Slashdot Mirror


FBI To Shut Down DNSChanger Servers Monday -- But Should It Cut Off 300k PCs?

nk497 writes "The FBI is set to pull the plug on DNSChanger servers on Monday, leaving as many as 300,000 PCs with the wrong DNS settings, unable to easily connect to websites — although that's a big improvement from the 4m computers that would have been cut off had the authorities pulled the plug when arresting the alleged cybercriminals last year. The date has been pushed back once already to allow people more time to sort out their infected PCs, but experts say it's better to cut off infected machines than leave them be. 'Cutting them off would force them to get ahold of tech support and reveal to them that they've been running a vulnerable machine that's been compromised,' said F-Secure's Sean Sullivan. 'They never learn to patch up the machine, so it's vulnerable to other threats as well. The longer these things sit there, the more time there is for something else to infect.'"

140 comments

  1. Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By seeing some of the stuff I read on news comment boards etc, the internet should be culled

    If there was only some way to do it more selectively

    1. Re:Good... by Jetra · · Score: 1

      As much as I'm glad of the herding of cattle, don't you think that this could be a premise for the government to take down other sites? Such as YouTube or possibly Face under the suspicion of fradulent activity which isn't too far-fetched seeing as how there are tons of videos on YouTube concerning taking down websites, creating viruses and the like while for Facebook there are scammers abound?

      I'm giving a fair warning now: You may want to put your guard up while you still can. The government is taking down less legitamite sites in an attempt to pull the entire internet under one rule - Congressional rule. If we don't react, even without consideration for this incident, you may find yourself losing your rights online and possibly your computer which could be a potential cache of pirated software.

      I'm not trying to be a fear-monger, I'm just stating the fact: The government wants to control the internet. While the FBI is taking down smaller sites, we neglect to see the bigger picture: it's going to be a domino effect. First with MegaUpload, then that other site (I can't remember), and now this? If this doesn't bring up red alerts in your head, you might as well just hand over your computer to Congress because you are ignoring the nuke with the keys turned.

    2. Re:Good... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Congress has pretty broad authority over just about any communications related activities that occur on US shores. The FBI doesn't have to sneak congressional rule in. They have it. The FBI doesn't have to push for the authority to shutdown YouTube. Google, who owns YouTube is a US company, they just need to hand them a takedown order if Congress or the courts wanted it down.

    3. Re:Good... by Jetra · · Score: 1

      Except they have to follow the Fourth, Eight, and Nineth Amendments. I would love to see them try to get past a patriot, especially the Southerners who are all about protecting the Constitution. I will raise Hell should any of them be broken while I'm alive.

    4. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you clearly haven't been paying attention

    5. Re:Good... by Jetra · · Score: 1

      No I have not, which is a bit of a shame really.

    6. Re:Good... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      4,8,9?

      4 doesn't apply to public information presented openly. If they don't have to search....
      8 doesn't apply to a take down, that's neither cruel not unusual it is SOP for illegal content
      9 would apply if the Congress did something like required all websites to get prior approval for all changes or additions, maybe.

    7. Re:Good... by Jetra · · Score: 1

      4 because they still need a search warrant and the government can't hack into the site to see who is doing illegal activity, which they have been doing for ages

      8 because I've seen some of the severity of these take downs. Computers taken from the user, the user's family, as well as any computers he may have been in contact with along with the computers connected to that one

      9 because there are no laws concerning the Internet, thus it's in the public domain as how it should be handled. Yes, I know it was written in an age of quills and parchment, but if you are taking digital rights from people, that's a violation of this Amendment since it is not wrtten in the Constitution whatsoever, ergo, everything online is protected and the government should be sued for these takedowns.

    8. Re:Good... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I don't think you know what 9 means. 9 prohibits the government from creating negative laws. Something like "everything on the internet is illegal unless specifically authorized" would be illegal under 9. 9 does not prohibit the government from creating black letter law about anything they want. Other parts of the constitution might but 9 does not.

      Seizure of property as part of an arrest, is standard and has been. People suspected of shootings get their guns taken. People suspected of drug dealing have bank accounts frozen. Etc... There is nothing cruel or unusual about taking computers. You may not like the government's ability to take property in advance of conviction, I agree with that. But I'd have no problems with computers being taken after conviction.

      As for 4. The government can't hack a site and use that evidence unless they have a court order. USA v. Jarrett for example where evidence given to the government by a hacker while acting as an agent of the state was tossed.

    9. Re:Good... by Jetra · · Score: 1

      Just looked up "Black Letter Law." Basically, it means that they can fill in the blanks so long as it makes legal sense? Well then, may as well throw out the Constitution.

      When George Washington founded this country, he thought of a country free from tyranny of government and little involvement from the country we live in. We were supposed to be a defensive nation. That was over 200 years ago. Today is a very, very dark sight.

      Tuesday, November 2, 2000. This day is the start of our current situation and will be a roadmap for the future. On this day, George W. Bush was elected President. One year later, September 11, 2001. Terrorists attacked the Twin Towers, killing hundreds of people. We went to war with the Middle-East the very next day. Ten years it took to get both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Why did it take so long? Hussein in a hole while bin Laden was literally waiting at home.

      The reason ti took so long was because we didn't care about vengance. No, we were busy securing oil once Hussein was taken down in 2003. That still means it took us SEVEN YEARS to find the Al Queda leader literally sitting at his home, watching us pretend to look for him while, in fact, Wall Street was getting rich off the oil in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eight years Bush had to find him, and he didn't even make any sort of attempt to it.

      Now, we are forcing democracy on the countries of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan for the sake of preventing this terrorism from happening again. We were meant to get in, shoot them, then get out. Why the hell are we still in the Middle-East? Many innocent men are losing their lives for no reason other than to make sure our profits are secured. We are no longer at war with these people, we have now become a nation bent on taking care of the rest of the world. We gave aid to the very country we went to war with which is stupid. They hate us and I don't blame them.

      I'm not trying to say we shouldn't help people, but the Middle-East should help itself first. Otherwise, we'll be taking care of them for the rest of the forseeable future. Like black people. I am not racist, but I hate the younger generation who thinks I owe them crap because of what their ancestors went through. They can kiss my ass and go get a job themselves. I believe in reparations for the parents and older, but everyone under 30 need to stop bitching and do something. I'm not handing them a silver platter, I'm giving them a job application.

      On top of that, we are currently helping out the European market with the bailouts. Why the hell are we putting money into a dying system? They were the ones who wanted to unify the entire Continent, so they can get out of the mess themselves. Since we are now sending money their way, they have taken bigger risks. Greece and Spain just got bailed out. How many more countries should we help bailout before we figure out that our three trillion dollar deficit is caused by us taking care of everyone?

      With that, I end this history lesson.

    10. Re:Good... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Let me just point out a few George Washington quotes:

      It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it.

      Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals.

      The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.

      I would suggest that you are reading far more into freedom than what was ever proposed. And considering the Constitution is considerably less free than the Articles of Confederation under Washington, that perhaps you might want to read the Constitution. America is not and was never established as an anarchy.

    11. Re:Good... by Jetra · · Score: 1

      Never said America was supposed to be an anarchy. I was just saying that our government's involvement is far more than is necessary. We are not the world's protectors. We should concern our country first and everyone else second. It's currently everyone else first before the country.

  2. Chances are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    those machines are primarily used to connect to Facebook... so allow me to say:
    and nothing of value was lost

  3. About time... by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They should have cut them off immediately, when there were 4 million PCs connecting to them. How are people supposed to learn?

    1. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, they should have not resolved any addresses except for those that started with "www." Those address should have pointed to a warning page when accessed by html. That way people would have been warned earlier. That is basically how they allow the detection, i.e. infected machines access one address and uninfected detect others. There isn't really a reason that they can't do it for all html pages. I mean, just cutting them off would break programs that access html anyway.

    2. Re:About time... by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. Shut them down. Most people will not even notice that there is a problem until their computer stops working.
      The users will call their ISP, and they will figure out very quickly what the problem and pass them off to someone to fix it.
      Perhaps one or two people might figure out that computers requite maintenance, just like a car does, and that maybe paying for such maintenance is a good idea.

      But I doubt it.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    3. Re:About time... by Hentes · · Score: 1

      They could notify them before shutting it down, for example.

    4. Re:About time... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      The FBI could be liable. Especially if corporate or government computers became infected and no anti virus package had the definitions for it at the time assuming it started as a 0 day exploit,

    5. Re:About time... by morari · · Score: 1

      They should have, but then the FBI would not have had unobstructed access to all information flowing through their new DNS servers...

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    6. Re:About time... by aix+tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course the problem is THAT would open up a whole other can of worms.

      Millions of people getting some sort of page or pop-up telling them "Warning, your computer is infected, please immediately ... yadda yadda yadda", and then learning through support and/or the news that such warnings that pop up randomly can actually be true. When in reality there is a high chance they even originally GOT their machines infected by cluelessly believing such a warning that an infected page popped up.

      Just shutting it down after informing the ISPs that a probably flood of support calls will hit would have been my preferred option.

    7. Re:About time... by Hentes · · Score: 3, Funny

      They can sign the message with the FBI key so users can ensure its validity.

    8. Re:About time... by dark12222000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, because the sorts of people who run infected machines constantly are well aware of things like signing keys.

    9. Re:About time... by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      They never will learn. Well maybe some of them will but most of them just want their computer to run and nothing more. IMHO you can't change the older ones that are in the system because they don't want to learn anything. It's very much like the Matrix (IMHO) but it's true.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    10. Re:About time... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Of course the problem is THAT would open up a whole other can of worms.

      Millions of people getting some sort of page or pop-up telling them "Warning, your computer is infected, please immediately ... yadda yadda yadda", and then learning through support and/or the news that such warnings that pop up randomly can actually be true. When in reality there is a high chance they even originally GOT their machines infected by cluelessly believing such a warning that an infected page popped up.

      There are probably a handful of sites - Google, MSN, Facebook, etc - that practically all of those people will access. Why not ask those companies to post some information about how to check if you're infected and/or how to fix the infection? It seems like this thing could be fixed pretty easily if you had the biggest sites on the Internet on board.

      People don't trust an email from "teh FBI" but they sure as hell trust what comes up on the Google or Facebook home page.

      Or is it unthinkable to ask the biggest players on the Internet to be good net citizens and help out a little bit for the good of everybody?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:About time... by Hentes · · Score: 1

      The machines infected can just as well be on a neglected company network. But even if they don't believe the popup the first time, if it pops up before every page they visit most people will realize that the chances of a malicious popup writer owning the whole internet are small.

    12. Re:About time... by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      Well, isn't there a way to trick/force all these computers who are affected to go to a website stating: "Yo, you've be hacked and infected. We have taken down the websites, but you are still infected. Do this to get fixed."

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    13. Re:About time... by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 2

      There are probably a handful of sites - Google, MSN, Facebook, etc - that practically all of those people will access. Why not ask those companies to post some information about how to check if you're infected and/or how to fix the infection? It seems like this thing could be fixed pretty easily if you had the biggest sites on the Internet on board.

      People don't trust an email from "teh FBI" but they sure as hell trust what comes up on the Google or Facebook home page.

      Or is it unthinkable to ask the biggest players on the Internet to be good net citizens and help out a little bit for the good of everybody?

      You mean they should do something like what Google and Facebook are doing?

    14. Re:About time... by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      They should have cut them off immediately, when there were 4 million PCs connecting to them. How are people supposed to learn?

      By them instead routing 100% of their internet pages to a site telling them they have a virus and how to undo the rogue settings. Then again a malicious browser hijacker telling you to do something shouldn't be trusted but obviously these people are pretty stupid to begin with so it would sort of work.

    15. Re:About time... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Done, and then the date was pushed back and everyone warned again. The 300K remaining are apparently invulnerable to the armor piercing clue.

      I agree that maintaining the redirected DNS for a time and issuing a warning was appropriate, it's just that time is months beyond up now.

    16. Re:About time... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You mean they should do something like what Google and Facebook are doing?

      Gee, that was fast. I'm glad they liked my suggestion.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:About time... by dark12222000 · · Score: 1

      With javascript injection and a local web server, forcing a popup to appear on every page of "the whole internet" is trivial. There are, in fact, SEVERAL pieces of malware which already use this tactic.

    18. Re:About time... by Hentes · · Score: 1

      But that also leads to the conclusion that the system is infected.

    19. Re:About time... by dark12222000 · · Score: 1

      Yet several of those machines continue running, and have been for months.

      You severely overestimate the average consumer.

    20. Re:About time... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Which is why the FBI page should carefully explain to never follow links on pages like this, and instead to contact their ISP for information how to fix their DNS.

      Which I suspect is what it did.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    21. Re:About time... by knigitz · · Score: 0

      If they control the DNS servers why not redirect everyone to a website with instructions on fixing their DNS settings?

    22. Re:About time... by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Because that trains bad behaviour (obeying instructions to modify system settings in a hijacked browser). If the DNS simply shuts down (or had shut down from the start, as it should have), the user might not have learned good behaviour (by being told why the problem had occurred), but at least would not have learned bad behaviour.

    23. Re:About time... by dysan27 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, re-direct all traffic to a page that states "You are infected, here's the fix, contact your ISP if you want to confirm this page is legitimate."

      Bam, problem solved.

    24. Re:About time... by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the RL chuckle...I needed that about now :)

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
  4. why no redirection to a warning page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well then, why didn't they redirect every single victim to a "CIA! you're infected. fuckin clean up your PC" page for at least 4 weeks?

    1. Re:why no redirection to a warning page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I saw this I would immediately think it's a fake antivirus scam.

    2. Re:why no redirection to a warning page? by Manfre · · Score: 1

      Most users are stupid and will click okay to anything. They should have redirected to a page with an applet, activex, or some other bit of code that the user will blindly click okay to run that will change their DNS settings to OpenDNS or google's public DNS servers.

    3. Re:why no redirection to a warning page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and ten minutes later they would be infected with the next batch of malware.
      as with thipoid mary their infection is damaging others, not just themselves so they need to be forced to fix the problem, not just ignore it.

    4. Re:why no redirection to a warning page? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      But if it affected every page you tried to visit, you'd eventually want to get your computer fixed, wouldn't you?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  5. might be to obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use the dns server to redirect any url to one page informing the user on how to remove the infection/get help?

    Instead of having their internet connection just stop working, they will run to their isp's who did nothing wrong ...

    1. Re:might be to obvious by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      This. Also, there will be quite a few legit issues masked by this problem and tech support will just tell them "fix your DNS -click-" when in reality the issue could be on the ISPs end.

  6. Agree by JcMorin · · Score: 2

    They should be redirected for all their query to a page telling them they are infected and they will be cut off...

    1. Re:Agree by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, because that will teach them the right message. There are thousands of viruses out there that say "YOU'VE BEEN INFECTED WITH 2312312434 VIRUSES, PURCHASE TOTALLY LEGIT REGISTRY-SCANNER TO FIX" adding a legitimate message only confuses users.

      In fact, if I recall correctly, the major variants of DNS changer pop up windows saying you need to install X malware that pretends to fix problems.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could just be a message as simple as "Call your internet service provider"

    3. Re:Agree by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, but how many ISPs really have the resources to fix this problem? After all, an ISP deals with the network side of things, not fixing viruses. If the ISP's DNS server is down, you call your ISP. If the ISP cut a fiber optic cable and your internet is down, you call your ISP. If your HDD is broken, you don't call your ISP. If you get a virus, you don't call your ISP. Etc.

      Sadly, aside from a few local places, most of the "big chain" tech support people are extortionists and by the time "Geek Squad" is done "fixing" your computer, you could already upgrade to a newer machine (which is what they want) where the salesmen will use lies and manipulations. Of course, Geek Squad and Best Buy's salesmen are good for the humor value, I asked one of them what the clock speed of one computer was and he said "Eastern standard time of course"...

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Agree by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Right, and the message will continue, Please call 011 + 234 + 70 + ...

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    5. Re:Agree by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Sure, but how many ISPs really have the resources to fix this problem? After all, an ISP deals with the network side of things, not fixing viruses. If the ISP's DNS server is down, you call your ISP. If the ISP cut a fiber optic cable and your internet is down, you call your ISP. If your HDD is broken, you don't call your ISP. If you get a virus, you don't call your ISP. Etc.

      Sadly, aside from a few local places, most of the "big chain" tech support people are extortionists and by the time "Geek Squad" is done "fixing" your computer, you could already upgrade to a newer machine (which is what they want) where the salesmen will use lies and manipulations. Of course, Geek Squad and Best Buy's salesmen are good for the humor value, I asked one of them what the clock speed of one computer was and he said "Eastern standard time of course"...

      The problem is once your machine becomes infected it uses a plugnplay exploit to reset your routers DNS settings. So it is now the ISPs problem as even if you clean or even buy a new pc you will be cut off and Joe Sixpack doesn't know what a DNS is. All he knows is his internets stop working and since he got a new computer it is therefore the ISPs fault.

    6. Re:Agree by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      "you have been infected, please call your service provider for assistance"

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    7. Re:Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AM I wrong or aren't the ISPs charging for support? They have to deliver and can't... oh wait. This is typical corporate behaviour.

    8. Re:Agree by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, that line blurs when the isp has figured that a way to make extra money is to hard sell a branded av subscription along with the internet subscription...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The network group at every company I've ever worked at always works with the desktop and server support teams every time there's an outbreak, either shutting down infected parts of the network or just sending machine names/IP's so desktop/server teams can track and repair the systems.

      The ISP is certainly able to do the same.

  7. The right thing to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that lying on DNS is bad but I think the best thing to do here would be to send all the victims to a website telling them how to fix their machines.

    1. Re:The right thing to do... by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Looks like the usual target vector of infection. If you tell them to trust that kind of things, they will keep getting infected with malware (in fact, more people will fall into that, now malware writers will know how looks a page that is announced by the government as safe and that must be trusted)

    2. Re:The right thing to do... by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you tell them to trust that kind of things

      Clearly, then, they should redirect everyone to MyCleanPC ;)

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  8. Yes, it should shut them down by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not like this is coming out of the blue. Every one of the owners of those machines has had at least 6 months' warning of the problem. If they haven't done anything before this, they won't do anything about it until their Internet stops working and they have no choice. So stop with the hand-wringing, shut 'em down and let those people suffer the consequences of their own willful stupidity. It's the only way they'll learn.

    1. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      It's not like this is coming out of the blue. Every one of the owners of those machines has had at least 6 months' warning of the problem.

      6 months warning? Where? I guarantee, if I were to go into work on Monday and say "hey, have you heard about that whole DNSChanger thing?"...2, maybe 3, out of 75 would say yes. And those because they read it here.

    2. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Fuck that, yes they should turn off the DNS servers, and there is only one valid reason why they should - the FBI has no duty of care to *any* of these people to keep their Internet running. Turn the servers off, let the Internet break for these people, let them learn the lesson they should be learning.

    3. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      http://www.dcwg.org/
      It's been in every antivirus program update since January. It's been covered on every PC-related Web site out there. Facebook has been warning anyone who visits while infected about the problem since early June. It's been the Malicious Software Removal Tool Microsoft sends monthly through Windows Update for months now. The only people who don't know about the problem are the ones who've been willfully refusing to look at anything related to the security of their computers. Well, you can't safely do that. That's been, or should have been, common knowledge for the last 20 years.

    4. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, but grandma-joesixpack has been on the internet with Windows for years. She's been burned. She now ignores ALL sorts of warnings because she figures they're more of those damn malware clicks and emails that she sees all the time and must never click.

      Are they warning people on the paper bill from the ISP? That's the only thing that's going to do it. On the same page with the payment information -- because there's always advertising shit included that she knows to toss straight to the bin. Worded like "WE ARE GOING TO CUT YOU OFF BECAUSE YOUR COMPUTER IS MALFUNCTIONING. CALL US FOR HELP GETTING IT FIXED."

      Note, it must not say only "CALL US", because that might sound like they simply want to rag on her, not help. Even the "HELP" bit is tenuous, because this could just be some fix-it scam. Grandma is pretty practiced at dealing with outfits trying to sell her more than she wants. Vinyl siding on down.

      Less than that isn't going to work. Especially against the noise of the rest of her life. She gotten through her decades by ignoring quite a bit. Lot of people do.

      And yup, a lot of people don't do paper bills anymore anyway so that's got limited use too. But the point is to illustrate just how the heck people ignore this stuff, and why it actually is really hard it is to get SIGNAL through all the NOISE they've learned to block out. It's not just facepalm-How-Can-They-Be-So-Stupid?!. It's a system and you've got to use the right ports to connect.

    5. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2

      If grandma-joesixpack is that computer-illiterate, she shouldn't have to be watching out. She should be letting someone more computer-literate set her computer up, including antivirus and automatic updates and all, and when the AV program and Microsoft's MSRT started alerting she should've called said computer-literate helper to fix things.

      And why would we assume she's computer-illiterate? My mother knows enough to call for the tech when things get weird, and she's 70 and just got her first computer. My generation is pushing 50, and we grew up with computers around. Which means my parents' generation had to deal with kids bringing homework from their computer classes home. We're past the point where "they don't know about computers" is a legitimate excuse. If by now you don't know at least a bit about computers and haven't built up a list of people you trust to help you with them and give you advice on them, you're beyond help.

    6. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      This trojan uses pnp exploit to reset the routers firmware to use the hacked DNS settings.

      No amount of AV software nor a new computer hooked into the network can escape this. Logging into the router is out of depth of average users knowledge and expertise and my guess is this and inept corporate IT departments who use unpatched Windows (almost all of them) are the majority of those that are left. So I do not blame these users.

      They will have to call their ISP on instructions on how to reset their DNS settings or buy a new wifi router. It will suck to be helpdesk tomorrow on any ISP that is for sure.

    7. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The proper thing to do is to re-route those IP addresses to one of the free open DNS sites, or to forward every web request to a web page with software removal instructions.

    8. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that these servers shouldn't be shut down, but there are plenty of people who won't have a clue how to fix the problem on the user end.

      Hopefully their ISP will inform then about the necessary fix through some means other than the kinder, friendly Indian in Bangalore.

      On the other hand, I'd rather be helped by someone feigning concern than most of the Slashdotters who comment in these 'discussions'.

    9. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by dead_user · · Score: 1

      Why can't the ISP's intercept all dns request packets to the infected servers and redirect the requests to their own dns server that has been programmed to send all requests save a few exceptions to a web page with explicit instructions and hard coded access to the websites necessary for removal of the virus and ONLY these websites. People can follow rudimentary instructions if they have to. If they can't figure it out or are totally suspicious, they call the isp who tells them either how to fix it if it's easy, Call Geek Squad or someone in your family if it's not, or "it's legit" if they are simply suspicious. Attention to these PC has to be paid at some point. May as well be now.

    10. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you go online you opt to expose yourself to a certain amount of risk. If you're too lazy to get educated about how to deal with it, why should I feel any sort of sympathy? It's a bit like sleeping around without protection, do it long enough and you will get some sort of nasty infection, I don't see why I should have any particular sympathy for somebody that makes those sorts of bad decisions.

      Of course they shouldn't be tossed to the wolves, but a bit of perspective here, there are classes that people can take, books that people can read and if you know where to look they're often times free.

    11. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they warning people on the paper bill from the ISP?

      "paper"...I don't think I've subscribed to an ISP in the past decade that could even generate a paper bill.

    12. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The proper thing to do IMHO is to cut them off so their owners will have the machines checked and any malware and viruses removed. Who knows how many other such they have on their machines already and who knows how many of those owners have lost their credit cards due to that? Besides, there computers are also likely a part of some botnet by now and again for that reason it is a good thing to have them cleaned up.

    13. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      Why can't the ISP's intercept all dns request packets to the infected servers and redirect the requests to their own dns server that has been programmed to send all requests save a few exceptions to a web page with explicit instructions and hard coded access to the websites necessary for removal of the virus and ONLY these websites. People can follow rudimentary instructions if they have to.

      Because these computers likely have a bunch of other malware and viruses on them already and thus it's best to just have some geek to do a proper clean-up. It's the best option for all involved.

    14. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by sjames · · Score: 1

      If she has that little idea about it, she's not going to take action until "the internet is broken". Kill the redirected DNS so she will truly understand that something's wrong and will contact someone who can fix it for her.

    15. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by dead_user · · Score: 1

      No doubt. In fact, I'm somewhat surprised that a PC ignored for this long is still functional.

    16. Re:Yes, it should shut them down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bless your heart.

  9. Why not set up interstitial pages? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

    Why not do what every ISP is doing - for every DNS request hitting the server, send them to a page that tells them their PC is infected and how to clean it.

    They have to click again in order to get through. Set the TTL of the DNS caching to nil so it happens practically every link - simply bombard them through annoyance?

    Oh, and sure it'll break stuff like e-mail and all sorts of other non-HTTP protocols, which is good because they'll hopefully call tech support or something.

    1. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by bolt_the_dhampir · · Score: 2

      So how do you make a "You're infected with X" page people actually trust?

    2. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by bjb_admin · · Score: 2

      It would probably be better to redirect them to Rick Roll (No I will not put the URL here).

    3. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      At least it will open their eyes. Now everything (as far as I know) just works. Of course you can redirect them to a page that they should trust, on a https server with a domain that can be trusted, etc.

    4. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by John+Bokma · · Score: 3, Informative

      DNS servers don't return pages. What you probably mean is to return the same IP address for each and every DNS request, an IP address that hosts a web server that tells people that their computer has been infected. Might be possible to do the same for other protocols, e.g. POP3 will return daily a new email that their computer has been infected, etc.

    5. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this is a terrible idea. I've been telling people for years that if some random message pops up saying you're infected that you don't recognize, it's probably a scam. Now we're going to legitimize all of those scam websites by doing something like this for real?

    6. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why not do what every ISP is doing - for every DNS request hitting the server, send them to a page that tells them their PC is infected

      The list of hijacked DNS servers is well known in the biz, so I've heard at least some ISPs have been null routing the DNS server addresses as call queues and customer service staffing permits. Perhaps every day one pop or one CMTS or whatever it is DSL headend gear is called, or one entire city, gets null routes for those specific hijacked DNS /32s.

      It ends up being about the same result in the end, except that you can control your call volume in a extremely fine grained manner, or at least more fine grained than the fake DNS server solution.

      Obviously you lose your fine-grained gradual deployment if you redistribute those /32 routes into your site wide BGP route reflector. I wonder how many jokers have leaked those /32s onto the internet by trying to do this.

      The guys who know what they're doing are all done now... The folks who haven't started are going to epic fail no matter what you do, so the FBI may as well just yank those AC cords and be done with it.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by Nimey · · Score: 2

      Redirect all their queries to a page with Goatse and an admonishment to clean their computers.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    8. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Something like this would be possible. Don't redirect everything, just a few key sites like facebook and google. Google and facebook would need to have certain IPs setup to direct you to a warning page. Probably complicated though, given the layers of DNS lookups you go through and Akamai providing the back end, etc.

      Also, the ISP can easily determine which clients are infected and send them an email. I would think doing so would be in their best interest to avoid the calls to their helpdesk when things break.

    9. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      So how do you make a "You're infected with X" page people actually trust?

      Don't offer to sell them anything and point this out.

      Tell them to contact their local computer support folks but don't make specific recommendations.

      Give them a link to a page on the FBI's website and give them an 800-number to call. Give them an extension that they can dial from the FBI's main switchboard as well.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a flying fuck if they trust it? If it is the only page their computer can reach no matter what they try then they're going to have to have someone look at their computer. Preferably someone less stupid than they are who will know what's wrong and fix it. If it is someone as stupid as they are then they'll just wind up looking at the page again. Then they can call their ISP who will hopefully know what's going on and tell them to get the goddamn thing fixed. Or maybe they'll just go out and buy a new computer.

    11. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Those infected are more likely to trust whatever passes their eyes so it will probably work.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    12. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It will train them to believe that "checking your computer for viruses" scam ad the next time they see it.

    13. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      Don't offer to sell them anything and point this out.

      Tell them to contact their local computer support folks but don't make specific recommendations.

      Give them a link to a page on the FBI's website and give them an 800-number to call. Give them an extension that they can dial from the FBI's main switchboard as well.

      When something like this happens most peoples machines who had been compromised were compromised as a result of a user taking an action most of us would sigh and laugh at.

      They did not have the awareness to keep from being suckered or con'd or whatever so what makes you think they will have the awareness to parse the difference between the FBI doing it and a real attacker?

      It simply does not work to try and push the official message thing it only makes things worse because now the phishers are able to leverage FBI policy to maximum effect.

      Besides if your machine is owned going to the FBI web site to check validity is a non-starter.

      The 1-800 number is still a reference an attacker may control. They may even decide to sucker a few people into calling the "FBI switchboard" in order to rack up service charges on their phone bill.

      If you want to do something like this the verification protocol needs to be out of band and well known to the public. Most importantly it needs to be in place before it is ever needed.

      Personally I think a central method of verifying government actors and actions as legitimate in the sense it was not something made up by an imposter would have a lot of value outside this specific issue.

    14. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by Inda · · Score: 1

      I saw one of those "your computer has been infected" emails this morning...

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    15. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You don't have to make a page people trust when you're dealing with people who trust any page.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    16. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      There is no need to "train" them for that. Most got infected that way or via other "streetwise" mistakes.

    17. Re:Why not set up interstitial pages? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The 1-800 number is still a reference an attacker may control. They may even decide to sucker a few people into calling the "FBI switchboard" in order to rack up service charges on their phone bill.

      How do they take control of the phone books?

      Personally I think a central method of verifying government actors and actions as legitimate in the sense it was not something made up by an imposter would have a lot of value outside this specific issue.

      But if you're rootkitted then you can't trust the computer anyway. There are lots of 'authority' authentication problems. I hear most home invaders shout "Police!" when they break in now.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  10. Are they stupid??? why not redirect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Send all the hosts to a website saying hey guess what you've been compromised. blah blah blah to fix. We used to do this to customers back in the old dialup dayz

    -Thorne

    1. Re:Are they stupid??? why not redirect? by PPH · · Score: 1

      They could have sold advertising space on that page to Microsoft. Or Apple. "Fix that PC now! Upgrade to ...."

      The FBI would have been fully funded for the next decade.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Are they stupid??? why not redirect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Facebook still works, dontcare".

    3. Re:Are they stupid??? why not redirect? by Jiro · · Score: 1

      We don't want to teach users that if they open a webpage which claims the computer is compromised and tells them what to do, that they should obey. That's how a lot of malware gets installed in the first place.

    4. Re:Are they stupid??? why not redirect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that website could have a link to a $40 anti-virus that does absolutely nothing too just to complete the experience.

    5. Re:Are they stupid??? why not redirect? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Send all the hosts to a website saying hey guess what you've been compromised. blah blah blah to fix. We used to do this to customers back in the old dialup dayz

      This is every phishers in the world wet dream.

  11. Sooner the Better by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    When citizens start learning that they can't expect the DNS system to just allow them to continue to be a part of a BOT because they don't care because they are thrown off the Internet, the sooner they will learn to take responsibility for their own equipment one way or another.

  12. Did they redirect all DNS to a help page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they have been helped through fixing their computer and they haven't bothered? F&^% them. Their loss.
    There is only so much F&^%s you can give before you say "enough is enough".

  13. YES! Turn them Off by krelvin · · Score: 1

    About Time.... Then the people will know they have a problem.. right now, they think everything is fine.

  14. More to the story? by dualboot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if the real reason they kept this on life support for so long was to enjoy 6+ months of DNS queries for 4mil-300 thousand users?

    Seems like an excellent opportunity to gather a large amount of intelligence without any messy subpoenas or warrants.

    1. Re:More to the story? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      What is it that you imagine they could learn that way?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:More to the story? by dualboot · · Score: 1

      What can you learn by resolving every single dns query from someone using an internet connected machine?

      Quite a bit.

      Imagine the scary amount of information Google knows about people who use their service. Especially combined with the fact that almost every site out there now uses Google Analytics and/or Google Advertisements.

      I realize it sounds very tin foil but intercepting all DNS queries can give you a pretty good fingerprint of a user.

    3. Re:More to the story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What can you learn by resolving every single dns query from someone using an internet connected machine? ...

      I realize it sounds very tin foil but intercepting all DNS queries can give you a pretty good fingerprint of a user.

      The government already has that. Remember when the US government retroactively exempted AT&T from wiretapping laws?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T

    4. Re:More to the story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally someone with a clue.

      Two things here that can led to a lot of information. They know what site you were looking up and what your WAN IP address was when you connected to the DNS server. They can use the WAN IP address to get information about you just like the RIAA/MPAA does with Bitorrents. So that also means they know all the Bittorent sites? How good of a job Fox news is doing? LOL etc etc etc Wonder why they just didn't notify the ISP and ask them to send a letter with the monthly bill?

  15. Re:Minor question. . . . by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Informative

    The FBI didn't change any settings. The malware did that, it alters the infected computer's DNS settings to use a set of servers run by the malware authors. What the FBI did was take over those servers and replace the malicious software running on them with software that does normal DNS so infected computers were no longer being redirected to the malware author's sites. And now the FBI's looking at shutting down the servers entirely, which would leave the infected computers with no DNS servers at all.

  16. Re:Minor question. . . . by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    They didn't. The DNSChanger trogan, as the name implies, changed the DNS server configuration. The FBI was able to sieze control of those IP addresses and set up their own DNS servers there to mitigate the damage.

  17. If you run a botnet... by SydShamino · · Score: 1

    If you run a botnet, better check any of your zombies for this and fix them quickly. Otherwise they might get attention from a PC tech who'll remove your code as well.

    (Isn't this the likely result from delays?)

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  18. Cleaning infected computers may not be enough/ by nuckfuts · · Score: 4, Informative

    The DNSChanger malware can change DHCP server settings on some routers. If your home router has been tampered with, it may continue to provide rogue DNS settings even after your PC has been cleaned or reinstalled.

  19. Pull the Plug; Go Catch Crooks by reallocate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For months, the FBI has been, essentially, providing DNS service for lots of people who didn't even know their machine had been compromised. This is the FBI, remember. If the FBI announced it was going to muck around with the DNS of millions of people, the Usual Suspects here would be ranting about the Evil Of It All.

    Most of those 300,000 remaining victims will likely never fix anything. They're only been on the internet for these last several months thanks to the FBI, and they don't even know it.

    Pull the plug and go catch some crooks.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Pull the Plug; Go Catch Crooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and the FBI wasn't monitoring where they were going either, were they? They got all of the actionable intelligence they could so now it's a diminishing return for the feds.

    2. Re:Pull the Plug; Go Catch Crooks by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. Random DNS records? Sure.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  20. Re:Minor question. . . . by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    The "rightful owners" were the malware authors who were infecting PCs and running the botnet. The FBI got the authority when they charged those authors and got a warrant to seize the servers.

  21. Mostly corporate PCs left by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    My guess is all the corporate phbs bigwigs who love to still use XP/IE 6 with no updates because it is cheaper to have IT just put out fires to help boast the share price are the ones in for a surprise.

    With Symantec endpoint I am sure it would be detected ... yeah right

    1. Re:Mostly corporate PCs left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name them and shame them. That's the fastest way to clean up this mess.

  22. Where is the fix by aggles · · Score: 1

    Seems that a clear posting that describes how to fix the problem would be the most useful to the most people.

  23. 150,000 barely used computers on ebay and ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    craigslist. I can't wait. You know half of those folks will just go out and buy a new computer, because this whole "virus thing" is too confusing.

  24. Responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to take personal responsibility for certain things, like driving a car. The government can't babysit you all the time. Your PC is another example.

  25. 8.8.8.8 by m1ndcrash · · Score: 0

    that's all

  26. YES by smash · · Score: 1

    If these machines are attempting infect others, sending spam, and doing all the other malicious botnet type activity they no doubt are being used for, or could be used for then cut them off.

    Leaving them working, but infected because the user is too ignorant to fix the problem (which has been present for well over a year now) is a liability.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  27. It matters for the underserved internet community by kriston · · Score: 2, Informative

    It really does matter for the underserved internet community who rely on affordable and sometimes outdated DSL modems for their access to the internet in rural areas. Many of these DSL modems have been infected by a scary variant of the DNSChanger Zlob trojan that actually changes the DSL modem's DNS settings and changes the DSL modem's password to an unguessable value. The most detrimental effect of this infection is a virtually irreversible firmware change in an unknown but probably high number of DSL modems worldwide which are permanently affixed to the rogue DNS servers, now siezed and run by the FBI as clean, boring caching DNS servers. They will be shut down July 9 because the FBI doesn't want to be an ISP, which has the effect of cutting off an unknown number of people from the internet.

    It's not a small problem. It's a big problem. The cost of help desk calls alone will be devastating to the disadvantaged and underserved internet community, i.e., rural America, who may be using the affected DSL modems infected by this Zlob trojan variant.

    The most important note you must realize about this problem is that DNSChanger actually changed the DNS servers on the DSL modem. Just in case you don't realize this: the DSL modem provides the DNS server info to the computer in the home. While the computer may no longer be infected, the DSL modem is configured to use the DNSChanger rogue DNS servers which the FBI siezed and will shut down on July 9.

    It's a really big deal and we should treat it like that.

    You can check more out here: http://www.dns-ok.us/

    --

    Kriston

  28. This is America by dadioflex · · Score: 1

    Don't cut them off - do like the hotels do and take them to a splash screen asking for their credit card numbers so they can pay if they want to continue to use the internet on a service that is costing money to run and which they can't connect to normally because of their own wilful ignorance on security.

  29. Security by ignorance by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Rather than people infected with shit knowing there is a problem and getting help before they get even more owned the FBI activly acted to cover up the problem by continuing to run the DNS service leaving users to remain clueless.

    God knows I hate lawsuits yet on some level it would be awesome if someone filed one against the FBI anyway even if it had no chance of succeeding. It just might make them think twice before they decide to repeat this stunt.

  30. They should wipe the disc and install a managed OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those people are just not capable of adminstering a computer device. They should simply be provided with a remote-managed OS so they can't accidentally help those spammers again!

    Uh, and *don't* ask, just do it! They wont notice any difference in xbox / windows 98 / windows 3.11 anyway, just make the gnome desktop flickering colored ;)

  31. Re:They should wipe the disc and install a managed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those people are just not capable of adminstering a computer device. They should simply be provided with a remote-managed OS so they can't accidentally help those spammers again!

    You mean ... like iOS devices?

  32. Re:It matters for the underserved internet communi by jbolden · · Score: 1

    I'm not seeing how this is devastating to rural America. This generates a service call. The ISP either gets an up-sell opportunity or they bill for the fix. The rural person making the call either gets a free fix or the pay $50 for service. The whole thing works about to (using the 4m number) at most 4mx$50 = $200m in costs. That's about a 1/2% of annual cable revenues in the US. Where is the devastation?

  33. Re:It matters for the underserved internet communi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "changes the DSL modem's password to an unguessable value. "

    This might not be as catastrophic as it seems. Many modems and routers have a reset button on them where you can return all values to the factory settings. You might lose all your user defined (or malware defined) settings but couldn't you rebuild the legitimate user defined settings? As a matter of fact, if my router became infected by malware, a reset would be the first thing I did because I couldn't trust any settings on the modem.

  34. Re:It matters for the underserved internet communi by kriston · · Score: 1

    One of the reports we were given has stated that the DSL modem variant of the DNSChanger Zlob trojan actually updates the firmware and it will effectively brick the modem when the FBI shuts its servers down.

    --

    Kriston

  35. Re:It matters for the underserved internet communi by kriston · · Score: 1

    They won't bill for the fix and they won't try to up-sell. The real worry is the fact that modems will need to be replaced. I didn't make it clear in my original post that the DSL modem variant of the DNSChanger Zlob trojan really does brick the DSL modem once the FBI shuts the servers off. That costs a lot of money in labor and equipment.

    Perhaps I also wasn't clear that these people don't have a lot of money to begin with.

    --

    Kriston

  36. Why is it always web web web? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    1. Yes they should shut it down.

    2. The should have a stockpile of dunce caps ready to mail to people who, despite having had months of warning, never bothered to even check if they were infected. There have been a myriad of public warnings about this, and instructions/tools on how to check. I am a reasonably advanced tech person, and even I checked my machines because I am not so proud as to believe I am flawless.

    3. For everyone talking about web sites... This is not just web sites. Everything you do on the internet requires DNS. *EVERYTHING*. No Web. No email. No instant messenger. No nothing. If an application does anything more than access your local hard drive, it won't work. That will be a monumental flag that something is wrong. If you have more than one pc in the house (or even better, a non-pc device) and it works and your pc doesn't, then that isn't just a smoking gun for the infection, it's a big flashing neon sign with a loud box underneath going AWOOGA AWOOGA. Even if you are not technically inclined, that should be enough for you to scratch your head and go, "Gee, maybe I should ask my geeksquad/coworker/5 year old child about this".

  37. Re:Minor question. . . . by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Yeah! I have the same problem with the DEA! I mean, sure, they can arrest people for possession of drugs, but what gave them the authority to just _keep_ my drugs?

    Wait, I forgot, I'm not an idiot who doesn't understand that, yes, the government will seize property that is actually part of a crime.

    (As for the 'outside the US thing'...um, the FBI presumably worked with whatever country that was. Duh. Armed FBI agents don't just randomly break down doors and arrest people in other countries.)

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  38. Re:It matters for the underserved internet communi by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

    One of the reports we were given has stated that the DSL modem variant of the DNSChanger Zlob trojan actually updates the firmware and it will effectively brick the modem when the FBI shuts its servers down.

    That's between you, your isp and the modem manufacturer to resolve. Not the FBI.

  39. Re:It matters for the underserved internet communi by jbolden · · Score: 1

    I took it that they would need to be flashed potentially. I figured a mass purchase of DSL modems are like $20 each. I had room for some level of service in my $50, estimate per head. The number might be too low, but where poverty is rampant labor is cheap. If my $50 is off and it should be $75 I would agree that rural DSL customers aren't likely to have lots of extra money.

    Almost all the country at this point has Broadband. The FCC has been taxing to make availability happen. Looking at the current budget it is $7.2b in total spend. I just don't see a few hundred million as a disaster. An annoyance yes, a disaster no.

  40. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your PC is infected, tough shit.

  41. This isn't what it seems... by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    There are a few Private DNS systems that live outside the 'official' DNS system that allow people to find what they want regardless of a domain being 'seized'. If they don't control the DNS system they can't remove widescale access to specific domain without actually getting to the physical server.

    What I expect is going on is the FBI is going to kill access to these private DNS systems, or, they are engaging a global DNS logging system, or both.

    Private DNS systems may be blocked for a short time until a way is engineered around them, or the FBI issues DMCA notices to companies for deploying their own DNS systems.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  42. Re:It matters for the underserved internet communi by kriston · · Score: 1

    That's completely irrelevant. The point is that the ISP needs to spend money to resolve this and in some cases spend a LOT of money to resolve it.

    --

    Kriston