, SecurityFocus 2004-03-18
A pair of coders nurturing a deep antipathy for software pirates set off a controversy Thursday when they went public with a months-old experiment to trick file sharers into running a Trojan horse program that chastises users and reports back to a central server.
Expand all |
Post comment
Good for them
2004-03-19
nosebreaker.com (1 replies)
nosebreaker.com (1 replies)
Good for them? - Questionable Ethics
2004-03-20
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
Questionable Ethics? it's everywhere
2004-03-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
You all might think it's all fun and games..............
2004-03-20
neb (3 replies)
neb (3 replies)
You all might think it's all fun and games..............
2004-03-21
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Don't blame real virus coders cause if you have real copies of Windows then you are fully patched!
2004-03-21
Geist (4 replies)
Geist (4 replies)
blame real virus coders cause if you have real copies of Windows then you are still not fully patched!
2004-03-21
Anonymous
Anonymous
Don't blame real virus coders cause if you have real copies of Windows then you are fully patched!
2004-03-22
Anonymous
Anonymous
We like to call that "Entrapment" in the legal world
2004-03-22
Reuben (4 replies)
Reuben (4 replies)

-be treated as an active virus hoax.
Its not self replicating so it a trojan. It doesn't cause any damage, so its not malware. Your point is flawed. Obviously they already intended to download UT2k already, or some other software that is obviously not a legal copy. This is no worse than having a cookie installed on your machine.
The telnet comment is cute, but plenty of trojans are already spread in this manner. The naivity is that you seem to be complaining that the water is too wet.
There are already fakes out there installing back doors and spreading trojans. Big suprise.
Even the idea that having it out there incourages the downloading. Those programs were likely already out there in some form or another.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/8279/25446#25446