Please do not take down the Sality botnet

http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2012/Mar/315

by wglb • 14 years ago

575 142 14 years ago

kevinchen• 14 years ago

Does anyone know exactly why it's illegal to take down Sality?

jbri• 14 years ago

The "takedown" technique presented works by exploiting the botnet's functionality to have all the machines remove themselves from the botnet - actually carrying out the removal requires you to hack into at least one third-party server, and it would probably count as gaining unauthorized access to each of the machines in the botnet as well.

micaeked2• 14 years ago

the c&c servers are sites hacked by the owners of the botnet. you would have to hack them yourself and upload your own payload to take down peers

aptwebapps2• 14 years ago

What if one of the site owners 'fixed' their server? That'd be nice and legal, wouldn't it?

jroll• 14 years ago

Sounds like the author figured out a SQL injection vulnerability in the website the bot downloads logos from, and a way to give the removal tool as the image in a way that infects Sality itself. This would distribute the removal tool very quickly. The hacking of the website seems to be the legal issue here.

lewi• 14 years ago

Because technically the methods used (i.e. SQL injection) are illegal if you dont own the equipment your using it on. Also he is a civilian and does not have any power or jurisdiction to do so.

ertdfgcb• 14 years ago

Slightly off-topic: Is SQL injection itself illegal? Because I was under the impression that only using SQL injection to gain unauthorized access to someone else's computer (like the OP is suggesting) was illegal.

colbyolson• 14 years ago

Is that network yours? No? Then it's illegal.

It's an interesting way to have someone do the dirty work. I would love to see a postmortem writeup.

derefr• 14 years ago

Is "breaking into" a shanty town built on my neighbourhood's various front lawns illegal?

meepmorp• 14 years ago

Presumably because it involves exploiting a SQL injection attack on one or more control servers, and then using the control servers to install software on thousands of other people's computers without their knowledge or consent.

jonknee• 14 years ago

It's illegal in a similar manner to robbing a drug cartel--getting arrested is probably the least of your concerns. No one will step forward to law enforcement over it, but organized crime has their own law enforcement.

pluies_public• 14 years ago

Messing with other people's computers in any form without their information and consent is usually prohibited by law.

A slightly broken analogy would be breaking into a house to remove a hornets nest. Even if you do it carefully and not do any damage and what you do is beneficial for the community as a whole, it's contrary to the law.

piggity• 14 years ago

If my neighbours hornets nest had killer hornets that were biting all the children in the neighbourhood and the police / council refused to do anything; then it'd be a damned shame if someone neatly removed the hornets nest.

Of course that wouldn't make it any more legal; but your defence would have a field day with the prosecution I'd imagine.

IANAL but I've watched the first double episode of The Firm, and I reckon I've got a pretty good grasp on how the law works now!

jonhendry• 14 years ago

"A slightly broken analogy would be breaking into a house to remove a hornets nest. Even if you do it carefully and not do any damage and what you do is beneficial for the community as a whole, it's contrary to the law."

On the other hand, you can't give a choking person the heimlich maneuver, or perform CPR on someone, without physical contact that could be construed as assault (or battery? not sure) in any other context.

iso8859-1• 14 years ago

But what if I genuinely wanted to see if I had registered a user by the name of "' or 1=1 --"? Oh well, hopefully someone else did it too, since it was posted here.

"Messing with" is very subjective.

brokentone• 14 years ago

While yes this is technically illegal, honest question does the letter of the law stand in a situation where those "wronged" by the infraction are themselves in the wrong? From a legal standpoint, charges would have to be brought against you by someone, and I doubt that anyone who sustained damage from this situation (the bot network's owner) would have the ability to demonstrate such a thing without substantially incriminating themselves.

From a purely philosophical standpoint, you could take a utilitarian approach ala J.S. Mill and say that it would do the greatest quality of good to the greatest number of people to take such action. Granted at the point we're discussing philosophy, we're outside the judicial process which is all that's up for debate here.

jacalata• 14 years ago

'where those wronged by the infraction are themselves in the wrong' - it is certainly possible for this to be a crime, consider killing a burglar.

etrain• 14 years ago

I would love to hear a lawyers opinion on whether the OP has any legal case whatsoever if his "not suggestions" are ever used, his identity is identified, and someone decides they want to throw the book at him.

Basically, if some DA decides this is modern day vigalanteism, a step removed - could the OP ever defend himself in court?

aptwebapps2• 14 years ago

I think the OP might be in difficulties in that event (totally not a layer, just guessing).

But perhaps the OP felt it was less risky this way not just for legal reasons, but because it's easier to send one email anonymously than to carry out the whole operation without being traced.

Or maybe he or she had other stuff to do.

yukyukyuk• 14 years ago

Not a lawyer. But this would never come to pass - no DA would have the brains let alone the skill or political will to prosecute. Also, seems like a freedom of speech issue. Otherwise it would be difficult for educators to discuss computer security. In fact, I'm pretty sure he could even do away with all of the "non-suggestion" text and still be fine.

If I say, "I think you should hack website X, humanity will be better off for it" that's just my opinion. I can even say, "I think you should empty all of Goldman Sach's bank accounts and use the proceeds to buy up endangered rain forest land in Brazil." As long as I'm not materially facilitating the commission of the crime, I'm just another guy on the internet with an opinion.

Edit: After reviewing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#ci... I'm coming to the conclusion that the above is pretty far from accurate in any country. Apparently freedom of speech has been under serious assault for decades. Which is sort of sickening, but also a fact of life.

a3camero• 14 years ago

Law student. These sort of situations have been considered by the people that write criminal laws.

If you recommend a crime to someone and then they do it then you're a party to that offence (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-5 [Canadian Criminal Code, but I assume US is quite similar on this]).

There are a variety of ways to become a party to a crime, and then you're as guilty as the rest of 'em.

kevinpet• 14 years ago

Providing the files needed is a little bit more in terms of actively participating than just saying "wouldn't it be nice."

jcampbell12• 14 years ago

I agree that a DA would be highly unlikely to prosecute as it would take a large amount of effort for little gain, but this clearly fits the definition of conspiracy. There is no requirement that conspirators know each other, and posting the files required seems like an overt step.

nsmartt• 14 years ago

There is a huge difference between "I think you should hack this website." and "I think you should use this method I'm providing to hack this website."

rprasad3• 14 years ago

Actual lawyer.

He's generally right, in the U.S. at least. Suggesting that someone commit an illegal act does not rise to the level of conspiracy. You have to actually do something meaningful to support the criminal effort to be charged with conspiracy.

In certain circumstances, incitement can be a crime, but the threshold for that crime is very high.

JackC• 14 years ago

IAAL. You know how lawyers always write "I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. Consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction."? That's for several good reasons, partly that we like being special, but also because no one could really answer this without doing legal research in the jurisdiction where the OP was charged. The answer will vary not only from country to country but state to state, and could depend on all kinds of specifics we don't know.

With that said, the law is basically a big virtual machine that runs on metaphors and rhetoric, kind of like the IE6 html engine.[1] So if I don't know the answer, I look for a metaphor where I have a better intuition.

In this case, the post reads kind of like: "hey, we all know that bar across the street is a front for organized crime. The law doesn't allow me to ask you to burn it down. So I'm just going to leave this molotov cocktail I assembled on the street here, and tell you not to burn down that bar across the street, OK? Also I've taken careful steps to conceal my identity. Laters."

So my gut is, yeah, in the hypothetical world where the OP screwed up and a million people lost data on their computers, and the FBI went ahead and tracked the OP down and prosecuted, they would be guilty as heck. This is more than just suggesting that it would be nice if someone did illegal things (which could be problematic itself, if the speaker intended and expected the suggestion to be followed), but actually compiling and providing tools and instructions to make it happen.

But if you understand the situation differently, and can offer a better metaphor where they sound innocent, then the answer could change. For example, how about: "hey, that guy is having a manic episode and about to start juggling chainsaws. The law doesn't allow me to suggest you use this tranq gun and shoot him. So I'll just leave it here." Or how about, "these parents are bringing back childhood diseases that have been gone for decades, because charlatans have scared them into avoiding vaccinations. The law doesn't allow me to suggest you vaccinate the kids yourself, so I'll just leave this vaccination candy here ..." OK, that one's definitely illegal, but interesting to contemplate. It's a fun game.

The thing to be careful about, though, is to disconnect what you want to be true from what is actually true. Like in this case, maybe you want it to be true that the law lets you hack someone's computer to protect them, the same way it (maybe) lets you stun the manic guy. But if you know that part's not true, then don't fudge the metaphor to get to the outcome you want.

And I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice, and you should consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction.

[1] This sounds bad, but I actually think it's a pretty reasonable way to run a legal system. We define a fair system as one that treats like cases alike and different cases different. So the way to make that happen is either to write code in advance that handles every edge case -- which if you've met human beings is hilariously impossible -- or to analogize every new situation to the ones before, and try to fit it in where it belongs. It's a fun problem.

zheng• 14 years ago

...Law is basically a big virtual machine that runs on metaphors and rhetoric, kind of like the IE6 html engine.

Best quote I've read all year. Also makes a ton of sense when put like that, so thanks.

ricardobeat2• 14 years ago

So why can't those nice guys from the FBI go and do it already? It's so easy to replace sites when piracy is involved...

eck• 14 years ago

Victims of piracy have better lobbyists than the victims of identity theft.

chives• 14 years ago

Couldn't have said it better myself.

joelhaasnoot• 14 years ago

Dutch police infiltrated a botnet recently, and left a message for victims. No one was too happy with them and they weren't really allowed to...

rplnt4• 14 years ago

They simply can't. This is very different from closing down some "piracy" sites. In this case they need to mess with data on your computer. Do you want FBI to have a legal way to read, modify or destroy data on your computer? Even if you want (which I don't believe), there is no way that would work on international scale.

I remember a case from some years back when some group (some AV group or something like that) took control over a major botnet by taking control over domains botnet would use in future for receiving updates/commands. The algorithm was pretty sophisticated as it generated dozens of new domains each day and was trying to contact them on random. E.g. generate 100 domains, try to contact 15 of them, if none responds wait a day. Statistically the bot would get its commands in a 2-3 days (I don't really remember exact numbers so this example might not add up). Well, in order to stop the botnet you'd need to register all available domains out of those 100. So, they were doing just that for some time. They practically blocked the owners operating on the botnet. But they couldn't destroy it. Because that would require manipulating with data on random peoples' computers without their consent which you simply can't (legally). And I think it should stay that way. So anyway, they left it be and owners took control back.

But what can be done? You have to run your operating system updated. Having AV software (which is quicker in updates and act as a prevention) doesn't hurt either. And as this is not a real option for a some time, this is a good way. You destroy it in illegal fashion. But no official organization can do that.

kamjam• 14 years ago

They simply can't. This is very different from closing down some "piracy" sites

Yes, they're called lobbyists. And no large brown bags stuffed with $100 bills has been passed under the table. There is also no oil there.

ricardobeat2• 14 years ago

Is just changing the source code for the next update on the servers a privacy violation? Every zombie machine will download it by itself.

mcherm• 14 years ago

Because it is against the law. Taking down a site used by a criminal (or someone they believe is criminal) is within their purview. Making unauthorized changes to the computers of an innocent 3rd party (even minor changes, like removing a botnet infection) is against the law.

jentulman• 14 years ago

because the actions required to do so are illegal. This isn't about replacing sites or controlling the C&C machines. That's relatively easy.

To 'take down' the bots in the fashion of the OP means you upload the AVG removal tool so that the bots grab it at some point in their update cycle and run it.

What you've done here is arrange to run code on the infected machines that the owner of the machine is unaware of. Code that is intended to alter software on that machine, and that is illegal in exactly the same way as infecting the machine with the bot virus in the first place.

As the machine's are in the main unidentified and spread all over the world, no one legal entity FBI, SOCA, Interpol etc covers them all within their jurisdiction, or can target only the machines with in it, so applicable warrants and permissions would be practically impossible to obtain.

trotsky• 14 years ago

You're not actually a law abiding citizen if you just publicly recruited for people to join your felony conspiracy.

maaku• 14 years ago

What if I get permission from the owner of one of the infected systems to "penetrate" his setup and upload the botnet-destroyer. Would that still be illegal?

eridius• 14 years ago

I think the issue is that to remove the botnet, it requires having your code be executed on all infected machines. You can't possible get permission from the owners of the millions of infected machines to do this.

zacharypinter• 14 years ago

Yep. Imagine if it bugged out and broke all the infected machines. Even if the bug that broke the machines wasn't his fault, he'd probably still be in a grey area.

majmun2• 14 years ago

You should NOT takeover botnet and harden it.

acqq2• 14 years ago

Reading README in the linked zip file, inside is, first, an executable which is a QBFC (http://www.abyssmedia.com/quickbfc) packaged and slightly modified version of AVG's Sality Removal Tool (http://free.avg.com/us-en/remove-sality) to automate the removal of the Sality virus. Then, there is the encrypted version of the same executable, so it will run properly when downloaded by the Sality virus. And finally, there's a simple Python script that queries super peers from a bootstrap list for the most recent URL pack pushed to the Sality P2P network.

ucho• 14 years ago

Allow people check for themselves http://uploadmirrors.com/download/1DQGRXOQ/byesality.zip

micaeked2• 14 years ago

would this be completely prevented if the botnet owners signed (with a private key) their payloads?

nathan_f77• 14 years ago

Yes, I believe that would be very effective.

majmun2• 14 years ago

according to wiki this botnet already had this feature, but this bug aperently exploits something else.

s_henry_paulson2• 14 years ago

The guy takes all the time to put this together, write this up, and is perfectly ok with the outcome, but instead of going to a coffee shop and doing this himself, he spends a lengthy amount of time writing up instructions and giving the criminals a chance to fix their injection problems before someone can take down the botnet.

Baffling.

Not only that, but this guy seems to know what he's doing and instead of someone who knows what they're doing completing the task, he's willing to watch script kids bork the whole thing, or run the risk of russians (or others taking over the whole network and hardening it)

acqq2• 14 years ago

I also don't understand how he expects that the botnet won't be taken over or hardened based on the results he published before it gets shut.

I did try to download the images linked in the post, not a single one is as I write replaced with his removal utility, so observing just these few links there's no evidence that somebody already decided to follow his recipe.

I'd really like to read some news writeup in a few days.

tedivm• 14 years ago

To prove a point- the current system of law is completely broken when it comes to dealing with malicious software. Law enforcement is a joke, to the point where reporting a botnet c&c located right in the US to the FBI will result in a six week run around before you finally get a phone call from someone in the right department, and this is assuming you've dealt with them enough to be on their quick list. Guess who moved their servers four weeks ago?

Actually taking matters into your own hands, as an individual or a company, opens you up to a ridiculous level of liability and is probably illegal in a number of cases. Hell, even analyzing malicious software itself has the potential to be illegal due to draconian copyright laws (fortunately most malware authors aren't willing to claim owner of their software, so this isn't an active issue). Even once all that is done, more malware will be written, and probably by the same people since it's not like taking the botnet down actually puts people behind bars.

This isn't to say the bad guys are winning- I may be a bit bias (I work for Malwarebytes, although this post is my own rambling mess), but a lot of technological strides are being made. There is still a fair bit of frustration out there with law enforcement though, as they continue to impose draconian and orwellian systems but haven't implemented the low hanging fruit in policy changes for actually dealing with this crap.

peterwwillis• 14 years ago

The good thing is Congress is having hearings on cybersecurity, so clearly this will be fixed very soon.

SODaniel• 14 years ago

But download a Justin Beiber album and you get sued for $50k in a matter of days. System works perfectly!

ticks• 14 years ago

I imagine if you do it from a coffee shop or similar public place, then there is a good chance of being caught on CCTV. Whether the authorities will go after someone to that degree, given what they have potentially done, is another matter.

inchcombec• 14 years ago

Exactly. It seems to be a point that a lot of people forget. A lot of people don't fully trust the Internet security tools, such as TOR, for anonymity. So, they try to add a layer of what is essentially physical security by using an Internet connection that doesn't track back to them. However, a lot of times people don't fully consider that at that point you must now not only secure your Internet security but physical security as well. Ie. Not be seen.

I'm not saying it is a bad idea to want to add an extra layer of security/anonymity, but it actually has to be done right. If investigators trace it back to the coffee shop and see on the CCTV that you're the only one sitting there using a laptop for the entire time the attack took place you're screwed.

Interestingly enough, all the ways to actually add that layer of physical security are potentially illegal. (depending on local laws) Obviously, the laws can vary a lot, but in a lot of places the methods a person would use to hide themselves are considered unlawful access.

Take the coffee shop for example, instead of entering the coffee shop you sit outside it. If it doesn't have cameras outside, the businesses around it very well might have one that can see you, and then there are also the people that see you. (witnesses) Okay then, long range antenna, right? Wrong, still illegal in some places. Even though it is an unsecured wifi that is meant for people to connect to it, it is meant for customers. That means that you either have to go in and buy a coffee (which shows on camera that you were in the area) or to have previously asked permission to use it which means that someone in the coffee shop must know who you are to have given you permission. This caveat actually applies to the parking lot situation too and people really have been charged before for accessing a coffee shop's wifi from the parking lot without actually going in so this isn't just a thought exercise.

Generally, if you're doing something online illegal enough to be investigated that fully, illegally accessing some coffee shop's connection is the least of your problems. There are legitimate reasons to want total anonymity though, such as whistle-blowers or individuals living in certain countries. If you're going to try for that level of anonymity it is important to know the local laws and make sure that whatever you're trying to be anonymous about is worth potentially breaking that law if it exists.

daemon1310• 14 years ago

I apologize in advance for the tone, but as a Russian I have a question - are you racist?

Since Sergey Brin and Mila Yovovich are "russians", do you imply that Google and Hollywood are part of this botnet?

The most famous hacker is Kevin Mitnick [american] and most recent hackers charged/arrested by FBI are also american citizens.

Why don't you change "russians" to "americans"? Or may be "new_zealanders" [Kim dot com]? Or may be "brits" [UK kid, extradicted recently to US on copyright violation charges].

If you would change to "americans", I just wonder whether some people will feel offended and how many?

Tyrannosaurs7• 14 years ago

Indeed. The word criminals would be more accurate and less pejorative.

icebraining6• 14 years ago

I agree that it is a prejudice and should be avoided, but it's not completely groundless:

    According to industry analyses, Russia accounts for about 35 percent of
    global cybercrime revenue, or between $2.5 and $3.7 billion. That’s wildly 
    out of proportion with the country’s share of the global information 
    technology market (which is around 1 percent).

http://themoscownews.com/siloviks_scoundrels/20111121/189221...

It's not that Russians are inherently cybercriminals, but the country does seem to be currently suffering from conditions that help it foster.

tomelders• 14 years ago

I think you're playing the race card and ignoring the facts. Which is pretty lame.

As a brit, I fully appreciate and understand why some people in the world hate all britons. We've done some bad things as a nation in recent years and people have a right to tar us all with the same brush. I understand why it would be unsafe for me to walk the streets of Kabul or Baghdad. If any brit has a problem with the way other people look at them, it's their job as a citizen in a democracy to affect the change they want to see in people's attitude towards this country and it's people.

Except when it's the French. There's no pleasing those cheese eating surrender monkeys.

ceejayoz• 14 years ago

Since when is "Russian" a race?

tptacek• 14 years ago

It was clumsily worded but I think we all know he didn't mean to imply that all of Russia was running botnets; he was alluding to Russian organized crime.

freehunter• 14 years ago

I work in information security, and I can give you a rough breakdown on botnet sites we've run into over the last year. (rough numbers)

25% have been Chinese (or linked to Chinese hackers, but using distributed hosting of hijacked servers around the world)

5% have been US-based.

10% have been Indian.

10% have been "other", including Canada/Mexico/Latin America, Africa, and Western Europe (like the German(?) Conficker worm)

A full 50% have been linked to the Russian Federation (and other former Soviet countries).

Why is this? Everyone has their theories, but mine is the combination of

1. Russia (and Eastern Europe) is a huge area.

2. Russian mafia really ramped up their cybercrime efforts after 1991 when the Soviet Union was retired.

3. Enforcement of cybercrime laws in Russia is lacking in comparison to Western nations, for various reasons.

Many other countries, including the US, have their own hackers and cybercrime groups. China and Russia are much, much more effective, though, and it's fashionable to hate on "commies" in the Western media.

tomjen3• 14 years ago

To me it is clear that he meant Russian hackers (as it would have been if it had say Chinese) and I doubt anybody else is confused over this. Given that, writing hackers was redundant and should be dropped.

Angostura• 14 years ago

Fun though it always is to accuse people of racism.

"The W32.Sality family of threats has been around for some time as the first versions surfaced in 2003 and may have originated in Russia"

http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=...

gcb4• 14 years ago

but i bet you never request your money back after an action movie depict a bad guy in the desert wearing a turban, right?

yeah, i thought so.

DanBC2• 14 years ago

Who should he tell?

If any of the victims are in the UK he could try the Police Central e-crime Unit. (It's all 'cyber', a word which feels strangely quaint.)

(http://www.met.police.uk/pceu/)

Or he could try Microsofts digital crime unit.

(http://www.microsoft.com/government/ww/safety-defense/initia...)

Any other contact addresses?

stuaxo• 14 years ago

Not really baffling, just obviously sarcasm + he couldn't legally say for anyone to use the tools.

rickdangerous12• 14 years ago

What makes you think that he didn't post this and then immediately do it himself? It's called plausible deniability.

gcb4• 14 years ago

this actually will make it harder for him, as he just defined motive and means to the prosecution

hackermom• 14 years ago

So, is it down yet?

jakejake3• 14 years ago

Please OP, you obviously have done the work, just go to a library or any free wifi location and run the damn thing.

jakejake3• 14 years ago

Is it just me or did the OP just blow a rare opportunity to be a hero? The power of a zero-day exploit is that you don't announce it and give the target a chance to make a patch.

rplnt4• 14 years ago

So he should've contacted the botnet owner and tell him to patch sites he use for controlling the botnet?

jakejake3• 14 years ago

That's exactly what he did by announcing this publicly instead of just going to a public wifi and quietly taking down the botnet.

daemon1310• 14 years ago

Looks like the OP is doing a hack - he is trying to achieve his goal [of destroying parts of the botnet] by hacking legal system, since he can not do this on his own...

Resourceful!

psb• 14 years ago

Does anyone know if the actions described in the article have been carried out? I'd hate to think that the "current owners" of the Sality botnet have fixed this exploit.

rdl2• 14 years ago

I'm kind of confused why one would publish the HOWTO-kill anonymously. It would be totally reasonable to publish the howto and "wouldn't it be horrible if this happened; don't do it" under your name (if you want fame, without legal liability). Or, just publish and do it all anonymously. I guess I'm motivated by either fame or kills, which might be different than the anonymous party here.

I guess even publishing legally-protected information doesn't protect you from the nuisance of civil lawsuits, or potential extralegal/illegal actions by either the botnet staff or anyone who is harmed by the botnet or removal of botnet.

dfc• 14 years ago

Why are you assuming that lawabidingcitizen is not a disgruntled member of the organization behind sality?

rdl2• 14 years ago

My lack of creativity or deep thinking on this issue (deadened by 8h of accounting catch-up tonight). That sounds like a highly plausible scenario.

Dove• 14 years ago

I am reminded of the "wine blocks" sold (legally!) during the prohibition, which came with the following warning:

After dissolving the brick in a gallon of water, do not place the liquid in a jug away in the cupboard for twenty days, because then it would turn into wine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_State...

_sentient• 14 years ago

I can't help but think that must have tasted terrible!

bravura• 14 years ago

It probably does. In Quebec, wine can only be imported and sold in state-controlled liquor stores.

As a loophole, dehydrated wine is imported, rehydrated, bottled, and sold in corner stores ("depanneurs"). It tastes rank.

gcb4• 14 years ago

california always one step ahead on the recreational stuff.

bdg• 14 years ago

Not unheard of at all. In dry countries today you'll find all the ingredients in one spot of the grocery store to brew your own beer/liquor/wine, but nobody really says it's for brewing they're just conveniently put together

seanp2k22• 14 years ago

Guys, the reason that the author didn't use these tools himself is because /they will kill you if you mess with their stuff/.

That's what global crime syndicates do.

Please do not take down the Sality botnet

Related Stories