Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Back Orifice 2000 on CNN.COM

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the stuff-to-read dept.

LLatson writes "CNN.COM is running an article about Sir Distic releasing Back Orifice 2000. Sounds like this time it will run on NT..." Comments on why this is being done, as well as a source release and a few changes to the 2k system.

5 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Are they attacking MS or stealing their niche? by Sun+Tzu · · Score: 4

    "Groups of (mostly teenaged) hackers... release nasty computer bugs..."

    Looks like Micros~1 has some serious competition from cDc. ;)

    --
    Geeky modern art T-shirts
  2. AMA polluting meat by luge · · Score: 5

    The article makes an interesting analogy, claiming that CDC releasing BO in order to force MS to clean up is the equivalent of the American Medical Association polluting meat with e. coli to force a cleanup by meat suppliers. However, the article ignores the point that the government has created channels by which the meat suppliers can be regulated, and that nature provides regular e. coli outbreaks to check on our precautions. Since the only oversight on MS is the market, and there is no such thing as a "natural" security problem, problems must be highlighted by human groups like the CDC, and the market must be manipulated in order to get a response.

    Anyway, that's my two cents- I'd love to find the author's email to let him know, but I can't find it. Any clue?
    -Luge

    --

    IAAL,BIANLY

  3. New Disclaimer by seppy · · Score: 4

    >>It should be noted that PC World Online has no >>independent confirmation that new Back Orifice >>2000 program actually lives up to the claims of >>Cult of the Dead Cow.

    It should be legally mandated that any article speaking of upcoming Microsoft products carry a disclaimer similar to this.

    .02



    --

    Brian Seppanen

    Minister of Information and Propaganda
    Area 54 The Secret Government Disco Labs Provo

  4. But wait, could it be... USEFUL? by Tweety+Fish · · Score: 5

    For those who believe that Back Orifice 2000 is some malicious tool that may or may not cause untold havoc for win32 consider this:

    If you had a comprehensive remote control application that ran unobtrusively and efficiently on any win32 system, was released absolutely free and open source, and came with a comprehensive SDK for developing your own modules, plugins and clients for whatever platform you choose to use for administration, and it was released by somebody more "respectable" than us louts at the Cult of the Dead Cow, would you call it a threat?

    Back Orifice 2000 is a tremendously useful tool for any administrator, and will only become more valuable as hackers around the world (please note that I understand that word, and I do mean hackers) modify and extend it. Managing windows networks is a far easier and richer experience when you have something like BO2K to work with. Is it a mixed blessing? Possibly so. But the best way to make BO2K work for you is to use it, and understand it.

    The Cult of the Dead Cow isn't just about scaring people into wanting real security. We want computers to be fully under the command of the people who use them, not the vendors who sell them. One way to make that happen is by convincing major vendors that they need to tighten up their products and make SURE that customers understand how to keep themselves secure, and that the products help them do that. The other way is by letting those same users get at the functional guts of the systems they use, without the layers of obfuscation and abstraction that characterize a modern operating system. Hopefully, BO2K will achieve both these goals.

    Back Orifice 2000. Show some control.

  5. Re:Not a good thing by tqbf · · Score: 4


    A.) Please stop using analogies to communicate.
    Read the discussion so far. Do you notice that
    people are wasting more breath discussing the
    flaws in the analogies than they are the issue
    itself? cDc didn't infect meat or steal cars.
    They wrote code. I think we're intelligent enough
    to discuss that.

    B.) cDc didn't create ANY security problems. The
    attitude that says they did is called "security
    through obscurity", and it doesn't work. The
    computer underground is consistantly and blatantly
    underestimated by people, most of whom have no
    connection to the security research community,
    who think that system crackers didn't have tools
    prior to their public release.

    The functional equivalent of Back Orifice was
    already in the hands of people you definitely did
    NOT want to have these tools long before Sir Dystik released the first Back Orifice trojan.

    Pull your head out of the sand.