Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Safe Harbor Spells Win For Kaspersky In Malware Case Against Zango

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the hire-good-engineers-instead-of-lawyers dept.

suraj.sun writes to tell us that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of security company Kaspersky in the recent case questioning their classification of Zango software as malware. "The court ruled that Kaspersky Lab, which classified online media company Zango's software as malware and 'protected' users from it accordingly, could not be held liable for any actions it took to manufacture and distribute the technical means to restrict Zango software's access to others, as Kaspersky Lab deemed it 'objectionable material.' Zango sued Kaspersky Lab to force the Company to reclassify Zango's programs as nonthreatening and to prevent Kaspersky Lab's security software from blocking Zango's potentially undesirable programs. In the precedent-setting ruling for the anti-malware industry, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that Kaspersky Lab is a provider of an 'interactive computer service' as defined in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 . Part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states: 'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ... any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to [objectionable] material.'"

26 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Didn't know what Zango was by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Informative

    So I looked it up:

    Zango, formerly ePIPO, 180solutions and Hotbar

    Oh look, they've had four different names, because they have to keep running away from how scummy they are.
    KILL IT WITH FIRE!

    1. Re:Didn't know what Zango was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What? They're just cute, harmless lil trojans...

    2. Re:Didn't know what Zango was by DaMattster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Both 180solutions and Hotbar were the bane of my existence back in the day. Both these malware items would just keep coming back like persistent, antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. You think you've got every last little registry entry and file removed and lo and behold it would be back. This wouldn't be malware if the company provided honest instructions for the removal of these programs. In some cases, I had heard, the removal instructions simply added code to reinforce the malware. However, because they are being deceptive about its install and automatic re-install, it makes the behaviour unethical. Therefore Zango and its ilk should take the slap on the ass and go sulk in a corner somewhere.

    3. Re:Didn't know what Zango was by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 3, Funny

      The only cute harmless trojans that I know of can be found in 20-packs at my local supermarket.

    4. Re:Didn't know what Zango was by fataugie · · Score: 4, Funny

      I say we blast off and nuke the site from space...it's the only way to be sure.

      --

      WTF? Over?

    5. Re:Didn't know what Zango was by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 2, Funny

      sulk in the corner...? No, beat them badly, kill them, and then crush them into a fine powder like the Box Network executives in Futurama.

    6. Re:Didn't know what Zango was by Em+Emalb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      KILL IT WITH FIRE!

      Nah, that would allow the "phoenix" company to rise from the ashes...just using a different name. I'd humbly suggest the following:

      Invite a horde of angry Mongols to their office building. Ask said Mongols to do what they do best. Once the flames, smoke, and lamentations of the women die down to a dull roar, invite the US Army to do some tank maneuvers over the remains.

      Then, till the soil, salt it, and nuke it repeatedly from orbit. After the land becomes habitable once again, repeat the process.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    7. Re:Didn't know what Zango was by NecroPuppy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only half my problem was the uninstall of these items.

      The other half was the users (bless their hearts) who would reinstall them. It took threatening to fire the next person who installed HotBar before they stopped.

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    8. Re:Didn't know what Zango was by therufus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It wouldn't have mattered. Most commercial anti-virus packages didn't remove Hotbar and its ilk. That is the entire point of the article. Someone (Kaspersky) had the balls to block this scumware and got sued for the trouble. They won, which is great for the anti-viruses of the world, but it's only at this point the malware is being exposed for what it is.

      By simply having anti-virus software before, it wouldn't stop this crap from happening. I truly believe that having an antivirus package is only going to give you 50% security on a Windows based system. You'll get 30% more protection with a full internet security package incorporating an antivirus/antispyware/firewall. You'll get 10% more security by not using Internet Exploiter. That leaves 10% that you just can't protect yourself from. I think it's a fair assessment, though many would disagree.

      --
      You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
  2. As long... by Twillerror · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as the anti-malware gives me the choice and some basic information they can clasify Firefox as malware.

    Chances are if you don't recognize the software name it was either installed by the OEM or was installed without your knowing...

    Plus the open market will sort this sort of thing out. If they start clasfiy incorrectly no one will use them.

    1. Re:As long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For once, a market solution works.

      Kind of reminds me of when AVG started to play by different rules. The users were vocal and loud; AVG got the picture and fixed their problems.

      It's a shame that we need courts to affirm common sense.

    2. Re:As long... by Gerzel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really.

      The open market is very stupid when it comes to software for the most part. They just go with whatever is installed with little to no research into what the program actually runs like or long term performance. It is mostly advertising that gets new software onto computers with a little word of mouth after that. Problems are only noticed when the computer stops "running like it used to" or shows other major faults.

  3. What's more disturbing by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal?

    1. Re:What's more disturbing by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Courts deciding whether we can add features to programs is nonsense.

      Of course, I might be biased. I just added an undocumented feature to our popular medical records management software that allows doctors to access patients' medical records over the Internet. Encryption and access restrictions work just fine, I think, provided the software is configured properly...

    2. Re:What's more disturbing by Crazy+Wolverine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think even more alarming is the fact that Zango didn't get laughed out of the courtroom, and that this case made it all the way to the 9th circuit court of appeals. Back when they were 180Solutions, they were one of the most notorious adware companies around.

      --
      Hail to the victors baby!
    3. Re:What's more disturbing by fataugie · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think even more alarming is the fact that Zango didn't get laughed out of the courtroom

      You mean like SCO?

      Thank you, thank you....let the Karma flow ;)

      --

      WTF? Over?

    4. Re:What's more disturbing by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal?

      Well, the court was deciding if Kaspersky was illegally interfering with Zango's business and customers. That's been a role of teh court in the US for a long time. You can be held liable for interfering with someone else's business; the flip side of this is if someone's software blocked you from installing a competitors or accessing their web pages, even if you wanted to use the competitor product as well.

      And to stave off the inevitable "but Zango is evil and so deserved it..." responses:

      Yes, and I think the court was correct in let Kaspersky block them; however,

      simply because we may not like a business model does not mean that it should be illegal or that others should automatically be allowed to interfere with it.

      That's why, to my non-legal eye, I don't like that this appears to be a rather narrow decision hinging on specific application of a statute; it does appear to open the door to more egarious behavior by others. For example, could a computer manufacturer block installation of any products it wants under the guise of being an "interactive service provider" by having a machine phone home to get an OK to install?

      Should Apple be allowed to block iPhone apps it deems offensive from working an an iPhone that's been jail-broken??

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  4. It's about time by cyberzephyr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Zango and all of it's various iterations have been a plague for countless people. I'm glad the court ruled against them and i hope it sets a good example.

    --
    I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
  5. Re:Now Kaspersky next Microsoft by LikwidCirkel · · Score: 3, Informative

    What do you mean? Vista doesn't support ext2 by default, but I've used this driver on XP and Vista without any trouble at all. I don't think not supporting something out of the box equates to making something hard to do.

  6. Serves them right. by LikwidCirkel · · Score: 4, Informative

    I certainly remember 180-Solutions for being the last straw for me ever using MSIE. Several times they got me with their creative drive-by-installs back in the day, and those were just about the only malware infections I've had in my life. They're an absolute scumbag company and I'm glad about the outcome of this.

  7. What's next? by JobyOne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Child molesters suing to have their name removed from the registered sex offenders databases?

    --
    Porquoi?
    1. Re:What's next? by FrostDust · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even the most virulent of scumbags deserve their day in court.

    2. Re:What's next? by JobyOne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What worries me isn't so much that people are allowed to sue if they feel they have been wronged (that's a wonderful freedom).

      What worries me is that we've built a society where the answer to every little thing has become "sue them." We also built this stupid society on top of a court where the most expensive legal team wins.

      It's a nasty world for the little guys.

      --
      Porquoi?
  8. Re:Not that this ruling is a bad thing... by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 2, Informative

    Part of the CDA was struck down, primarily the parts of the CDA dealing with protecting children from indecent speech. The CDA was amended by Congress to remove the sections the court found unconstitutional.

  9. ISPs can now block ads by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This expands the "safe harbor" of the CDA to cover ad-blockers. Now, ISP's can offer ad removal as a service. Corporate firewalls can provide ad-blocking. This would cut web traffic way down and speed up browsing.

  10. Re:Problem is... by powerlord · · Score: 3, Funny

    I find Kernel32.dll objectionable since it kept causing my user's machines to Blue-Screen.

    I keep deleting it from their partitions, but then they just complain their machine stopped working and needs to be re-imaged.

    Bunch of crybabies if you ask me.

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.