Punishment for Hackers/Worm Creators?

[Dash8]

Forced to IM with PlaneHPN for 14 hours each day for the next 20 years. Howzat?

Minh

OOOHHH!!!!!! ROFLMFAO

 

[Dash8]

Make an example out of him

I would put him in "Federal-Pound-Me-In-The-Ass-Prison" for life. I would make the trial and sentencing VERY public. These degenerate numb-nuts deserve all the punishment they can get, they cause millions of dollars of damage because they want to play a joke. I doubt that I would get to "go work for the government" if I caused millions of dollars of damage with my car or airplane.

I hope this individual spends a long lifetime getting @ss-raped in Leavenworth.

because he's led a trite and meaningless existence, and hes a baaad person

 

[VNugget]

Play with fire, and get burned

 

[fr0g]

Jafar, before you flame someone for blaming Microsoft - windows is an inherently unsecure operating system. The ports that this worm used are apparently open by default - which is a big security risk. Windows ships with several open ports by default, and it is very difficult to control any advanced port options in windows. While the hackers certainly deserve to be punished, we have nobody to blame but ourselves - if we don't demand better quality from Microsoft, we won't get it. I switched to mac about 2 years ago, and haven't looked back. OS X is way more secure than windows, with easy ways to monitor open ports and services. It is like night and day. Those that ask if mac is inherently more secure - YES! (at least OS X) Security through obscurity has nothing to do with it..
Dump that windows computer, you won't regret it for a minute!
Happy Flying

 

[Jafar]

Yeah, most of the latest hacks have entered through open ports in the newer windows operating systems. "blaster" for example uses the 135 port, which is open on windows xp but is normally blocked just by turning on the existing firewall. The patch completely blocks port 135. Is this a pain in the a$$? Sure it is! I'm the first to admit it. There are various legitimate applications that require this port to be open. Why else do you think it was exploited?

However, please stop telling me that the goof balls that design macs made them more secure by design. It's like saying:
"Well I ride a scooter to work. So I don't have to worry about gas milage or getting a ticket for speeding or somebody stealing my ride."

No $hit. But you use inferior technology. Plain and simple. Call it a flame, or whatever you want. The point is I'm tired of people attacking technology they know nothing about and blaming the manufactures of said technology in order to justify their use of the under dog's crap.

Believe it or not, this rant ties in to the original topic of this thread. You want to blame microsoft for this debacle? Fine, go right ahead. See how far you get. They own the market and they will for the foreseeable future. Is it right? Well from Mac's standpoint and Linux's... NO! From those of us who are content with the software... sure. Come up with something better and compete. I'll switch in a heartbeat if something truly better comes along.

The a$sholes writing malicous code are the ones to blame. Find them through the use of existing technology, track their electronic trail and put their a$ses away. A mouse in the right hand and an under developed penis in the left. (Or vice versa, use your imagination.) These dickheads franticly pound out programs to make life miserable for those of us who have lives. Lock them away. Then these social misfits can finally get the lovin' they've been seeking since puberty. Right in their little virus writing bung holes. Who knows, maybe some of them have been writing these simplistic little programs on Macs. ????

Maybe the above mentioned post was just a sarcastic jab at Gates and his money grubbing cronies. Frankly, I don't give a flying f*ck. Attack someone other than the source of the problem and expect to get bitten back.

I defend what is mine fiercely. Weather it be my family, my home, my automobile or my danm computer for that matter. Tell me I'm the one to blame for the attack and prepare to be attacked yourself.

 

[WrightAvia]

Save a whale, harpoon a fat dude.

 

[CA1900]

Re: CA1900

Do you believe the Mac platform is inherently more secure from invasion by hackers, or do you think it may be just that hackers aim at Microsoft due to its dominance in the market? In other words, are they safe because hackers ignore going after Mac. Just curious about that, as so many users of Mac sing its praises.

Yes, absolutely it's more secure from invasion by hackers. It's much harder to even gain access to a Mac, and it's not just because there are fewer of them out there. That's a myth. Is it impenetrable? Absolutely not. But it lacks the swiss-cheese security that's been a hallmark of Windows over the years. It's very solid.

The current MacOS is built on OpenBSD, a unix variant that's one of the most secure operating systems out there. Unlike Windows, all the ports are SHUT on a Mac unless the user specifically opens them. No terminal access, no file sharing, no Apache server -- nothing. For those that do open up the ports, the unix root user is completely disabled by default. And the remaining ports are protected by the built-in firewall.

You may love it, you may hate it (like anything). But I highly recommend working with one at a store and seeing how you like it. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised; I sure was. There is a lot of software out there for it; virtually anything you could possibly need is there. (Most Mac software gets purchased mail-order; not sure if that's the cause or the effect of its small retail space in the big stores.) About the only place it's lacking is in the game department. If that's your primary use for a computer, I'd stick with a Windows machine. For what I do (internet, photo work, video/DVD work, etc.), I find the Mac ideal.


And Jafar, you really need to relax. Anybody who thinks any computer is perfect is deluding himself. I can admit my Mac's deficiencies. Can you do the same? Windows is very popular because it's brilliantly marketed, not because it's the best thing out there. To tell me to "prepare to be attacked" because I attack something you own? Calling me Karl Marx because I point out a serious deficiency in Windows? If you think Windows is just as secure as the rest, you're nuts. Here are a couple of the of MANY articles from the last couple weeks; the Washington Post article is particularly relevant:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34978-2003Aug23.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/02/01/microsoft.security.reut/

Edited for the URLs.

 

[FastCargo]

For you Mac users...

Hey guys!

No, I don't own a Mac, though I have used them and know a few people who use them and enjoy them...though they admit that there are a few quirks...

It was one of them who showed me this link...

http://www.ancientspear.com/mac.wmv

It's good for a laugh if nothing else!

Fly safe!

FastCargo

 

[bobbysamd]

Macs v. PCs

I highly recommend working with one at a store and seeing how you like it. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised; I sure was.

That's exactly what I did, and I, too, was surprised. That's why I bought one. I also was impressed that all the ports I would ever need, such as for phone modem, cable modem, printer, etc., were all there. No need to add cards. When I got it home and plugged in my cable modem, printer, mouse, etc., everything worked. Just like the commercial.

I would just recommend that you upgrade the memory to at least 768 MB. It seems to run faster with more memory, as do most computers.

There is a lot of software out there for it; virtually anything you could possibly need is there.

I haven't been able to find a WordPerfect edition for Mac OS X. I don't think it's made. I know I could install PC Emulator and run my WP9 for Windows on it. I understand that it would run exceedingly slow. It's not that big a deal for me, though, because the bundled Mac word processor is all I need anymore.

 

[Salty Dog]

Jafar is right on.

Blaming the attack on the attacked for being attackable is seriously faulty logic.

I suppose next time you go to Luby's and half your family gets gunned down by an insane criminal breaking fifty laws, somebody like you will cogently point out that it's the dead peoples' fault for not wearing bullet proof vests.

I blame the root cause here - the criminal who chose to act illegally.

Fry his a$$.

 

[CA1900]

Jafar is right on.

Blaming the attack on the attacked for being attackable is seriously faulty logic.

I think you're missing the point. We're not blaming the users for the security holes in Windows. We're blaming the manufacturer of a faulty product for the damage that their negligence caused.

In the 70's, when someone rear-ended a Ford Pinto and it blew up, was the rear-ender at fault? Of course. He caused the accident. But so was Ford, for producing a product far, far more vulnerable than the consumer expected. They were sued for (and paid) millions of dollars for their negligence for producing a faulty product and not recalling it when they knew there was a defect.

This is very much analogous to what Microsoft has done with Windows. They knew its fundamental design was vulnerable. They knew it was (and still is) littered with security holes, and yet it still sits on the retail shelf, vulnerable as ever, despite the myriad of patches Microsoft has released.


As I said, I'm not blaming the users/victims; I'm not sure how you came to believe that I did. Microsoft isn't the victim here, its users are. Microsoft is, however, very much an accomplice.

 

[Jafar]

As I said, I'm not blaming the users/victims; I'm not sure how you came to believe that I did. Microsoft isn't the victim here, its users are. Microsoft is, however, very much an accomplice.

?????????????????????????????


An accomplice?

So by that logic, you buy a home, you use a security system. The home is broken into. And in your little world both the thief and the manufacture of the security system are punished? Well how does that work exactly?

And yes, I am more than willing to admit the deficiencies of windows based OS's. By reading my second post carefully one would take note to the reference that attempting to make windows more secure was a "pain in the a$$." In fact, there are plenty of "features" in microsoft products that make it a b!tch to deal with. That doesn't justify some jack-off who hasn't been laid since St. Swithins day writing code to f^ck up all the works.

Accomplice, $hit.

How far back could we take the accomplice theory if we really tried? How about the power company? Those assholes provided the necessary electrons to power both the defective operating systems and the computer of the defective turd who wrote the worm. F^cking no good capitalist cocksuckers!

What we need is an energy source that won't allow operating systems to be vulnerable while at the same time converting malcious code into a pleasent program that displays cute little hammers and sickles on our monitors.

(Clearly, I have a problem with anything that is even remotely left of center.)

And just to let everyone know I'm about to wrap up my involvement in this derailed thread, keep this quote in mind I found somewhere online...

"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics....

Even if you win, you're still retarded."

Have a nice nap

 

[CA1900]

An accomplice?

So by that logic, you buy a home, you use a security system. The home is broken into. And in your little world both the thief and the manufacture of the security system are punished?

If the security system were defective, and the company that made it knew it and sold it to me anyway, absolutely. It's not "my little world," it's called negligence, and it's part of civil law in the US. Look it up in any legal dictionary. Here's just one example:

Excerpted from http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n010.htm
Negligence may be a legal cause of damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another, a natural cause, or some other cause if the other cause occurs at the same time as the negligence and if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such damage.

That doesn't justify some jack-off who hasn't been laid since St. Swithins day writing code to f^ck up all the works.

Oh, I absolutely agree. He should be punished most severely.

How far back could we take the accomplice theory if we really tried? How about the power company? Those assholes provided the necessary electrons to power both the defective operating systems and the computer....

However their product worked as advertised, and their negligence didn't contribute to the damage. Let's get realistic here.

"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics....

Even if you win, you're still retarded."

Here, here.

I prefer the wrestling with a pig analogy, but that one fits too.

 

[flywithastick]

If the security system were defective, and the company that made it knew it and sold it to me anyway, absolutely. It's not "my little world," it's called negligence, and it's part of civil law in the US. Look it up in any legal dictionary. Here's just one example:

I just can't bite my lip any longer... CA1900 your arguments are the most lame I've heard in a long time, much like the drivel spewed by liberal politicians, racial(ist) activists, and TRIAL LAWYERS! Microsoft to blame for weaknesses in thier software?!?! That's the biggest load of blow I've heard in a long time. Your momma or daddy a lawyer?

Your logic reminds me of the argument (made above also) blaming a rape victim because she wore makeup and a skirt.

However their product worked as advertised, and their negligence didn't contribute to the damage. Let's get realistic here.

This is the same logic used by the lawyers to attack the tobacco mfgrs, fast food industry and gun mfgrs.

This missfit punk essentially broke into my house and damaged my property. As he did with hundreds of thousands of others. Perhaps the telephone company could be named as partially at fault as well? How about me? How about the guy that built my house? what about holding the offenders responsible for their crimes?! What a novel (but apparently obsolete) concept.

 

[BoxFlyr]

put the sorry SOB in prison for the rest of his life, and put a computer outside his cell, just out of reach. or cut all his fingers off

 

[U of I Tweak]

Blame the Hacker

Regardless of any problems there may be in Windows, you can't blame Microsoft. No one forced this kid to write the virus and annoy all of us.

 

[CatYaaak]

I'd say put the blame where it belongs: Microsoft's absolutely inexcusable security holes. I've never seen a product so littered with security flaws just waiting to be exploited. If anybody should be in jail, it's Microsoft's board of directors, not this kid.

You probably blame the victim in a rape case too....

"Hey Your Honor, she was just WAITING to be exploited! After all, she was wearing a short dress, and as a matter of fact the board of directors for Hanes nylons and panties should go to jail because they don't sell their products with an integral chastity belt!"

Sheesh.

 

[CatYaaak]

Buying a Mac is the best advice I can give people who are fed up with Windows' security holes. I bought an iMac last year and couldn't be happier. Believe me, it's worth the small learning curve.

Ah, the previous inanity about Microsoft being resonsible for someone else's crime becomes clear..... the source was a Mac Cultist! Why am I not suprised?

Before getting too self-righteous about Microsoft being attacked, ask yourself how much incentive there is for a hacker to take the risk, and put forth the time and effort required to write a worm or virus to infect Macs? With such a small percentage of market share, would anyone notice or care?