×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EULAs For Malware

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the must-read-russian dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 105

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The authors of the Zeus malware have added an end-user license agreement to their product. The buyer is, of course, permitted to infect as many computers with Zeus as they please, but they have no right to distribute it for 'any business or commercial purpose not connected with this sale,' and they can't examine the source, use it to control non-Zeus botnets, or send it to anti-virus companies. Oh, and they commit to paying for future upgrades, too — wouldn't Microsoft love to be able to add that term to their EULA. While it seems silly to imagine Zeus's authors going to the authorities for violations of this EULA, if they're anything like the Russian Business Network, they probably have an extra-judicial means of contract enforcement named Ivan. That said, this is by no means the first EULA-encrusted malware."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

105 comments

Not Ivan ... (0, Troll)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234098)

they probably have an extra-judicial means of contract enforcement named Ivan.

His name is Bubba, actually.

Re:Not Ivan ... (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234238)

I'm pretty sure a contract that involves an illegal act is an invalid contract, so the EULA would be invalid from the start. Ivan is their only hope.

Re:Not Ivan ... (3, Interesting)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234384)

hell.... EVERY E.U.L.A. is invalid. You can't agree to a licence if it's inside a shrink wrapped box before you buy it!...... You can't use the software unless you agree to the EULA. The only way to agree to the EULA is to read it. Only way to read it is to open the Box. By opening the box you Agree to the EULA. Catch 22 without a law degree.

Re:Not Ivan ... (0, Flamebait)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234478)

p.s. Hell if the EULA works for Apple....... Why should it NOT work for the malware spreader?? At least they are honest... **Cue MAC funboy fanboys** :P:P

Re:Not Ivan ... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23235166)

**Cue MAC funboy fanboys** :P:P
But instead you get a grammar Nazi. In the context of computers, MAC is understood to be an acronym for Media Access Control. Mac is an abbreviation for Macintosh.

Better luck with your case sensitivity next time... **Cue MICROS~1 fanboys**

Re:Not Ivan ... (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235500)

still , the sentence is not grammatically incorrect.
It could be that some network specialists love the MAC address , and are therefor MAC fan boys .

Re:Not Ivan ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23236118)

still , the sentence is not grammatically incorrect.
Isn't that a double negative?

Re:Not Ivan ... (2, Informative)

damienl451 (841528) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235290)

A EULA need not be a shrink-wrap contract. If you are shown the EULA before you download the software, it's not invalid. It may also be valid if you have the option to send the software back to the publisher for a full refund (cf ProCD v. Zeidenberg). So-called "clickwrap" licenses are also okay in many cases.

Re:Not Ivan ... (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235856)

It may well be invalid anyway, if it attempts to diminish your statutory rights (which is illegal: your statutory rights are sacrosanct) and doesn't have a severability clause.

Re:Not Ivan ... (2, Interesting)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 5 years ago | (#23236658)

Some clauses of some EULAs are enforceable. But many are not. But this particular EULA is clearly unenforceable (under common law at least) as the courts do not adjudicate disputes arising from criminal conduct. There is an ancient case where one thief sued another for failing to pay him his share of two pocket watched they stole. I don't think they expect the EULA to be observed. They would be fools to expect that as they spend more time ripping each other off than their intended victims (no honor amongst thieves). It is probably more of an attempt to gain notoriety by aping the business practices of legitimate companies.

Re:Not Ivan ... (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#23237870)

Actually, I don't encounter that very often anymore. Usually what I see is a license popup when I go to install the software - at that point, I can repackage the software and bring it back.

Oh, wait. Except stores don't accept open, returned software. Well, I'm free to not use the software I paid for! Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket...

Re:Not Ivan ... (1)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234454)

they probably have an extra-judicial means of contract enforcement named Ivan.

His name is Bubba, actually.
You know, everybody makes jokes about Bubba in prison. I always wondered what he did to get there in the first place.

Now I know.

Re:Not Ivan ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23235298)

I haven't fully read the transcript of the proceedings yet but a quick scan revealed a couple of notable phrases the victim alleges that Bubba uttered.

"You sure got a purty mouth boy."
"Squeal like a pig for me."

Re:Not Ivan ... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#23236078)

"His name is Bubba, actually"

Bubba The Terrible, first tzar of Alabama. He's one mean mofo, plays a banjo while his victims fry in an oversized skillet.

astala-vista (2, Funny)

Axe4ever (1155411) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234100)

astala - vista - baby

Re:astala-vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23234474)

astala???

Re:astala-vista (0, Offtopic)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234530)

Hasta la vista. Seriously? *sigh*

Re:astala-vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23234770)

Not everyone speaks wetback as well as you do.

Re:astala-vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23234814)

i don't think that's the issue here, honky.

Re:astala-vista (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23235400)

Clearly you haven't heard of Astalavista [astalavista.net] (might have been .com, not sure), taking the piss out of Altavista [altavista.com] back when people still used it.. Twas a warez and serials site which eventually became overrun by popups, spyware, malware and other general nasties. In it's place became asta-killer [asta-killer.com] against all the nasties, although most of it's sites linked now distribute as many as they can..

New management: (4, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234120)

My guess is that the original Malware was written by some nerd who wanted to make a few bucks, but the operation was taken over by a bigger boss who saw more of the picture - and the EULA is trying ti bolster the apparent legitimacy of what they are doing - or in some way provide the weakest of weak arguments to try to sue someone later who does a better job of what they are trying to do now.

While I want to stab em with a sharp stick like the next guy, got to say that they are covering all their bases nicely.

Re:New management: (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234422)

...to try to sue someone later who does a better job of what they are trying to do now.
How can you sue someone for doing a "better" job of an illegal thing based on an illegal thing you are doing? Isn't that like calling the cops to report that someone stole some dope from you?

Re:New management: (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235676)

Yup, so long as the thing you are doing is not illegal in your country you can.

Re:New management: (2, Insightful)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235880)

You need to know what people really mean when they call the police .....

"A man in a black Ford Escort wound his window down and offered to sell me some crack". Translation: I paid some money to a man in a black Ford Escort for some dope, and he drove off laughing.

"They're serving under-age kids in the Lion". Translation: The barmaid in the Lion asked me for ID, which I haven't got because I'm under-age, but she served someone else who is younger than me.

Removing malware == DMCA violation, the next step? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234148)

I wonder if these guys will start trying to press DMCA lawsuits for people in the US who remove their software next.

Call me cynical, but I can see some judge hearing some well dressed attornies representing the Zeus guys saying that the user deliberately made the decision to dosable a protection mechanism against an "agreed upon" contract (and pointing out that what the software does is irrelevant), and said judge not knowing any better convicts.

Re:Removing malware == DMCA violation, the next st (2, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234196)

I can't imagine anyone enforcing an agreement contract (in this case EULA) that is installed without the user actually consenting it to be installed?

I mean, if you knowingly install something that snoops on your system and agree to the EULA you need to be kicked in the proverbials, but if something sneaks onto your system without you knowing about it what chance does any user agreement have?

Personally, I would like to see someone take Zeus to court about intrusion of their system. Wonder what the outcome would be.

Re:Removing malware == DMCA violation, the next st (1)

Nushio (951488) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234284)

Wonder what the outcome would be.

Sleeping with the fishes.

Re:Removing malware == DMCA violation, the next st (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234354)

But... but... wait a damn minute. When I bought my last pc it had windows installed without my consent.

Sure, sure, I realize there is a bit of difference here, but it sounds like they are taking the same business track as MS did in the 90s... well, more or less.

Foist it on them, sue anyone who disagrees. Buy the dissenters that you can, consolidate, conglomerate, soon you'll be the largest malware pimp in the world!

Re:Removing malware == DMCA violation, the next st (2, Interesting)

cobaltnova (1188515) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234486)

Every time I have opened up a computer and started it up, I have been forced to click "Yes, I accept these license terms" when starting Windows the first time.

In fact, I believe that, since there is a phrase to the extent of, "If you don't accept this license, you may return it to the seller for a refund," you actually can get rid of MS junk (see this happy story [linuxworld.com])! Though, the follow up suggests that it is hard, if not impossible, to do this.

Re:Removing malware == DMCA violation, the next st (4, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234402)

Actually the EULA only applies to the company that buys the malware to distribute it.

GP is answered by

In cases of violations of the agreement and being detected, the client loses any technical support. Moreover, the binary code of your bot will be immediately sent to antivirus companies.
which covers the people the sell the botnet too, while i think that the article has a point when it says:

Data thieves and malware authors aren't going to win any "Most Likely to Respect Intellectual Property" competitions
Assuming that Zeus offers bespoke spyware for companies, or at least different enough that anti-virus companies cant detect them all from one sample (this is where its tricky because once the AV company has one sample they'll be able to figure out the rest), it is quite a good threat:
if your big enough to pay for mallware
your going to be big enough to do something with your network
your not going to risk loosing your network

Infact this seams like a bigger threat than most EULA, your hitting them hard, unfortunately I think its just as flawed as a normal EULA, its simply impossible to enforce ( i mean vista not on virtualisation, mac on apple only hardware, it just dosent work)

Perhaps Zeus would be better off by making its money through some shady anti-zeus company that offers 100% protection from zeus.

Re:Removing malware == DMCA violation, the next st (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23236410)

This very well may be trolling but there is always the possibility that you're not aware of your mistake so can not compensate for it in the future so I think it's worth mentioning.


if your big enough to pay for malware

your going to be big enough to do something with your network

your not going to risk loosing your network


In all three of these instances the proper word(s) is "you're" or "you are" not "your". Your argument was well articulated but when you make simple grammar mistakes, it takes away from it and can bring the focus not on your response but your mistake.

Re:Removing malware == DMCA violation, the next st (1)

dwye (1127395) | more than 5 years ago | (#23242982)

> Perhaps Zeus would be better off by making its
> money through some shady anti-zeus company that
> offers 100% protection from zeus.

You are making the assumption that they don't, as well as from renting out the network. Remember, the Soviets funded their foreign intelligence department in the 1920s and early 30s by convincing the Western Powers that there was a big anti-communist underground that just needed some money and they would be able to overthrow Lenin (and later, Stalin). Why shouldn't the company fund their software research by having a shell company offering to fix their damage?

Re:Removing malware == DMCA violation, the next st (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235978)

In some countries in Europe there is a quite firm push towards "federal trojans" being installed in suspects computers. I wouldn't deem it impossible that removing them could be considered a crime by itself...

EULA (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 5 years ago | (#23236762)

"By opening this bag of marijuana, you agree that you will..."

What's next, warrantees on IEDs?

Like the late Walt Kelly's Pogo said, "common sense ain't so common no more".

Hippies all over again! (1)

bluemetal (1269852) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234210)

This is what happens. You keep fighting the man, fighting the man. The next thing you know, you've been absorbed into the system and now your invested in it, trying to make a buck and cover your ass like all us Joes.

Re:Hippies all over again! (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 5 years ago | (#23236968)

That's not what happened to hippies. The hippies were affeced by a certain drug - marijuana. One of its properties is to make you think. Another is to make you forget what you were thinking about, but it doesn't cause total amnesia. If you give enough thought to the subject, you'll realise that it is in everyone's best interests to treat your fellow man fairly and that it's completely stupid to ravage the environment, and that money isn't the be-all and end-all. Everything you do will one day be gone, and there will be no trace you ever inhabited the universe. As Billy Joel said:

Sergeant O'Leary is walkin' the beat
At night he becomes a bartender
He works at Mister Cacciatore's down on Sullivan Street
Across from the medical center
And he's tradin' in his Chevy for a
Cadillac-ac-ac-ac-ac-ac
You oughta know by now - You oughta know by now
And if he can't drive with a broken back
At least he can polish the fenders
Then Reagan's "war on drugs" came along, and the only drug there really was was a war on was marijuana. "Got any reefer, man?" the hippie would ask the dealer. "No, it's real dry. Want some coke?"

Most stopped smoking pot. Many started snorting cocaine.

Cocaine has the opposite effect of marijuana. Habitual cocaine use turns a normal person into the most self-centered, selfish, thoughtless asshole ever to ignore another human's feelings or needs.

The yuppie was born. As The Pheromones say,

I recently purchased a TEAC 4100X with 3 heads, 3 motors, and a Sansui 3660, 45 watts per channel, Dolby X, DBX, hi-tech specs, 30 to 20000 hz so I can listen to adult contemporary music ...
cranked up to 3.

In my 3-level attached suburban townhouse with a community pool and rec room, 495 p.i. year 1 through 3, 795 p.i. years 3 through 35, thousand others in the 3-blocks square, they don't know I'm there ...
unless I park in their parking space.

I traded my GTO for a Jap Jet 300 ZX, then a BMW, 5-speed, A/C, P/B, P/S, 2 bucket seats, sound system hurts my ears, goes fast (55), personalized license plate that says "Sparky"
but it's in the shop.

I wake up early with Mister Coffee, jump in the carpool with Fred and Alice and Charlie so we can drive downtown, predawn, in the express lane, HOV-4, 395, 6 a.m., it doesn't matter ...
it still takes an hour to go 5 miles.

I wear a suit and tie but I still have lots of T-shirts that I don't
wear - there's no time. I got out of college and freaked, so I
grabbed a job with a big corporation that treats me like POOP.
But I don't care 'cause the pay's OK and the benefits are great ...
Don't ask me what we make.

Me and my lady-person who I met at the happy hour, 4 to 7, at Chumley's Bar downtown during a snowstorm last year. We both love margaritas and Jimmy Buffett, TOOT, jogging, Jacuzzis, and shopping at Dart Drug,
"Compare and Save," "We will not be undersold." ...
(You Bet!)

I trusted George in '72, hated Tricky Dicky with a passion, championed the poor down-trodden masses. Don't call me middle-class. What's mine is mine. I don't like war, but the bread is good. Ronnie's not so bad as Fritz or Carter's hicks. Right is new, left is out, twist and shout.

I love my car and house.

Re:Hippies all over again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23239702)

Whoa dude. Chill out and have another hit.

Who are you? (1)

Kotukunui (410332) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234312)

At least if they try to sue through the court system, they will have to reveal their own identity and then you can send your own Uber-Ivan to sort them out.

So... (1)

andreyvul (1176115) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234334)

If I'm not happy with this software, can I return it to the point of purchase for a refund?
After all, every EULA I've read has a refund-if-not-accept clause in it.

Precedence? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23234368)

What would have precedence in a case pitting EULA-enforced DMCA and anti-cybercrime laws? Let's say a commercial AV outfit vs. the DMCA which would say that reverse-engineering the product was violating their copyright.

Re:Precedence? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235998)

The EULA can only be enforced (if at all) against the legal buyer of a license. Which is, in this case, the person licensing the trojan to infect machines. When your machine gets infected, or if you happen to be an AV researcher who gets his hands on one of these, you are not bound by the EULA. You didn't enter a license contract with the vendor of the malware.

Yes, it feels odd to write this, not caring that something is malware and just trying to figure out the legal position. I wonder if this is how lawyers feel, detatched from the subject, ignoring any moral or emotional baggage, just concentrating on the legal implications... anyway, I ramble.

My guess is that they want some sort of protection against AV vendors buying their stuff and immediately putting it into their AV tools, thus rendering the malware suit less effective. So far, their way of protection was secrecy. Being hard to find, though, also means less business. I guess they try latching EULAs onto their malware so they can sell more openly, while still being able to sue AV vendors that buy their junk and slip it into their AV suits.

A EULA for Malware? (3, Funny)

suck_burners_rice (1258684) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234408)

If, as suggested in this article's hypothetical situation, Microsoft were to write a EULA for malware, it would be pretty ridiculous. Oh, wait...

EULA for spam (2, Funny)

Digestromath (1190577) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235684)

By reading this email you hereby agree to the following conditions:

1) Allow all emails from our companies to reach your inbox, and you must read them

2) You in fact must forward these emails, or let our malware forward them for you

3)You must pay to have your genitalia enlarged with OUR products only, and you must continue paying for these products until you have the advertised girth and lenth

4) You will not delete our messages, in fact you will archive and catalogue them in an order pleasing to you

5) By opting into our volume club membership, we cut out the unwanted ads, and double the number of targeted ones BENEFITING YOU!

6) You must opt into our humour newsletter, which pairs funny pictures of kittens with ads about how to make your junk/breasts/both bigger!

and so on

EULA violation (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234590)

The most interesting thing about this however was not mentioned in the article, sadly - the EULA states that when you violate it, the code will be handed over to various antivirus companies, effectively rendering the code almost useless.

Re:EULA violation (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234644)

I think that it is trying to threaten potential hackers with what potential hackers would be scared of - having their hacks made useless. They are simply threatening to take away their work.

Spose it is in some funny 'honor amoung theives' way, cept that the honor is only extending as far as their peers, not the people they are actually letting this loose on - clearly there is no respect that extends that far.

Re:EULA violation (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235926)

Well, successful malware authors are already paying bakshish to their "preferred partners" in the anti-malware industry (which is by no means above this sort of thing) in order to allow their product to evade detection by specific products. It's possible that a mere code sample submitted by a rival malware gang would have to be accompanied by a bigger bribe than the original author paid in order to have any effect.

It's the same with taking out a contract for a hit. The person who wants you out of the way pays a hitman to off you, but you can still get to keep your life -- if and only if you pay the hitman more than the original hirer. In fact, pay enough, and when the hirer later meets up discreetly with the hitman to "see the proof that the job was done", he's in for the surprise of his life .....

Re:EULA violation (1)

TheHorse13 (908512) | more than 5 years ago | (#23237758)

Unless each copy of the malware is unique, if the malcode is submitted to an AV company, *all* "customers" will be screwed, not just the guy who failed to pay.

Re:EULA violation (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 5 years ago | (#23238998)

Depends who is whose preferred partner. If you submit ripped-off code to the rip-off artist's own preferred partner, you'll have to pay them more to get them to do anything about it than they are paying them.

Example: Suppose I am a malware creator, and I am paying McAfee to turn a blind eye to the malware I create. I copy a piece of malware you wrote. You pass on an example of this to McAfee. They aren't going to do anything about it, unless you pay them more than I am already paying them.

Target Practice (1)

CompMD (522020) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234604)

If they want to enforce their licensing, they can't be anonymous. I think I see a major opportunity for the Russian military to show their might and perform a few practice attack missions.

Re:Target Practice (1)

dwye (1127395) | more than 5 years ago | (#23243036)

> I think I see a major opportunity for the Russian military
> to show their might and perform a few practice attack missions.

Then seize it, and run it for themselves.

Obligatory bash.org quote (5, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234704)

From http://bash.org/?577451 [bash.org] :

<DmncAtrny> I will write on a huge cement block "By accepting this brick through your window, you accept it as is and agree to my disclaimer of all warranties, express or implied, as well as disclaimers of all liability, direct, indirect, consequential or incidental, that may arise from the installation of this brick into your building."
<DmncAtrny> And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer
<DmncAtrny> and run like hell

Re:Obligatory bash.org quote (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234734)

Gold, someone mod this up.

Re:Obligatory bash.org quote (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23234806)

Instead of modding it up, someone do it.

Re:Obligatory bash.org quote (1)

zigmeister (1281432) | more than 5 years ago | (#23243340)

You probably mean a "concrete block." Cement is merely an ingredient in concrete (what you are standing on when you are on the sidewalk). If you had a cement block and tried to throw it through a window a giant cloud of grayish dust would end up in your face...unfortunately, the Sony officer probably deserves it much more.

okay so... (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234752)

So is there an "I don't agree" button or cancel or something if you don't like the EULA? If so, wtf, kinda weak malware lol. If not, it's not a real EULA and won't stand up in court...not that it would anyway lol.

Re:okay so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23234902)

Hold on... did you seriously just use "lol" non-facetiously? For serious?

L, O, FUCKING L!

Were you dropped on your head as a child or something?

I have my own EULA (2, Insightful)

holywarrior21c (933929) | more than 5 years ago | (#23234998)

_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA

By looking at my ID, you hereby agree to mod me insightful from now on. click above to proceed.

_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA_EULA

Re:I have my own EULA (1)

Skreech (131543) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235154)

"Click anywhere on the screen to accept."

Re:I have my own EULA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23235378)

"Click anywhere on the screen to accept."
*clicks back button*

It's hilarious to some extend... but... (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235082)

In most jurisdiction if one burglar breaks into another burglar's home he
goes to jail. But... if somebody is sold a very poor quality of cocaine in a
drug deal they can't sue to get their money back.

Most jurisdictions will prosecute the crime but will not afford the protections
of civil law. So in turn somebody might get prosecuted for violating criminal
statutes, but they can't ever hope to successfully sue for lost profits.

EULA (2, Interesting)

ettlz (639203) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235520)

How does one pronounce it? "Yoo-lah", or "Oi-lah"?

Re:EULA (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235954)

Neither, it's pronounced as though it was four separate letters.

Or you could turn the U into a V ..... as in "evangelism" (from "eu" [= positive] . "angel" [= messenger] . "ism") = spreading good news.

Re:EULA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23236404)

"Ee yew el eh" or just say "end-user license agreement".

Don't try to make initialisms into words. They usually sound stupid.

Re:EULA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23237198)

No, it's "Eww-Lah".

Honor amongst thieves (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235602)

Does the bot binary come with a EULA too?

"By clicking on this email attachment, you agree to become a member of the Storm botnet indefinitely, and agree to never remove this bot. You further agree to remove all virus protection and open all ports on your computer.

Oh, and you have agreed to get a better internet connection. Seriously, how am I supposed to spam people over dial-up?

[Agree] [Own me] [Bend over]"

Something will give in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 5 years ago | (#23235836)

Malware creators already have "preferred partners" in the AV industry (i.e., those to whom they are paying cash bribes in order not to have their products detected by that particular brand of AV software) -- don't make the mistake of thinking the anti-malware industry is any less corrupt than the malware industry.

Now, their preferred partners will be offered money to detect certain malware.

It's all going to turn ugly. Very ugly ..... I'm just glad my OS of choice is immune by design to the most common forms of malware and I'm smart enough not to fall victim to the rest.

Dont you have to agree to an EULA ? (2, Interesting)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | more than 5 years ago | (#23236080)

Does it come up with a "I Agree" "I Disagree" buttons like all other programs now ? if so it would effect its spread rate since people would be able to disagree and therefore it should not install, or if you don't get the option to disagree or read it then it would cause problems when enforcing it legally.

Re:Dont you have to agree to an EULA ? (1)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 5 years ago | (#23237856)

Come on, you don't even have to RTFA. From the summary: "The buyer is, of course, permitted to infect as many computers with Zeus as they please".

The EULA is for the person buying the product not for the infected.

Re:Dont you have to agree to an EULA ? (1)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 5 years ago | (#23237878)

FFS! (Score:2, Interesting)

It's on thing the poster not RTFA, but you'd imagine that someone with mod points would at least glance at the summary... ah, it's /.

Sorry, as I've said before, I'm new here...

Unenforceable - clear intent? (1)

MessyBlob (1191033) | more than 5 years ago | (#23236946)

Malware would be subject to counter-claims that the purpose of the software was not clear. How do you make hidden details reasonably accessible? Surely, on testing a license breach in legal proceedings, there has to be a demonstration that the user knowingly breached the agreement, and reasonable steps were taken by the licensors to communicate their requirements?

Maybe not that silly? (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 5 years ago | (#23236996)

It's pretty well known that botnet creators are selling their net (and perhaps the bots) to paying clients that want to set up a botnet for nefarious purposes.

The line "In cases of violations of the agreement and being detected, the client loses any technical support. Moreover, the binary code of your bot will be immediately sent to antivirus companies." makes me think this EULA is targeted at those customers, not the zombie victims. The second sentence basically says to me:
"We have customized your bot so it is not currently detected by antivirus software. If you violate our EULA, a sample of your customized bot will get sent to antivirus companies so that your bot becomes detectable and far less useful for setting up your spam network."

Shoot Them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23237350)

Authors of viruses, malware, whatever you want to call it, should be shot.

Works the same I think (1)

archont (1215492) | more than 5 years ago | (#23237422)

Well both legal companies and the russian malware mafia work on pretty much the same basis. If you break any other EULA, you get a letter. If you break the their EULA, you get a package.

Cool! A Minnie Driver / Anne Hathaway love scene! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 5 years ago | (#23241204)

George Will, among others, points out the failure in the "War on Drugs" is evidenced by the falling price, and increasing quality, of cocaine and other drugs, both showing an increase in competition for the consumer's dollar.

EULA for aids next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23241520)

"I'm Sorry sir, but you're HIV has turned into full blown aids.."
*Doctor hands man a bill*
*What is this..?"
"That would be the charge for the upgrade."
"I'm paying for having AIDS???"
"Yes, obviously you didn't read the EULA for HIV when you got it."

-Spida
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...