Bredolab Botnet Taken Down 187
Leon Buijs writes "Monday a 27-year-old Armenian was arrested at request of the Dutch authorities. The Dutch police think he is the brain behind the infamous, 30 million infected computers large Bredolab network, that was taken down by their Team (in Dutch) High Crime. Bredolab was used to spread virii and spam via the Netherlands. While taking the botnet down at a Dutch ISP, the suspect did several attempts to regain control. When this didn't work out, he did a DDoS attack on the ISP's servers using a 220,000 computers botnet. However, this was also broken off by taking 3 servers offline that the Armanian used for this, in Paris."
Well, I guess that leaves more hosts available (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't look now, but I think those hosts got infected with artificial intelligence bots that connect to tech news sites and bicker about word usage and validity.
Gov't excuses to snoop around (Score:2)
Don't use made up words (Score:5, Informative)
In before everyone else: there is no such word as 'virii'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This. For the love of tech news, spell-check your shit, slashdot.
Re:Don't use made up words (Score:4, Informative)
Armania concurs. :P
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was a brand of expensive suit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
as an Armenian, i say we coin the word ARMANIA, and define it as...
Unfortunately, the word is already understood to mean, "the sweeping trend to compulsively talk like a pirate".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been here a while and people have been calling for this for, what, probably over ten years now, so I wouldn't hold my breath. In 2020 we'll have this discussion again.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't loose your cool man.
I doesn't matter that much if they played fast and lose with the spelling.
Re:Don't use made up words (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a case of spelling/grammer NAZI-ism, because this is a discussion about what the right word is for something that is now used worlwide on a large scale, instead of correcting a person's Enlish skilz0rsz...
Now I am not in favor of grammar Nazis, but 'virii' is something I highly dislike.
$0.02
Re:Don't use made up words (Score:4, Interesting)
Well-actually... the latin word virus was non-count, the way we use "water" - they did not know at the time that a virus was a discrete object rather than a substance. So the plural of virus is... virus :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Armanian; noun; someone who wears Armani suits when committing High Crime.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I saw "Armanian" and all I could think of to post were jokes involving his lawyers filing expensive suits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't use made up words (Score:5, Funny)
No, some are still mad at each other.
Re: (Score:2)
All made up words are perfectly cromulent.
Re: (Score:2)
Of letters, yes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...there is no such word as 'virii'.
We know... but we keep using it because we know it pisses you off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a word is in common usage, even if it's just within a particular subculture, who is to say that it isn't a "real" word? You?
Re:Don't use made up words (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not? Doesn't everyone have equal say as to what constitutes common usage? If enough of us express our distaste for it then it may fall out of use and thus cease to be common usage. If not, then it may not. Everyone participates in forming the language. That includes dissing dorky neologisms.
Re: (Score:2)
If enough of us express our distaste for it then it may fall out of use and thus cease to be common usage.
No, it won't. Let me explain to you how this works:
Step 1: Someone coins a new word.
Step 2: A few others start to use the word because they thing it sounds cool.
Step 3: Pedantic nerds complain that the new word isn't a real word.
Step 4: People start using the word 10 times more often specifically to annoy the pedantic nerds.
Step 5: Pedantic nerds angrily seek out the word wherever it's being used and attempt to fight back with angry, red-faced, spittle-launching tirades.
Step 6: Attracted by th
Re: (Score:2)
Step 8: Someone does a stupid step-by-step post explaining "shit everyone knows except that one guy" in a patronising fashion ;)
I do sort of agree with him. Virii is at the very least bad English, and absolutely bloody awful Latin. I am semi-reliably informed that if you're talking about Virii, you're more likely to be talking about lots and lots of men. Admittedly, for about 40% of the world, that may still be something you don't want all over your hard drive.
(I hold no responsibility for the accuracy of s
Re: (Score:2)
Eln,
You forgot to provide an example.
L2B
(P.S.: Hackers are criminals.)
Re:Don't use made up words (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't use made up words (Score:5, Insightful)
there is no such word as 'virii'.
Forsooth, dear sir! Thou hast yon goode pointe! Tounges be set upon stone, which hitherto is why Middle English is spake by e'ry gentleman today!
Which is to say, languages change. The summary used "virii,"we all knew what it meant, and it passes the "doesn't annoy me" test. So by my standards, it is a word despite what you and Webster's might say.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> ...it passes the "doesn't annoy me" test.
Speak for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
> ...it passes the "doesn't annoy me" test.
Speak for yourself.
Isn't that what "me" means?
Re: (Score:2)
He obviously hasn't accepted the word "me" as part of his language yet.
Re: (Score:2)
'Internet' is a made up word. You think we shouldn't use that, too?
Re: (Score:2)
Neologisms are normal in english. All, however, are not created equal. Every made up word does not deserve to become an acknowledged part of the language.
Re: (Score:2)
Neologisms are accepted in english. Not all, however, are created equal. Not every made up word deserves to become an acknowledged part of the language, IMO.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Neologisms are accepted in english. Not all, however, are created equal. Not every made up word deserves to become an acknowledged part of the language, IMO.
FTFY, IMO
FTFY
All words were made up!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, because pedantry and slavish worship of Tom Christiansen [linuxmafia.com] is more important than providing a search-engine friendly way to distinguish between biological viruses and computer virii .
When did computer geeks become completely incapable of basic logic?
We spelled it byte and not bite for goddamned reason, you know.
I'll get modded flamebait, I suppose. Here's a translation for people who can't understand that a separate concept is best delineated by
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please. So do you propose to form a separate term for the correct singular form as well, or does the issue only present itself from a plural perspective? You don't need to make up words to be able to specifically search for computer viruses or computer virus related material. All you have to do is qualify your search with terms pertinent to your query. It's not like you're going to just search for "virus" or "viruses" if you're in search of anything specific or useful.
Re: (Score:2)
All words are made up. Some have just been around longer than others. If we didn't make up words we'd still be calling everything "Uhhg"--well no that would be making up a word.
Making up words is a critical part of adapting our language to accurately reflect new concepts. You will occasionally see variation (Viruses vs Virii perhaps?) and eventually one will die out due to disuse and become quaint, the other will eventually make it into dictionaries--but neither is wrong. Calling them "Compuhurtthingies
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Using "virii" (or the equivalently stupid "boxen") in any context just makes you look like a pretentious dolt.
And complaining with the amount of vitroil you're dedicating to it about people using those words doesn't?
Re:Don't use made up words (Score:4, Insightful)
Try here:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=virii [onelook.com]
People keep using it and understanding it. In English. Which is made of words from several other languages, many misused to varying degrees relative to their foreign etymologies.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They can tell you what a word you saw means, based on its previously observed contexts, but they can't tell you whether it's right or wrong. If they try, they are wrong.
The correct Latin plural would probably be virera. But we don't speak Latin any more. We only use it for religious sloganeering and high-falutin' biological codices.
That's if it's at all possible to pluralize it even in Latin. It's nearest synonym in English is "slime" or "pus", or the noun sense of "ooze", but we use it for "microphage", giving it countability. Like "water" or "blue" have no true plural in English, we nonetheless have invented "waters" and "blues" to describe situations where the singular form does not encompase the plurality of the context. Our choice of suffix in pluralization when inventing new words is entirely unbounded by any rules, as English has almost none given the many ancient systems it supports innately. So we resort to poetry, and choose one that sounds good.
I'll go with "virii" over "viruses" in almost every situation.
Oh, and I'm not a "pretentious dolt." I'm genuinely superior to you, intellectually.
Re:Don't use made up words (Score:5, Funny)
It's nearest synonym in English is "slime" or "pus", or the noun sense of "ooze", but we use it for "microphage", giving it countability. Like "water" or "blue" have no true plural in English
Nonsense!!
water => waterii
blue => blii
slime => slimii
puss =>pusii
ooze => oiiii!
Now, please add them to your dictionary.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So we resort to poetry, and choose one that sounds good.
I'll go with "virii" over "viruses" in almost every situation.
Except in English we have no good way to pronounce "ii." Viruses sounds good because it never goes through an awkward double vowel phase. VIE-ree-IE is our best option for pronouncing virii, but it doesn't have great analogues in our language and involves a rare and limp lack of consonant sounds at the end.
Often, I hear people pronouncing virii VIE-REE, VIE-RIE, or VIE-REE-EE. It's simply unclear which is correct to the majority of people who have already settled on virii as their preferred spelling of t
Re: (Score:2)
If we wanted to go with a pseudo-Latin suffix, viri is clearly more familiar and more phonetically successful. The double i simply has no benefit.
Many Latin words that end with -us have the plural form -i. For example "cactus" becomes "cacti". This does not always work, but if you used the same logic, the plural of "virus" would be "viri".
Many people seem to want extra i's for no apparent reason. One source of confusion might be the plural of "radius", "radii". The logic is exactly the same, though; -us is replaced by -i. The extra i is already there in the singular form. This double i already has an established pronounciation, "ray-dee-eye".
Re: (Score:2)
There must be a natural law that any grammar flame must include at least one typo.
If "encompase" isn't a word, it should be. And it shouldn't just be a synonym for "encompass", either.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in any legitimate form or number; closest to that would be the genitive plural, "virorum," meaning "of the viruses"; like: "amici vrrum" - "the viruses' friends." I don't know where you made up your crazy Latin.
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh, and I'm not a "pretentious dolt." I'm genuinely superior to you, intellectually."
Actually, the non-pretentious manner of expression here would be "You're a fucking idiot." - anyone other than a dolt would know better.
Re: (Score:2)
Try here:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=virii [onelook.com]
In the future, you might want to doublecheck before posting a link to a website that disproves your argument.
Just because people understand what it's supposed to mean, doesn't make it a valid word, you pretencious dold!
Dictionaries aren't prescriptive, neither is your opinion. Nor that of any other individual, for that matter.
If enough people use the word, it will appear in dictionaires. Most people don't use it and consider it incorrect, therefore it won't.
why correctness is important (Score:2)
http://www.onelook.com/?w=virii [onelook.com]
That page is just a collection of links. The target references say it is either "proscribed", "nonstandard", or slang, or that the term can't be found. This link is not proof of dictionary acceptance of the term.
The correct Latin plural would probably be virera.
I believe you mean virora. Yes, this is one proposed likely candidate. Like corpus corpora or genus genera. Another candidate is virs ("veer ooz", as opposed to "veer oose" for virus), like manus mans (meaning hand hands). [Some of these characters might not be displayed in your browser.]
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is that the third definition there uses the execrable "is comprised of", which is an incorrect usage of an English word "comprised" whose only meaning is "included". "Is included of" is completely ungrammatical and should be simply "comprises", which means "includes".
While pluralizing an otherwise unpluralizable word in an inventive manner is okay, using a word form as the wrong part of speech is bad grammar, and we do have rules against it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think my Windoze boxen got hit with virii.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
More specifically: .COM infectors we super easy to write because they didn't have a huge header to deal with (like .exes did): code started at address 0x0100 and that's all. At least that's how I recall it.
So an infector just loaded up a .COM file, changed 0x0100 so it was a jump to the end of the .COM file, and then appended the entire infector's code to the end of the .COM file. Finally, you append the very first instruction you overwrote, and a jump back to the beginning. And that's it, now the .COM i
Dutch ahead of the game... (Score:4, Funny)
I would say the Dutch police are getting ahead of the cyber-criminals.
That guy should know that botnets are not the way to get ahead in life.
It's a shame he wasn't more headstrong, he'll never be the head of a major corporation.
Moral question (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I created a botnet, then used it to force all the computers to run Folding@Home. Would I still be evil?
Yes.
It's my computer, not yours. Keep your frickin' hands off of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone was arrested for doing this on government machines, with permission, a couple years ago if I remember correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the link:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/12/02/2029202/SETIHome-Install-Leads-To-School-Tech-Supervisors-Resignation [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, while we intend legal systems to separate good and evil, they're generally written with amoral language.
So while you may not be evil, you would be culpable, liable, criminal, sociopathic, and guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
If I created a botnet, then used it to force all the computers to run Folding@Home. Would I still be evil?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
You have posed a very specific question about evil in the context of morality. I usually see evil as being one that engages in entirely self-serving behavior regardless of who it hurts. However, since you specifically bring up morality, evil in that context would relate to the standards of good and righteous behavior.
To give an analogy to your question: A man secretly grows vegetables on a hundred farms but then gives them away to homeless shelters.
Feeding the poor and hungry is indeed virtuous, noble
Re: (Score:2)
You're evil if you think that damaging humanity is for the good of humanity.
Doing folding@home is good for humanity, but also evil for individuals, because you think that damaging their control over their computer and increasing their energy bill is eventualy good for them. :)
Infamous (Score:2)
Seems like a new infamous 30million host botnet pops up every day.
Just once... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Capital Punishment!... Really!... Read On... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the deal. Back in the old west, horse staling was a capital crime. You didn't even need to be a real law enforcement officer to string someone up for stealing a horse!
Why was that? We don't knock off every car thief today, so why such harsh tratment for horse thieves? Two simple factors:
1. Horses were HUGELY important to the old west economy!
2. Stealing a horse is REALLY easy!
So... They made stealing a horse a capital crime as a strong deterrent to protect the business model from an otherwise trivial act.
See any Paralells???... The only way to deter hacking is to make the punishment much more severe than it is now. I'm not saying firing squad is the way to go for this guy, but something really bad.
Any Suggestions???
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Firing Squad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Allow their genetic material to be used to the advancement of neuro-feedback computing and 'living hardware'.
Myyyyy, what a pretty brain you have....
Re: (Score:2)
Staling, tratment, etc. (Score:2)
Horse staling as in horse stalling [google.com]? :P Tratment? :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except it wasn't business models. An individual who had his horse stolen in the old west would be pretty well screwed in general and might have to resort to crime. That and they didn't have a supermax to send people to, pretty much the sentence would have to either be measured in days or they kill you. Finally, if the law didn't kill the horse thief, the people would do it anyway and then the sheriff loses all credibility.
I'm all for strong laws to deal with organized commercial abuse of other people's mach
Re: (Score:2)
Make like he is getting hired by this well known security company, leading edge in tech. He is asked to dress up, but they rush him through all levels of interviews (he's special), till the final one, where the boss asks him, with a hushed voice, what was your best accomplishment. The boss listens, then pushes a button and the cops come and cuff him.
Re: (Score:2)
I say we offer him a vastly reduced sentence IF (and only IF) he provides enough valid information about others involved in the botnet to lead to more arrests. If he does not share the info, hit him with the full force of the law. Lock him up and throw away the key. Oh and a ban on ever using anything that counts as a "computer" for the rest of his life. Threats of life in jail might make him more likely to give up whoever he was working with (more to the point, the money men involved)
Regardless of what hap
Authorities inform involved computer users (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Link to English press release (Score:2)
THC? (Score:2)
Put This Guy Away So Long... (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy should be locked away until the day computers become so smart that none of them will cooperate with him anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you'd whish...
-Written from my SELinux, up to date Fedora desktop ;)
Re: (Score:2)
unless you're on *nix
Unless your *nix is a jailbroken iOS without modifying the password.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Browsers need to be sandboxed and the images from the rendering engine read out as a non-executing texture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is indeed the mastermind behind all this, I say we make a spectacle of him.
Hang him, and broadcast it on all networks at prime time. Have his remains rot at the rope for a few weeks, with daily updates on the news.
You only get such honors if you do horrible things, like scare people with smoke [cbsnews.com], and can be associated to a region that sits strategically near vast oil fields or other military goals. Actually sabotaging computers at most earns you one minute on one evening of news, some jail time, if you can wring it, perhaps of recognition and sympathy and a good job afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think capital punishment was wrong, but I don't anymore. Seen to many crap from my fellow humans.
Yeah. We need capital punishment for running botnets, poor driving, poor opinions, disrespect for live humans, poor grammar, too. Especially for anyone seeing to many crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... kill somebody who makes you digg through your email more and who puts the mind of the total stupid to the test.
This is worse than an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You might disagree with me if an eye for an eye is good or bad, but in both cases you'd have to agree with me that going beyond that is realy bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Something that might work in parts of the world...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not surprised if the botnet is already up and running again, controlled from a new location.
I would be pretty surprised, seeing as how the controller is in custody.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised if the botnet is already up and running again, controlled from a new location.
I would be pretty surprised, seeing as how the controller is in custody.
Well, at least that's what they are saying on the news. If the botnet found a new server and someone else is controlling it now, I hardly think they would let that reach the news.
Re: (Score:2)
If the botnet found a new server and someone else is controlling it now, I hardly think they would let that reach the news.
Why? What purpose is served by keeping that out of the news?
Re:It's sometimes spelled "viruses". (Score:2)
Most words are not made plural by changing "us" to two "i"s. Doing that makes you look really ignorant only to people who are really ignorant of linguistics.
FTFY