Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Malware Attribution: Should We Identify the Crooks Who Deploy It?

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-break-it-you-bought-it dept.

Brian Krebs asks: What makes one novel strain of malicious software more dangerous or noteworthy than another? Is it the sheer capability and feature set of the new malware, or are these qualities meaningless without also considering the skills, intentions and ingenuity of the person wielding it? Most experts probably would say it's important to consider attribution insofar as it is knowable, but it's remarkable how seldom companies that regularly publish reports on the latest criminal innovations go the extra mile to add context about the crooks apparently involved in deploying those tools.

3 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. Like Sourceforge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [nt]

    1. Re:Like Sourceforge? by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now, now, there is no need to insult crooks by associating them with Sourceforge.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  2. Why WOULDN'T you? by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, if someone is running around breaking windows (pun intended) in your neighborhood, they're outed in the local crime report.
    If they did it to 1.5 million homes, I'd bloody well expect that yes, they should be identified.

    I personally wouldn't object to having them branded, either.
    Or, if you're more Adam Smithy, just suspend their ability to file civil lawsuits allowing people to do whatever they want to them that doesn't actually rise to criminal activity.

    --
    -Styopa