Rustock allows multiuser remote access to Windows clients in contravention of its license agreemen
I thought a common cleanup mechanism was to use the botnet against itself. Once you control a tier of the command structure, as happened here, couldn't MS distribute a self patching/removal mechanism, and let the nature of the botnet heal itself?
I doubt that would be legal. What happens if the cleanup damages the system that it's installed on? There's always a chance of screwing something when remotely patching something, especially if the system is compromised at a low level. It isn't like being part of a botnet prevents from having critical date on it.
I'm always slightly confused by botnets; do enough people leave their computers on permanently that this works? Surely if enough people turned off their computers the botnet would cease to function (assuming of course that they are in the same timezone).
Sony is using terms of service violations (among other things) to go after George Hotz over his PS3 crack. Ends rarely justify the means.
For my next botnet, I will set it to contact the emergency secret IP address 180 days after it is last able to contact the normal control hosts.
« Older Yakuza To The Rescue | "I ought to warn you, if you haven't read any of... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments