Malware

please bring them here & we will punish him..

Ricky

What happened to the "I Love You" virus writer? I understand he was from the Philippines. Hope he got what he deserved.

yes. he was! actually he was hired by foreign company abroad. at that time no laws pertaining to cyber hack or spreading virus so, he never punish. but now there will be a law, economic sabotage & be sentence to death.

There is no logic with this line of thinking. It is still a crime if someone enters your home and robs you blind if you left door unlocked. Would you hold the lock company criminally responsible for any break-ins? And for the record, why would you propose we blame the victum of a crime rather than the person responsible...

Peter

Firstly this person was supposed to write code that had an adverse affect on Windows Operating Systems. Now if the company who makes windows didn't make the problems widely know when found and patches provided he would have had a much harder time of it.

Incidental I would blame the lock company if they provided details of way to use existing problems in their products that had not been fixed after they released fixes for the problems that they had either been told about or discovered and then went on to tell the world about the problems at the same time as telling everyone that they had a fix available that I had to install and it may or may not cause more problems than it was supposed to fix. It would be even worse if that lock company in question had a virtual monopoly of the lock market and I was forced to use their products as they where all that was available to suit my needs. Although I do think it is a bad analogy I think you'll get the point.

Now not only did this person allegedly write a virus that adversely affected a few computers but it is alleged that he was responsible for 70% of all that years virus attacks. Well if he was that good I would put him to productive work filling the holes instead of throwing him in jail and being a drain on society.

I would do exactly the same with a bugler if he/she was supposed to have broken into 200 homes and ransacked them then I'd be for locking them up and throwing away the key. But if that person had broken into 70% off all buildings within a year it would be a different story as they would have to be on the go all the time all around the world. Now if they where capable of doing that I would want them designing better locking systems to stop people like them from gaining entry to my house.

The difference here between writing a single virus that affects people/companies and being responsible for 70% of all infections is purely a matter of scale and if they where actually that good I would want them working for me to plug the holes rather than being nonproductive or worse still passing on their ways of doing things to others while being locked up in prison.

What would you prefer 1 person writing these things that prove such an adverse affect on Windows based computers or having them instruct 5 people who then go on to instruct 5 people each and so on. If that was to happen we would be spending all of our time fighting off attacks instead of doing what we are supposed to be doing.

Incidental have you as yet tried Service Pack 2 for Windows XP on a network wide installation yet? If you are like me I running into more problems with non core applications than is expected and while it can be argued that these applications are not important there are things like on line banking that have been found to no longer work. But I suppose it is unimportant if a company is unable to access their bank to pay you right?

What the problem here is not that the person in question actually broke so many computers but that he was able to with relative ease on a system that is universally accepted as the normal for almost all business and home users.

Do I think he did the right thing? HELL NO!! But anything else is nothing more than a waste of valuable resources that could be better applied elsewhere. Remember the release of 2003 Enterprise Server? e where all told it was the most secure OS that M$ had ever built and that after extensive testing they had been unable to find any holes in it. But 3 weeks after its release there was a patch which was admittedly for IE6 was a problem for 2003 ES and I am certain that it was known about at the release of the product. Now if they had not have pushed the idea that 2003 ES had far better security for e-mail which prevented it from being altered/forwarded or printed without permission it might not have been such a big deal but it was one of their so called features in a core application that had a huge hole in it that has been patched numerous times since as well.

Currently we have M$ talking about "Trusted Computing" but how are we expected to believe them when we see such things happen in such a short time? Even SP2 was only available for a few days before other patches where required but SP2 was sold as a cure all for everything Windows XP.

They have a major credibility problem which they seem unwilling to address so I would want someone who was capable of breaking their OS's with apparent ease on my side rather than working against me making far more work for me to do.

Col

To suggest, even in jest, that the little terrorist should be forgiven and integrated back into society, is absurd. To blame Microsoft for selling vulnerable systems is even more absurd. I can crack open the lid on a car's gas tank, so does that mean Ford should pay for a new engine if I pour sugar into the tank? Maybe the sugar cane processing companies will hire me for my advanced knowledge of sucrose.