Slashdot Mirror
Mariposa Botnet Beheaded
northernboy and many other readers sent news of the beheading of the Mariposa botnet with three arrests in Spain. "Defense Intelligence of Ottawa working with ISPs and Spanish authorities have taken down yet another > 12M PC botnet, called Mariposa. The three top-level operators are in custody, but remain anonymous under Spanish law (how quaint: apparently in Spain, the accused have some right to privacy). AP is claiming that the botnet included systems in roughly half of the Fortune 1000 companies, scattered over 190 countries. Interesting details: none of the three principals has a prior criminal record. Although apparently hardworking, they are not uber-hackers, but rather had connections to the Spanish mafia, which apparently helped to equip them. At the time of arrest, they were not showing signs of their significant new income level. From the article: 'Chris Davis, CEO of Ottawa-based Defence Intelligence, said he noticed the infections when they appeared on networks of some of his firm's clients, including pharmaceutical companies and banks. It wasn't until several months later that he realized the infections were part of something much bigger. After seeing that some of the servers used to control computers in the botnet were located in Spain, Davis and researchers from the Georgia Tech Information Security Center joined with software firm Panda Security, which is headquartered in Bilbao, Spain. The investigators caught a few lucky breaks. For one, the suspects used Internet services that wound up cooperating with investigators. That isn't always the case.'"
From TFA:
how quaint: apparently in Spain, the accused have some right to privacy
That's because in Spain you're not guilty until proven guilty by a court of law. The days of the Spanish inquisition are over.
What country doesn't protect its accused in the 21st century?
Great that another one went down, but the line about catching a lucky break was disturbing. ISP's dont normally cooperate when told they are harboring botnets? Isnt not cooperating pretty much the same as supporting it? Why not just publicly list them and black hole them? I would imagine it wouldnt take much of that to get them to want to cooperate.
All these stories remind me of the war on drugs. Every so often, the government nabs a big drug gang, and they have some impressive sounding stats and a PR photo with as much loot spread out as possible "this cache had a street value of 8 billion dollars", with of course all the guns and other stuff lined up, and, yet, the price of drugs on the street continues to fall, people are still running out of emergency rooms with iv's inserted so they can mainline... this whole sorry truth is that you can't expect the gov't to really defend your computer any more than it can defend your house.
This is my sig.
"If I ever had to 'go rouge' I feel that I could last for years just off of common sense alone by using different public computers in a place with no cameras."
You'd probably still be caught red-handed, though...
-Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience-
'How quaint' that you're innocent until proven guilty?
Am I the only one that is getting tired more and more frequently by juvenile editorial quips?
I used to come here for impartial, to the minute news - neither of which seem to exist in any great quantity anymore.
Why is it so hard to dismantle a botnet? Rather than find the botnet owners by technical means, surely all they need to do is determine who are the businesses being advertised via spam from the botnet, and get them to spill who they did their advertising deal with.
I mean the advert always has to specify somewhere to send your money right?
It seems to me that if they made it as illegal to be an 'spamvertiser' as it is to be a botnet operator, and actually enforced it with presecutions, I bet the whole botnet and spam thing generally would stop happening due to a lack of businesses willing to pay to use that method for advertising.
The most common things people do when they are witnesses to someone committing an illegal activity is re-elect him.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
What the hell is wrong with you two? The only situation I can find this even remotely acceptable is in response to verified abuse complaints, and even then the appropriate resolution is attempt to contact the customer then disable the entire connection if the customer is unable to resolve the issue. Depending on the severity you don't necessarily need to do it in that order.
I'm leasing an internet connection. You route IP packets destined for my address directly to me, and you route any and every IP packet I send to the appropriate next hop. The end. No if's, and's or but's. No blocked, ports, no traffic shaping, no injected tcp resets... nothing. Just route the damn traffic.
I've heard of this group before. They are one of the few who actually understand what really needs to be done to make an impact on the spamming epidemic. Rather than building enormous black/white lists or developing ever more CPU-intense filtering algorithms, they are actually going after the sources. They identify where spam is actually originating - that is, the spamvertising domains, not the spamvertised domains - and figure out how to shut it down. They are finding where the botnets and their requisite domains can be targeted and getting the work done. And they are doing it within the confines of a civilized society, rather than the bloodthirsty mercanaries that so many people here are calling for regularly.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
SMTP - home users should only be able to connect to port 25 on their ISPs mail server. I don't really understand why egress filtering like this isn't being done as a routine course of business these days.
Probably because of a large number of other email options out there, which offer SMTP and POP3 and aren't connected to the ISP. GMail for example...