The 'Malware Economy' Evolves

superglaze writes "ZDNet UK has a feature on how the malware economy is turning into a recognizable traditional IT economy. Leasing botnets? Malware support? Welcome to the new age of computing. As the piece suggests, it's all gone Darwinian. 'One indication of the maturity of the black economy, according to Telafici, was the recent case of a hacker who wrote a packer [software used to bypass antivirus protection], "threw in the towel recently as it wasn't profitable enough -- there's too much competition. They opened the source code and walked away."'"

Comments

Re:Oblig..

[CaptainPatent]

So you're saying the editor is a slacker and the hacker who wrote the packer should be a cracker?

This shouldn't have surprised anyone

[damn_registrars]

Really, we've been talking about the Economic basis of spam for some time. I've commented and journaled on how the economics of spam make most current solutions meaningless in the greater fight.

So now when we see yet another article discussing the money that is made in malware, particularly the botnets that drive spammers, there's no reason why anyone should find this surprising.

Re:This shouldn't have surprised anyone

[jefe7777]

absolutely, and we'll pay to have a couple of botnets to get the message out!

Only high profit crime

[Anonymous Monkey]

This is only logical. A criminal will work for the quick buck. BnE is great when lots of people are leaving their windows open and you are the only burglar, but once every one is on the BnE bandwagonit's time to switch to mugging or extortion.

Re:Only high profit crime

[binaryspiral]

A criminal will work for the quick buck. BnE is great when lots of people are leaving their windows open and you are the only burglar, but once every one is on the BnE bandwagon, it's time to switch to mugging or extortion.

Like Patent trolling, DRM, or WGA.

Malware and ex-emailer

[deviated_prevert]

As I receive spam my conclusion is that the majority of bot nets are created by people like my Aunt. She thinks she is safe because she uses some obscure malware and e-mail detection system that seems to have appeared like magic to rescue her from the perils of the net. However her windows 98 kernel has obviously been rooted and she does not even know it.

I keep getting spam traffic from her that is reassigned from a myriad of outlook express ex-emailers. I have told her that she will have to get her OS reinstalled but she just won't listen. I am afraid that the windows OS and the Microsoft way of computing has done little more than create a shit load of computer using zombies and little old ladies (like my aunt) who in blissful ignorance just keep up the status quo. The result of this blissful ignorance is that bot nets have become almost impossible to kill.

Re:Malware and ex-emailer

[Opportunist]

And this won't change as long as you're not responsible for your computer's actions.

We have a license for everything. You need a license to drive, to prove you're able to steer a car without causing a problem. We (at least here) need a license for a gun, so you prove you're not just some maniac who wants to kill his wife's sisters. But even for "non-lethal" things like some jobs you need to prove you're able to handle what's put into your hands sufficiently professionally that you don't cause harm to anyone else.

Now, I wouldn't really want a "driving license" for computers, but I'd very much enjoy seeing people taking some more responsibility for their computers and what they do to others on the internet. As we see now, this has become an economic problem. We waste a lot of bandwidth and work hours fighting spam, we have the sword of a DDoS looming over our heads due to botnets ready to strike, and it all boils down to people using rooted boxes and not even knowing it.

Before you start crying about your freedom to use the net, be aware that sooner or later our legislators WILL react. They have to, the pressure from the industry is already tangible. And in our current environment, the result is very likely not one where people get better educated and more responsibility, instead we'll probably see laws regulating what kinds of machines you may attach to the net (and the accompanying locking of "insecure" machines from participation), and we know the current definition of "secure". It will pretty much lead to machines so heavily DRMed that Vista looks like open source compared to it.

So either we start pushing towards more personal responsibility or we'll have something dumped on us that is the maybe least favorable alternative. Because the industry WILL start lobbying for protection from those rooted machines. And they don't care if you can use your computer for anything but playing prepared content. Actually, some would definitly like that.

Re:Malware and ex-emailer

[Colin Smith]

Now, I wouldn't really want a "driving license" for computers, but I'd very much enjoy seeing people taking some more responsibility for their computers and what they do to others on the internet http://www.ecdl.com/

Re:Malware and ex-emailer

[deviated_prevert]

I concur with what you are saying but what about the malicious propaganda side of things http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=linux+botnet&spell=1 It seems to me that there is also lots of miss information out there, mostly in the form of blogs from so-called security experts, trying desperately to defame open source software!

Re:Malware and ex-emailer

[houstonbofh]

I still don't understand why ISPs are not doing more about this. SPAM uses a large amount of the precious and limited bandwidth, but they filter p2p? I get 10 to 20 spam an hour. As I have more than one e-mail client (one on laptop, one at home, one at work...) each one gets passed off the SIP mail server 3 times for me. It also passes in to the ISP mail server once, so 20-30 messages times 4, times 24 hours times each user ads up to how much bandwidth? And this is why I can't seed my Ubuntu images?

Re:Malware and ex-emailer

[Intron]

I dated Miss Information for a while. The problem was her sister, Miss Conduct.

Re:Malware and ex-emailer

[myvirtualid]

Your post advocates a
( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam.

Furthermore, your approach appears to require a level of international cooperation akin to
( ) Passing a meaningless UN resolution
( ) Negotiating a world wide free trade agreement
( ) private, i.e., commercial and civil, law
( ) Banning land mines
( ) Adding a permanent member to the UN Security Council
( ) Achieved balanced copyright reform
( ) Censuring Cowboy Neal
(X) Doing anything truly useful about climate change
( ) Eliminating Britney Spears

Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction before a useful treaty can be negotiated.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
(X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
(X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
(X) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
(X) uh, come to think of it, I have no particular opinion of you nor any desire to form one.

The real money in spam? Selling to spammers

[uptownguy]

This has to do with SPAM and not botnets...

It's been said before, probably better than I can: The "mark" in the spam economy is NOT the person receiving the email. The "mark" is the person foolish enough to buy the Spam-in-a-box kit thinking they will be able to get a single person to buy their w0tches or v1agra. The money in spam is made not from the person foolish enough to buy the w0tches. The money is made in selling the service to spam millions of people.

Utility Computing

[Crispin Cowan]

No kidding :-) I said in a public forum about 4 years ago that botnets are the first and only successful example of commercial utility computing, where a vendor tries to rent out time on large compute clusters.

This works much better for botnet vendors than for Amazon EC2 or HP Utility Data Center, because the really valuable resource the botnets are renting is a routable IP address that hasn't been shut down yet. Computers are nearly free, but IP addresses that work are not.

Malware is closed-source

[JerryLove]

There's copyright protection on an product designed for illegal use? Isn't that like complaining that someone stole your cocaine?

Here's the actual paper.

[Animats]

Here's the actual paper from which came most of the material in the article: "The Commercial Malware Industry", from the University of Auckland. More technical details.

New threats of interest:

• Some viruses now use error correcting codes so that attempts to patch them out will be repaired.
• Windows Genuine Advantage blackmail trojan. Pops up message requesting payment of money or will disable your computer. (p.39)
• Location-aware malware - used to find location for credit card number, so phony transactions can be generated from a physically nearby node. (p. 41)
• "The most popular brands of antivirus software have an 80% miss rate" - AusCERT (p. 46)
• Malware that detects and removes anti-virus and anti-rootkit tools is available. Once one of these is loaded, it runs before anti-virus software, even in Safe Mode. (p. 48)
• "eGold Siphoner" detects valid sessions connecting to eGold.com and transfers funds by hijacking the authenticated session. (p. 52)