Slashdot Mirror
BBC Hijacks 22,000 PCs In Botnet Demonstration
An anonymous reader writes "'[The BBC] managed to acquire its own low-value botnet — the name given to a network of hijacked computers — after visiting chatrooms on the internet. The programme did not access any personal information on the infected PCs. If this exercise had been done with criminal intent it would be breaking the law. But our purpose was to demonstrate botnets' collective power when in the hands of criminals.' The BBC performed a controlled DDoS attack, 'then ordered its slave PCs to bombard its target site with requests for access to make it inaccessible.'"
when you can use slashdot!
...is good journalism. Good job BBC, the masses need to know about NOT USING IE6 TO SURF THE WEB.
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
If this exercise had been done with criminal intent it would be breaking the law.
Ok, so, I don't know much about the laws, but it is illegal, isn't it?
Whale
Controlling machines without permission? Against the computer misuse act.
They used the botnet to spam two email accounts, one at gmail and one at hotmail. That's against the computer misuse act.
And they changed the wallpaper on the machines on the botnet. Against the computer misuse act.
Their "justification" doesn't fly; not having criminal intent is not a defence against the law.
If this exercise had been done with criminal intent it would be breaking the law.
So if I install software on your machine that you paid for, consume the bandwidth that you are paying for, burn extra electricity that is paid for by you, all with out ever even letting you know about it, so long as I'm doing it for finding a cure for cancer, it's perfectly legal?
What if I use that bot net to distribute the load of rendering animated gaping anal gay midget porn movies? It's not a crime to render animated gaping anal gay midget porn movies, so I have no criminal intent, so it must be legal, right?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I've been on the bad side of this one - a lack of criminal intent does not mitigate or extenuate criminal action. Their guilt is quite plain (having been admitted, even published by the BBC itself). Now, their lack of criminal intent does have a bearing on sentencing. Inasmuch as the BBC did not wilfully cause damage or fiscal loss to anybody (except, potentially, themselves?), the sentence should be something on the light side, perhaps even suspended; but the matter of their guilt is simple black-letter law.
This is both highly illegal and unethical. Illegal in that they accessed the PCs without the owners permission, they sent spam, and changed the settings on the computer.
Unethical even if their motive was not to do criminal intent.
It is like creating a "white worm" to patch servers from an unpatched vulnerability.
Yopu for you?
the notorious underground computer hacking group self-labeled /. deploys over 30,000 Anonymous Cowards to take down the BBC news website by maliciously posting a link to this news article.
Everyone's going on about how it's actually illegal and the intent doesn't matter (I don't know either way - it is Britain and maybe things work differently there).
What about the fact that some guys from the BBC were able to gain control of 20k infected machines on the web just for the purposes of doing a story? To me, the implications of that are far worse than any possible criminality.
Way to go, BBC. You have moved past bringing the populace breaking news stories to creating them! I am looking forward to the next headline, regarding this. I think we all agree that gaining unauthorized access to another computer is, not only unethical, but illegal. I am surprised, being that this article is on slashdot, now, that the BBC is not already feeling the ramifications of its actions. I highly doubt they asked everyone in those chat rooms: "Hi, we are from the BBC, we would like to pwn your computer in the name of exposing cyber security risks. Is this okay, with you? Great, Thanks!"
You SURE only British law applies? As noted in another post, when you start hijacking 22,000 computers on the Internet, most likely SOME of those will be in the USA (or other countries where such activity IS illegal). You sure those BBC lawyers know enough about technology to be sure that the activity was limited to British computers, and this did not actually risk becoming an international incident?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Once the BBC had finished with their botnet, they changed the desktop background of all the infected computers to tell people what had happened and link them to this webpage, which contains some information on how to secure Windows. Then, they uninstalled the botnet software.
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
Feel free to read the law first. It's actually quite readable, even to non-lawyers. It looks like they might have some wiggle room with clause (3)(2) to me.
Get free bitcoins: http://freebitco.in
Actually, hijacking any computer - even if you didn't do anything bad and were trying to demonstrate a security flaw - is illegal. There have been other cases in our past where someone wanted to show the flaws in security...all to end up getting arrested.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
They are apparently oblivious to the fact that DDOSing a site also means saturating the connection of the PCs involved in the attack which could have a critical function within a business. Do they even know the way that the backdoor application works? Is it possible that it is spreading through local shares and otherwise wrecking havoc on some network by propagating through some unpatched exploit?
"Click has now destroyed its botnet, and no longer controls any hijacked machines."
This quote worries me as they don't seem to understand what they're doing. Did they click a button that said "destroy botnet"? By destroy, do they mean wipe out some critical files?
Here's a slightly blurry screenshot of the wallpaper: http://www.heise.de/bilder/134489/0/1
Why, are you going to perform a denial of furniture attack on my neighbours?
Theft from my house is making the analogy inaccurate. They didn't take anything but a minor amount of transfer bandwidth. That's about as serious as stealing the oxygen in my house by breathing.
The analogy would be closer if you simply got into my house without telling me (causing no damage), performed some pre-arranged DDoS with a security company who agreed to it previously, and then vacated, leaving everything as it was before you arrived. After leaving, you then proceed to tell me why you did it, how you did it and how to stop you doing it again. Later you tell the world about such things through a respected news service, in a report about the insecurity of houses like mine and the people who exploit them for profit to the detriment of others.
In that case, I wouldn't like it much but I wouldn't want to sue you or anything either. It would be embarrassing and annoying. I'd probably become quite conscious about the crappy security of my house and fix it up.
Ugh, I can't stand the attitude here. Botnets are a HUGE problem. People need to know if their PCs are hijacked and they need to be fixed. If my PC is hijacked, I want to know about it. Now. When someone's PC is used in a DDOS attack, isn't that illegal activity? I've always heard that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, so if someone is not aware their PC is being used illegally, their PC is still being used for illegal purposes ... should they be held accountable? If there is an activity that is *questionably* legal but can potentially help with the Botnet problem, I'm all for it.