Attacking Criminal Networks On the Internet
Hugh Pickens writes "Computer Scientists at Carnegie Mellon University are developing techniques to analyze and disrupt black markets on the internet, where criminals sell viruses, stolen data, and attack services estimated to total more than $37 million for the seven-month period they studied. To stem the flow of stolen credit cards and identity data, researchers have proposed two technical approaches to reducing the number of successful market transactions. One approach to disrupting the network is a slander attack where an attacker eliminates the verified status of a buyer or seller through false defamation. Another approach undercuts the cyber-crooks' network by creating a deceptive sales environment. 'Just like you need to verify that individuals are honest on E-bay, online criminals need to verify that they are dealing with "honest" criminals,' says Jason Franklin, one of the researchers."
Uh, what's to stop the bad guys from taking these techniques and using them against existing networks, e.g., E-bay?
I'm not sure I like this idea....
How long before the criminals turn around and use the same tools to disrupt legitimate (read: legal) marketplaces? More complex than a crude DDOS, more customizable, allows for a larger Profit!!! potential.
If you can transfer the money to them then you can find them.
What about spam with no contact info? I posted about this once before, and someone responded with (i paraphrase) "spammers are like the rest of us; they forget to include attachments, too. When a spammer forgets, 6 million people find out about it."
I could see this happening sometimes, but the amount of crap I see with no contact info, no website, no product being sold, is amazing. It's like the spam is self aware and breeding. Or the spam churning robot is broken or something. I'd love to know what's behind this. Sometimes it's just the filter workaround "poetry", long lists of current event buzzwords, etc.
"If we can find such a site...why don't we just find out whose using it and arrest them? Is this some new take on crime, that instead of arresting criminals we should discredit them? "
Choice A: Perform lengthy investigation, put in for extradition, wait forever, and then put on trial, all while said bad guy is still controlling and making money off his botnets.
Choice B: screw up bad guy's botnets so badly that he can't sell their services, causing him to spend more resources in the battle, until he gives up and picks an easier crime.
I'll take "B".
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I've never really understood why there's this belief that criminals have trouble being honest. Often, a criminal is only such because society labels them that way and thus dishonest. But in reality, many of them are very nice people performing honest business transactions (unregulated at that!) for their clients. Many drug dealers, prostitutes, pirates, hackers, etc are very honest people in the sense they aren't scamming their customers. They will provide great value to them in fact.
Supporters of the free market can look to the very successful black market as an example of unregulated trade working well. Often in the black market, as this article eludes to, your reputation is everything. So there is no benefit in ripping someone off.
I've worked with many "honest", good people in my black market transactions.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Sort of like baiting 419 scammers into showing up on webcams, except on an industrial scale.
I think you mean IPv8, because odd number IP versions are for beta, and even is for production. This is why we went from IPv4 to IPv6. For example, IPv5 was for Internet Stream Protocol (ST), which was an experimental protocol that never saw the light of day.