The 'Malware Economy' Evolves 100
superglaze writes "ZDNet UK has a feature on how the malware economy is turning into a recognizable traditional IT economy. Leasing botnets? Malware support? Welcome to the new age of computing. As the piece suggests, it's all gone Darwinian. 'One indication of the maturity of the black economy, according to Telafici, was the recent case of a hacker who wrote a packer [software used to bypass antivirus protection], "threw in the towel recently as it wasn't profitable enough -- there's too much competition. They opened the source code and walked away."'"
Only high profit crime (Score:4, Interesting)
No shortage of idiots (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't get it. One of the most popular uses for a botnet, according to the article, is for spam mailings. But how can spammers afford to pay any significant amount of money for the service? I understand that they're mailing out to millions of people and count on a high level of rejection, but how many people are stupid enough to open something that says, "5PL1t H3R 1n HALF WYTH YORE HUGE ORGAN"? Let's face it, half the population is female, and probably not interested (unless they're buying for their boyfriend, and wouldn't THAT be a kick-ass Christmas present); a majority of the male half of the population are probably reasonably satisfied with their equipment; and even a vast majority of those poor, pathetic guys who actually have "AY tiney Pinnus That You GIrflrend Lauff at" probably have an IQ in at least the high double digits (I mean, they figured out how to turn on a computer and collect their e-mail, at least). So they probably wouldn't open that message either.
And then there's the spam filters, which are getting pretty good these days.
So that leaves what percentage of the population stupid enough to open one of these things and infect their computers with something vile? And if they're that stupid, how likely is it that they have a bank account worth looting? Or that they haven't been hit before so often they just sign their paycheque over to the spammers automatically and save everybody a lot of trouble?
Help. Somebody please explain it all to me.
Re:Malware and ex-emailer (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a license for everything. You need a license to drive, to prove you're able to steer a car without causing a problem. We (at least here) need a license for a gun, so you prove you're not just some maniac who wants to kill his wife's sisters. But even for "non-lethal" things like some jobs you need to prove you're able to handle what's put into your hands sufficiently professionally that you don't cause harm to anyone else.
Now, I wouldn't really want a "driving license" for computers, but I'd very much enjoy seeing people taking some more responsibility for their computers and what they do to others on the internet. As we see now, this has become an economic problem. We waste a lot of bandwidth and work hours fighting spam, we have the sword of a DDoS looming over our heads due to botnets ready to strike, and it all boils down to people using rooted boxes and not even knowing it.
Before you start crying about your freedom to use the net, be aware that sooner or later our legislators WILL react. They have to, the pressure from the industry is already tangible. And in our current environment, the result is very likely not one where people get better educated and more responsibility, instead we'll probably see laws regulating what kinds of machines you may attach to the net (and the accompanying locking of "insecure" machines from participation), and we know the current definition of "secure". It will pretty much lead to machines so heavily DRMed that Vista looks like open source compared to it.
So either we start pushing towards more personal responsibility or we'll have something dumped on us that is the maybe least favorable alternative. Because the industry WILL start lobbying for protection from those rooted machines. And they don't care if you can use your computer for anything but playing prepared content. Actually, some would definitly like that.
The real money in spam? Selling to spammers (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been said before, probably better than I can: The "mark" in the spam economy is NOT the person receiving the email. The "mark" is the person foolish enough to buy the Spam-in-a-box kit thinking they will be able to get a single person to buy their w0tches or v1agra. The money in spam is made not from the person foolish enough to buy the w0tches. The money is made in selling the service to spam millions of people.
Re:Malware and ex-emailer (Score:3, Interesting)
Utility Computing (Score:4, Interesting)
No kidding :-) I said in a public forum about 4 years ago that botnets are the first and only successful example of commercial utility computing [wikipedia.org], where a vendor tries to rent out time on large compute clusters.
This works much better for botnet vendors than for Amazon EC2 or HP Utility Data Center, because the really valuable resource the botnets are renting is a routable IP address that hasn't been shut down yet. Computers are nearly free, but IP addresses that work are not.
Re:Malware and ex-emailer (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the actual paper. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the actual paper from which came most of the material in the article: "The Commercial Malware Industry" [auckland.ac.nz], from the University of Auckland. More technical details.
New threats of interest:
Re:The real money in spam? Selling to spammers (Score:1, Interesting)
I think your second paragraph proved the grandparent's point.