG was just trying to profit privately from non copyable media while externalizing the costs to thousands of PC owners.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:You haven't figured it out yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, that just makes it good business, according to the reprehensible predatory practices that are currently deemed as acceptable business behavior. Corporate execs and shareholders alike love nothing better than to externalize expenses, and they really don't give a damn who has to bear that burden, as long as it's not them.

    4. Re:You haven't figured it out yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the principle of capitalism is simply voluntary trade for mutual benefit. Any proper instance of capitalism necessarily benefits both (all) parties involved, and the result is that more wealth exists after the transaction than before. That is, in fact, how all the wealth you see in the world today was created.

      What you described as capitalism is what we see today in the US, which is better described as "bastardized capitalism". Under bastardized capitalism, there is room for coercion (theft, fraud, government), because not all transactions need benefit all parties involved. Under real capitalism (which doesn't exist today on the national scale), all forms of coercion are unacceptable because they work against, not towards, the goal of mutual benefit.

    5. Re:You haven't figured it out yet? by yurnotsoeviltwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind that "true" capitalism as you described it is not reached through Gov't interference with the market, but rather through market forces bringing things to equilibrium. It relies on people knowing what is best for themselves and thus not participating in any transactions that do not create wealth for them. Another point - "wealth" here is a relative term. What is wealth for me could be junk to you. Lets assume for the sake of example that you're a classical music fan, and I'm a hard rocker. If we both buy a Blindside CD, then chances are I created wealth for myself AND for the RIAA's lawyers while you only created wealth for the corporation and not for yourself, since the CD isn't really worth much to you. So really, some people could have bought a DRM'd CD and created wealth for themselves, lets say if they don't bother listening to music on their computer. For me, however, a DRM'd CD is worth less because there's a greater potential that I can't do what I want with it (listen on my computer, put it on my iPod, etc.)

    6. Re:You haven't figured it out yet? by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might also want to keep in mind that "true capitalism", as well as "true communism" are mind constructs that are completely impossible to setup in the real world because there is no way that most people are actually going to play nice. If they can screw you to increase their benefit, they will. Which is why an external regulatory agent is needed (even though that idea is apparently blasphemous to the US mindset).

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    7. Re:You haven't figured it out yet? by f1055man · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Which is why an external regulatory agent is needed (even though that idea is apparently blasphemous to the US mindset)."

      A failure of analysis--society's not yours. The idea that economics and politics are different spheres of life is fairly limited to the United States among Western nations. Europeans don't have "external regulatory agents," as they acknowledge that politics and economics are inseparable. See The Great Transformation, by Polanyi. Its like reading the entire API for political economists. Just as critical and just as boring.

    8. Re:You haven't figured it out yet? by bigpat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why an external regulatory agent is needed (even though that idea is apparently blasphemous to the US mindset).

      Regulation? We already have laws against hacking people's computers and causing damage. Sony needs to be prosecuted, not regulated. Sony commited a felony and DHS wants to turn this into a beaurocratic exercise. This is in the FBI's and Attorney General's realm, not DHS.

      DHS should stick to what it is good at, screwing up responses to national disasters, oh wait.

  3. The recent Sony experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The recent Sony experience..." This phrase makes me wonder if Sony is going to be a catch phrase.

    "I just bought a DVD with rootkit software on it."
    "You've been Sony-ed", or,
    "That's the Sony experience!"

    1. Re:The recent Sony experience by anagama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I recently (about 2 weeks ago) had to buy two new monitors for my office. My business partner mentioned she saw a sale on some Sony LCD -- I said "no way" and we got something else. Had Sony not gone out of its way to be evil, I would've said "sure". Perhaps "Sonied" will be a term for companies that shoot themselves in the head with their marketing practices. I'd rather see that than a lot of customers being screwed.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:The recent Sony experience by luvirini · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Sony, making your entertainment experience more thrilling"

    3. Re:The recent Sony experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny you say that - I had exactly the same with a new 24" TFT we need for the office. And my wife wanted to get a Sony Camcorder, and I said to her 'No way, God knows what rootkits they are shipping with the editing software' I hope the right people from Sony read these comments.

    4. Re:The recent Sony experience by luvirini · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Vaio was one of the more popular laptop models for our salesforce. It has now been dropped from list of approved products.

    5. Re:The recent Sony experience by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Funny

      And just the other day, I was watching downloaded David Attenborough documentaries, and the name "Sony" popped up on one of the special cameras used there - I exclaimed "No way!" and used mencoder to edit the relevant part out right away. That'll teach 'em!

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    6. Re:The recent Sony experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ditto. No more Sony laptops for the people I help choose gear. Plus no more Sony AV gear for home and an 'on principle' purchase of the album 'Suck Fony'! And I'm going to kick the next Aibo I see.

    7. Re:The recent Sony experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Surprised it ever made its way onto your list at all. Our MD got one (does a lot of presentations to clients, so the flashy screen helps the product look good), and the first thing I had to do was install XP Pro on it (it has to run a local IIS web server). It has an SATA HDD.

      As I have had many bad experiences with upgrading windows I tried to do a clean install of XP Pro. SATA not supported. OK, I thought, I'll download the controller drivers, write to floppy, and do the whole F6 thing.

      Checked the Sony website, no drivers. Checked Google, no drivers. Nowhere was any mention even of what controller the machine used. Fine, I thought, put in a support call. It went something like this:

      Me: "Hi, I'm installing XP Pro, blah blah blah, can you give me the drivers please?"

      Them: "Sorry, we don't support other operating systems"

      Me: "That's fine. I don't expect any support after this. Please send me the drivers"

      Them: "Sorry, we don't support other operating systems"

      I think: OK, that's the way it's going to be.

      Me: "OK. Please can you tell me what SATA controller is in the machine?"

      Them: "No. We cannot provide that information."

      At this point, I was a little agitated (which I didn't take out on the poor helpdesk guy), but that was basically the end of the conversation.

      This was some time before the whole rootkit fiasco came to light. Just a heads up for anyone else out there - don't buy Sony equipment - turns out you are only allowed to use it how they want you to. We certainly never will again. Seems very appropriate in hindsight...

    8. Re:The recent Sony experience by xaque · · Score: 2, Funny

      And I'm going to kick the next Aibo I see.

      That's a violation of the DMCA!

  4. So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sony's root kit disabled the Department of Homeland Security's root kit. I can see why they might be miffed.

    1. Re:So.. by jibjibjib · · Score: 5, Funny
      What if I want to make my own rootkit? Will I have to register it with the DHS, and get them to audit it for security holes and check it for compatibility with their own rootkit?

      And what about Linux rootkits? Will Linux rootkits be supported by the DHS? Or will they just be banned altogether? Surely the DHS can't be stuffed writing a Linux rootkit as well as a Windows rootkit.

      Even scarier... what if Linux rootkits weren't regulated at all? Cyberterrorists could go on a rampage of linux rooting, and the government wouldn't be able to stop them, or more importantly, tax them.

      Hmm... that's an idea, the DHS could implement a rootkit tax, to fund their own rootkit development, and better protect our fellow God-fearing American citizens from the cyberterrorists of the future.

      The War on Terror is ending. The War on Rootkits is only just beginning...

  5. Threatening Legislation by James+McGuigan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So they have not been punished for their crime,

    They are not even being told they will get punished if they do it again,

    It seems to say, if you do it again, only then will make it illegal so you can't do it a third time.

    (Gee, I'll have to try that one next time I get busted by the cops - its only my first offence, officer, you shouldn't lock me up until I've done it at least 3 times)

    1. Re:Threatening Legislation by smash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Or, as another poster pointed out, perhaps the "legislation" will LEGALISE their behavior so that the "problem" doesn't occur again, as they're acting within the law.

      smash.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  6. Regulation? by RedHatLinux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ohh, you mean legalization and decriminalization of these behaviors, so that this does not become an issue again. Anything less than a total ban, backed up by some serious time in a federal pound you in the ass facility, means that someone has been bought out.

    1. Re:regulation? by Peter777 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doesn't someone need to press charges for that to happen? If the government isn't interested in prosecuting them for their invasion of government computers, perhaps someone could call the local police department or FBI and say "Excuse me, but I'd like to report a computer crime; someone cracked my system with a rootkit. I think I know who it was, and I have a copy of the rootkit on CD."

    2. Re:regulation? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't put a corporation in jail. Unfortunately.

      --
      This space available.
  7. Mr. & Mrs. Smith DVD by rminsk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lets hope the industry learns soon. There are recent products shipping with rootkits on them like the german release of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/archive-02 2006.html#00000810

    1. Re:Mr. & Mrs. Smith DVD by Bazzalisk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, it's a trojan, and it requires you to give it your admin password to do anything realy nasty.

      --
      James P. Barrett
    2. Re:Mr. & Mrs. Smith DVD by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh and it *is* a true virus. It replicates in exactly the same way as eg. an outlook virus.

      Apple haven't got a fix out yet but I guess they will soon (WTF is system software doing loading libraries from the home directory anyway? There's a *reason* why /usr/lib is only writable by root..)

      From the virus summary:

      "Leap.A installs a bundle to '~/InputManagers/apphook' that hooks certain iChat functions. When any of the user's buddies change their status, the worm initiates a file transfer and sends a copy of ' 'latestpics.tgz'. The file transfer is not visible to the user as the worm hides the transfer status information."

      "The worm enumerates all applications on the computer that were used during the last month. Leap.A replaces the main executable of those applications with itself and saves the original file to a resource fork with the same filename. When the application is opened the worm activates first, then it runs the original application from the resource fork."

  8. My EFF Action letter worked! by Anyd · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hooray!
    I told my senator to tell the RIAA and Sony to go f##k themselves... I guess he listened.

  9. threatening? by LParks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why merely threaten legislation if it continues to happen? Laws against "products with dangerous rootkit software" wouldn't seem to harm anyone. Enact the legislation now.

  10. not malicious? by a.d.trick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFA:

    While Sony's software was distributed without malicious intent

    I guess that depends on what you mean by malicious. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who distributes trojans is either malicious, or mentally insane — on the same level as the man who thinks he's a poached egg.

    1. Re:not malicious? by luvirini · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real thing was likely more crimial negligence than an attempt to break things. They should thus pay for all the associated costs as anyone breaks something owned by someone else and so on...

    2. Re:not malicious? by ray-auch · · Score: 2, Insightful


      The side-effect of making computers unstable and hackable was not the intent of sony


      Yes, but there was also:

            Making it difficult / impossible to uninstall
            Using rootkit tech _at all_ (to hide the driver files, to stop you uninstalling)
            Making it install even when the user clicks no / cancel

      All those were clearly deliberate intent - and dubious legality in some places (particularly installing, irreversibly, when the user explicitly denies permission).

  11. eh? by szo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mean this was legal?

    --
    Red Leader Standing By!
  12. No malicious intent? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While Sony's software was distributed without malicious intent, the DHS is worried that a similar situation could occur again, this time with more serious consequences. "It's a potential vulnerability that's of strong concern to the department," Frenkel said.

    Would someone please define malicious? I think it WAS malicious.

    ------------
    The American Heritage dictionary:
    malicious (m-lsh's) pronunciation
    adj.


    Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful.

    -------------
    Thompson-Gale Legal Encyclopedia:
    Malicious

    Involving malice; characterized by wicked or mischievous motives or intentions.

    An act done maliciously is one that is wrongful and performed willfully or intentionally, and without legal justification.

    --------------
    I'd say that given Sony's generally agressive posture with regards to personal/individual fair use and copyright infringement, I think they could easily be characterized using words like "angry" and "vengeful." And regardless of the emotional component, it was certainly wrongful, willfull, intentional and without legal justification.

    1. Re:No malicious intent? by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Was the DRM aspect intentional? Yes.
      Was the security problem intentional? No.
      What is being discussed in TFA? The security problem.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  13. It seems like a case of by Adelle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    do as we say, not as we do.

  14. Mod Parent Up. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To have the government threaten to enact legislation is like having a parent wave their finger at a naughty child warning him not to break ANY MORE of the neighbor's windows.

    Laws have already been broken and all we're seeing is warnings implying this may be made illegal in the future.

  15. Since when did the Executive branch make laws? by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Last time I checked, the DHS doesn't work for the Legislature. Their job begins and ends with enforcing the existing laws.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  16. wrong act.... by luvirini · · Score: 2, Insightful
    read them the riot act

    Should it not read RICO act?

    1. Re:wrong act.... by sunya · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quibble, with both parent and GP, but The Riot Act comes into force only after it has been read out, bit it aint so with the RICO or PATRIOT : Hence the phrase "Reading the Riot Act"

      --
      MLT - simple and robust open source multimedia framework for Linux
  17. And yet, the cynic in me... by Crash+Culligan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...thinks that DHS would love for this to happen again.

    From TFA: Baker stopped short of mentioning Sony by name, but Frenkel did not. "The recent Sony experience shows us that we need to be thinking about how to ensure that consumers aren't surprised by what their software is programmed to do," he said.

    I could almost see them thinking, . o O (...and the best way to do it would be to stringently regulate consumers' computers, so that we can watch for intrusions of this sort in future and prepare for them. Oh, do it again Sony? Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohsnausagesohplease!)

    --
    You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
  18. Could someone explain? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A 17 year old writing a stupid trojan that does little but spread receives a 2 year sentence in jail and is only safe from compensation since companies didn't want to have the public know their systems are insecure.

    Read: Juvenile dick-waving without commercial interest -> 2 years prison.

    A large corporation spreading a rootkit with their product to their paying customer with the intent to cripple their customer's software performance (not being able to use it as intended, by manufacturer or user) that also has the capability of spying on their behaviour (allegedly they didn't use that function, but ... yeahsure) receives... a recommendation not to do anything like this again or else we might have to think about creating laws banning this behaviour (hey, those laws exist, enact them!).

    Read: Commercial malvolent infiltration of customer's computers -> Nada.

    The world sure is changing. When I was still in school, adding "commercial" to a crime sure upped your sentence by some magnitude. Nowadays it seems to be your "get out of jail" card if you commit a crime with financial interest.

    Al Capone simply died too early. He'd love these times.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Could someone explain? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, first, yes, a "teenage hacker" might include some harmful code. That's where the fun part ends. But he didn't. There was no direct damage involved (besides some spam for the spreading routine, which is dwarfed by the amount of spam from c15al1s and v1agra).

      Still, 2 years and some other rules that simply crippled his future, like banning him from the 'net for a while.

      Imagine a ban on Sony to produce music for 2 years, what good this could do!

      But I ramble. The core point is that there is NO way that you can create a rootkit in such a way that it is NOT exploitable by other parties. Especially not if you insist on keeping a "foot in the door", to use this figure, to maintain a stranglehold on the customer for future upgrades of your rootkit and for future use of other products.

      Rootkits are inherently an invitation to other malware to abuse their abilities to spawn more harm. Imagine said pimple-faced hacker did something like that. I bet my rear that he'd be made liable for the damage his product COULD have done if someone else decided to use it for the purpose of doing more harm.

      Besides, if you want to see some real damage done, look at the StarForce copy protection mechanism. That contains some freaky little code that makes you wonder.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Talk about a misleading submitted post by will_die · · Score: 2, Informative

    The main bulk of the article is about a recent speech where the director of law enforcement policy talked about how companies should be careful about how they implement copy protection and how it should not damage or surprise users in how it works.
    In there is a small paragraph mentioning that DHS and a talk with Sony that what they did "was not a useful thing", which becomes the main thing.
    The thing thing that should of been focused on was the message from DHS that companies should not defeat the security measures that people have in place on thier computers.

  20. Could someone sue StarForce spreaders please? by LarsWestergren · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was about the download the demo for Battle for Middle Earth 2 the other day, only to read that the goddamn DEMO comes with the StarForce malware.

    According to Wikipedia, Ubi Soft, Digital Jesters and Codemasters routinely use StarForce on new games. Forget about consoles, THIS is what might kill PC gaming permanently.

    --

    Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

  21. What is a rootkit? by tom6a · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you are looking for a good reference to understand a rootkit I recommend Matt Vea's article "Rootkits: The 'r00t' of Digital Evil." He wrote it back in Novemeber when the Sony fiasco was first revealed. Link: http://www.omninerd.com/2005/11/22/articles/43

  22. regulation? by eobanb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh, how about prosecution.

    --

    Take off every sig. For great justice.

  23. Important distinction by AlphaSys · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Another exaple of our tax-dollar-paid servants not applying themsleves to the task mentally:

    "A U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official warned today that if software distributors continue to sell products with dangerous rootkit software, as Sony BMG Music Entertainment recently did, legislation or regulation could follow."


    The important thing to keep in mind is that, while SONY may have a software division, the product sold wasn't even a software product at all, and no disclosure of a software product was discussed in any terms of sale, etc. The whole software angle was completely surrepetitious. It's not just "software distributors" that need policing here. When it boils down to it, this SONY division had no business "engineering" software into their product; they had little grasp of the ethics or the technical implications of what they were doing... or at least that's what they tell us now. For all we know, they were fully aware and just did it anyway thinking plausible deniability was all they would need when it came to light. If indeed they thought so, they would seem to have been prescient - nothing has happeded because of it. I for one am a bit surprised at that.
    --
    Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
  24. Sony should be prosecuted by layer3switch · · Score: 4, Funny

    for distributing Celine Dion CDs. I don't mind rootkit (haven't bought "CD" in 10 years), but for Pete's sake, someone feed that woman.

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  25. forget rootkits... by bennomatic · · Score: 4, Funny
    what I want is a w00tkit!

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  26. Megacorp meets with secret police by The+Mgt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure good things will come of this. :/

  27. Sony BMG settles by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Informative

    On a side note, Sony BMG settled the class action lawsuit filed against them by the EFF. If you want replacement CDs released by Sony BMG that don't have XCP or MediaMax on them, head to http://www.eff.org/sony for more info.

    It's your chance to stick it to the man.

  28. Morals? Ethics? by micpp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've often wondered why things like this rootkit exist in the first place. Does Sony only employ those who are morally bankrupt? Surely someone at some point in Sony would have said "Hey, this is kinda evil".

  29. Sony DID do Something Illegal by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Check out 18 USC 1030 - Fraud in connection with computers

    Subsection (3) states that anyone who "intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States" and causes damage is in deep poop.

    Imagine a Department of Defense employee on a secure computer popping in a Sony Rootkit CD - woops!

  30. I'm SICK of the "shareholders" argument by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Shareholders" are about as identifiable as "terrorists." Let's cut through the bullshit on this one.

    When you count out who the majority VOTING shareholders are, you will find that a vast majority of the time, they are the same decision makers who are citing "will of the shareholders." It's bullshit. A doctor should do no harm regardless of who pays his fees. A corporation should do no evil regardless of shareholder interest or profit-making directives. The decision of HOW to go about making profit was made by people and THOSE people should be held accountable for those decisions.

  31. Sony is EVIL!!! by rlp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So I guess Sony is the new official Slashdot punching bag ... till the PS/3 comes out.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  32. Will Someone Please Explain.... by mpapet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is DHS the one that is playing enforcer here? How does policing corporations in private fit into their responsibilities of providing homeland security?

    With computer crimes there's some kind of investigation from local and federal law enforcement (FBI maybe?) and maybe a public hearing or two to give the appearance to voters that something is going to be done.

    Please point out the obvious here because I'm missing it.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  33. Security Flaws are Not the Issue by iamlucky13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It really bugs me that DHS and generally everyone else are looking at this issue as if the security vulnerabilities in the Sony rootkit are the main issue. And perhaps it is to them, but not to me. The real issue is that Sony is installing software on computers without the owner's permission, and it's software that intentionally hobbles hardware/software you paid for. That's like being upset, not because a thief stole your TV, but because he left the back door unlocked when he left.