Beta
×

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!

DECAF Was Just a Stunt, Now Over

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the insecure-security dept.

Microsoft 206

An anonymous reader writes to tell us of the de-activation of all copies of DECAF. The creators have announced that the DECAF project was nothing more than a "stunt to raise awareness for security and the need for better forensic tools." Originally DECAF was billed as a tool to stop Microsoft's forensic tool "COFEE" and was covered here earlier this week. In addition to their message of security the authors somehow manage to interject a discussion about religion, so who knows what the real goal was.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

heh (5, Funny)

farlukar (225243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491004)

0xDECAFBAD

Re:heh (4, Interesting)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491274)

Very bad;
"As you probably noticed, your copy of DECAF no longer works. We have disabled every copy of DECAF."

They left the ability in to remotely control how the software behaves. Anyone who installed this let this be a lesson for you.

Re:heh (1)

batquux (323697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491432)

DECAF l33t

OMFG WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491012)

What are we going to do now?!!!

Just wow (2, Insightful)

jaymz404 (1699842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491036)

Wow at self righteous religious bullcrap.

Re:Just wow (1, Insightful)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491302)

Religious? yes. Bullcrap? your point of view. Self-righteous? not at all.

I found that last part a little out of place, but then that's their site, so let them post whatever testimonial they want. Is it any worse or more out of place than the testimonials for atheism or libertarianism or whatever-ism found right here in this discussion and elsewhere on this site (which is not anybody's site, but a public forum)?

Re:Just wow (4, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491422)

Yeah well the atheists and libertarians that you don't like are merely posting comments on this site. I may not like libertarians, but I can't remember the last time one of them wrote a timebomb malware program, to go off at a set point, and give me a pro-libertarian screed.

Re:Just wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491474)

I'm a libertarian you self-righteous twit!

Re:Just wow (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491506)

LOL Hey, I don't hate you, I just hate your ideas! At least you don't write malware programs to preach them to me! :D

Hey!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491700)

I'm a self-righteous twit, you insensitive clod!

Re:Hey!!!! (0, Flamebait)

Verdatum (1257828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492424)

"I'm not your Buddeh, Fwend!!!!"

Re:Just wow (2, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491584)

Well, I guess Greenspan's economic policies aren't exactly a program, in the CS sense of the term; but they otherwise fit the bill pretty well...

Re:Just wow (2, Insightful)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491620)

Well, in the original Slashdot DECAF article, there were a large number of folks who guessed that this might be a piece of malware, or at least not be what it appeared. Given that they were essentially right and the author's credibility now has to be seen as zero, what weight should be given to his profession of faith? I have to wonder if he isn't a non-Christian, since deceiving people is against Christian principles.

DECAF was a meta-troll.

Re:Just wow (0, Flamebait)

Vendetta (85883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491932)

Yes, because we all know that no self-professed "Christian" has ever deceived anyone. It therefore has to be one of those awful brown people you see so much about in the news.

Re:Just wow (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30492460)

"deceiving people is against Christian principles. " != "no self-professed Christian has ever deceived anyone"

Re:Just wow (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492634)

Thank you.

Re:Just wow (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492786)

Settle down. The point was simple. What he does is more important (and more revealing about who he really is) than what he says.

After the bullshit that was DECAF, do you really believe anything he might have to say about being a Christian? Do you suppose that it just might be another calculated troll?

Libertarians (1)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492650)

But why do you hate the ideas? I'm a weak libertarian myself and find that personal liberty is important. Don't generalize and say all libertarians are extremists. We don't all want to abolish the government. I'm curious about your ideas since I feel a decentralized government that helps those who truly need it, while not having ideas to force upon you about religion and ethics (marriage, alcohol, etc) would be the best deal. This is libertarianism for you.

Re:Just wow (3, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491950)

I found that last part a little out of place, but then that's their site, so let them post whatever testimonial they want.

It's their site and their right, but in general using a technical discussion to shoehorn in religious promotion is considered bad form, to put it mildly.

"REMEMBER TO DRINK YOUR DECAF" (2, Funny)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492356)

"REMEMBER TO DRINK YOUR DECAF"

A crummy commercial. Son of a bitch!

Re:"REMEMBER TO DRINK YOUR DECAF" (1)

AnotherShep (599837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492504)

I really wish I had mod points. :(

Timebombware (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491070)

This is a perfect example of a software time bomb [wikipedia.org] . I hope anyone who downloaded it learned their lesson. Unlikely, since anyone who downloaded it is still using Windows.

Re:Timebombware (-1, Flamebait)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491566)

This is a perfect example of a karma whore [urbandictionary.com] . I hope anyone who read it learned their lesson. Unlikely, since anyone who found it interesting is likely a moron.

Re:Timebombware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491718)

Actually, there are a lot of Windows users on Slashdot. I was expecting to get modded -1 Troll right away by them.

Re:Timebombware (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491942)

Perhaps most of us are Windows users that did not download and install the program?

Re:Timebombware (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491912)

Trying to karma whore as an AC would be a good example of doing it wrong [urbandictionary.com] .

Your post is another good example.

Re:Timebombware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491978)

If a karma whore posts a comment, but they do it anonymously, are they still a karma whore?

Re:Timebombware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30492260)

If a karma whore whores in the woods and nobody is around to mod it, is it still whoring?

Beating dead whores (not a bad pun, eh?) (0, Troll)

Verdatum (1257828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492500)

If a whore whores in the woods and nobody is around to get me mah money, is a falling tree gonna have to choke a bitch?

Re:Timebombware (1)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492314)

Yeah but theres no advantage to it. Its sorta like a prostitute doing volunteer work

Re:Timebombware (2, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492632)

So, sorority chicks???

I believe I speak for everybody (5, Funny)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491092)

When after reading that I reply with "WTF?"

Re:I believe I speak for everybody (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491472)

Seriously. I read the summary. I read the article. I read the discussion on slashdot about the initial news posting. I still don't get what DECAF was exactly supposed to do, what it actually is doing, and what message the author of DECAF thinks he is sending with whatever his software does.

Worst. Story. EVER!

Re:I believe I speak for everybody (1)

LOLLinux (1682094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491526)

He was using it as a way to prosthelytize for jeebus.

Re:I believe I speak for everybody (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30492012)

Seriously. I read the summary. I read the article. I read the discussion on slashdot about the initial news posting. I still don't get what DECAF was exactly supposed to do, what it actually is doing, and what message the author of DECAF thinks he is sending with whatever his software does.

Worst. Story. EVER!

There's a cool site where you can find out all about things like this. There you go, Sparky. [justfuckinggoogleit.com]

"I will use Google before asking dumb questions."

Re:I believe I speak for everybody (2, Funny)

r00tyroot (536356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492150)

or, WTFWJD?

Lurn 2 speel (-1, Troll)

grub (11606) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491100)

From the page:
Athiesm didn't do it for me.

Try Atheism, it does work!

Huh what? (1)

runyonave (1482739) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491182)

  1. make fake software.
  2. make fake software work like it will outshine a proprietary software.

Result
Make people fall for my religion

Re:Huh what? (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491272)

In addition to their message of security the authors somehow manage to interject a discussion about religion so who knows what the real goal was.

Is anyone hiring professional trolls? These guys must be rejects from Microsoft's FUD division.

Re:Huh what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491320)

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

Re:Huh what? (5, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491396)

I think you meant this:

1. Make fake software.
2. Make fake software work like it will outshine proprietary software.
3. ???
4. Prophet

Re:Huh what? (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492128)

a Pun AND a Meme.

This deserves to be a Score:6 comment.

Re:Huh what? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492450)

I would have used FTFY, but I figured the convergence of pun and meme would cause a breach in the pun-meme continuum.

Re:Huh what? (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492178)

Oh, bravo! Kudos, etc.

Re:Huh what? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492568)

Well played sir. The only time a 123??4 Profit joke has ever made me laugh.

Good luck with that. (4, Insightful)

AbsoluteXyro (1048620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491188)

I can see what they are getting at but it is a real douche thing for them to be all "shame on you!" for downloading and using software that they themselves created, provided, and handed out. I can't see a whole lot of people taking them seriously, as a result.

Re:Good luck with that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491264)

Off topic, but... how can you truly "be all shame on you". I can see how you can be the best you can be, you can be a dumbass, you can be brilliant, you can be tall, short, ugly, beautiful, many many other things, but not how you can be "all shame on you".

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491546)

That's because you don't speak English well enough to parse the sentence.

"be all shame on you" = "say 'shame on you' empathically"

There's a lot of nuance missing as well, but that's the closest you'll get.

Re:Good luck with that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491624)

lrn2english

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492158)

I can see what they are getting at but it is a real douche thing for them to be all "shame on you!" for downloading and using software that they themselves created, provided, and handed out. I can't see a whole lot of people taking them seriously, as a result.

The lesson here is that serious security software is not a black box. It's something you can audit and verify. And yes, shame on anyone who thought otherwise and fell for this. They should consider themselves fortunate that this one was rather benign. It could have easily done real damage.

Ummmm... Okay? (5, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491196)

When I saw the original announcement of this program, I was skeptical of what it was actually for. However, I didn't see this type of angle coming! LOL, wow!

If you actually downloaded this thing, let this be a valuable lesson. Don't be gullible. This could have been a virus for your computer, instead of one for your mind.

Re:Ummmm... Okay? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491454)

Ironic that the message to be learned from a group of people pushing a religious agenda is "Don't be gullible."

Re:Ummmm... Okay? (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491492)

Not really, I think that's one of the best lessons to be learned from people pushing a religious agenda. :)

Re:Ummmm... Okay? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491560)

True. But it's ironic that is the message they -want- you to learn.

Re:Ummmm... Okay? (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492758)

True. But it's ironic that is the message they -want- you to learn.

that's because they never consider the implications, "go forth Columbus! and find a new route to India!" "Oh sh!t what do you mean the worlds not flat?"

Re:Ummmm... Okay? (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492130)

When I saw the original announcement of this program, I was skeptical of what it was actually for. However, I didn't see this type of angle coming! LOL, wow!

Few would have guessed that there was an angel coming. :)

Good luck with Jesus, buddy (-1, Flamebait)

QCompson (675963) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491210)

The jokes on him when he dies and rots into the ground like all the rest of the organic lifeforms. Meanwhile he'll waste a good portion of his life babbling about his "savior".

The poor sap is going to miss out on a lot of good porn!

Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491258)

Oh, yeah. This thread is going down hill fast. All we need now a GNAA Troll.

Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491590)

If you just die and rot then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?

Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491708)

If you just die and rot then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?

Because you may as well enjoy yourself while you are alive. Many bible-beating christians seem to try their best *not* to enjoy themselves while alive, because they are preparing for a wonderful afterlife.

Yes, yes, I know... -1 flamebait or troll.

Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30492234)

If you just die and rot then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?

If all you need to do is accept Jeebus as your saviour to earn eternal bliss, then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?

disappointing (4, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491284)

In addition to their message of security the authors somehow manage to interject a discussion about religion so who knows what the real goal was.

Considering that all but the first paragraph of the article was the religious message its self, I'd say that it is pretty clear what the goal was.

Re:disappointing (4, Funny)

msimm (580077) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492326)

God is a security conscious douche?

For the lulz... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491294)

This troop reminds me of the Yes Men! Their efforts point out the flaws and absurdities in things that should otherwise not have been.

I applaud them for their efforts, since they seem to have succeeded in raising awareness. Combating and defeating COFEE on the other hand, is something left up to the user.

Ha (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491316)

I think the coffee was spiked with something.

Disabled? How? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491414)

How exactly are they going to disable it remotely, when my firewall blocks the connections, and I can always reinstall a cracked download, when it disables itself with a timer?

Re:Disabled? How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491522)

It could be something simple like having it not work if the system time is after a certain point. Sure, people who really still wanted to "use" it could set their clock back in time, but we really don't have any indication that it was even doing anything anyway. Even if you were willing to trust it beforehand, why would you still trust it now to "fight COFEE"?

Re:Disabled? How? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491612)

Why would you?

Have you evaluated it and figured out that it does anything useful?

Re:Disabled? How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30492106)

Yep. It's a silly claim to say 'we have deactivated all copies of DECAF'. It's a bit hard to deactivate DECAF in an isolated virtual machine where every day is December 1st 2009.

Not open source, don't trust it. (-1, Offtopic)

cfalcon (779563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491470)

You can't ever go wrong with that, this is just one more example.

Shame on slashdot for being fooled. And shame on anyone who trusted a bunch of anti-privacy lunatics with religious motivation. Here's a great quote:

"I would still be with my addictive behaviors; womanizing, pornography, stealing, hacking, lieing, manipulating, and fighting. DECAF would have been a perfect way to feed my addictions."

He's ok with centralization of power. I wonder what he would think if that power was used to detect and eliminate religious people, if having a copy of the Bible was what "computer forensic" tools were used for. These windbags can't see past their own nose.

Re:Not open source, don't trust it. (1)

DustCollector (903185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491730)

What alerted me was "womanizing." Clearly, the DECAF author doesn't know the slash dot audience. :P

Regardless, I've learned with proselytizers, the problem is more within them, than with the people they try to convert (through lying and manipulation and fighting, of course).

Re:Not open source, don't trust it. (1)

jason.sweet (1272826) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491768)

I would still be with my addictive behaviors; womanizing...

Yeah! Right!
The closest this hacker Jesus freak gets to womanizing is when his mom brings his hot pockets to the basement!

Re:Not open source, don't trust it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30492492)

"I would still be with my addictive behaviors; womanizing, pornography, stealing, hacking, lieing, manipulating, and fighting. DECAF would have been a perfect way to feed my addictions."

Except this "Christian" did those things. DECAF did involve lying and manipulation. I'd probably include hacking and maybe stealing as well. It certainly wasn't something an honorable Christian would do. We're all hypocrites at times, but I find it hard to take this guy seriously. Maybe he only stopped because he his religious beliefs conflicted with what he was doing. If so, the first step in atoning is admitting you've sinned. It's not mocking others.

Clearly this was chicory (1)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491502)

and not even cofee based in the first place...

Lie, cheat, and steal for Christ! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491514)

You're doing it wrong.

Re:Lie, cheat, and steal for Christ! (1)

telomerewhythere (1493937) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491896)

That is so what I was going to say. It's almost like they're trying to give Jesus a bad name.

I find Gandhi's quote appropriate: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Re:Lie, cheat, and steal for Christ! (3, Informative)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492684)

One of my favorite quotes. But the actual quote is "I do not reject your Christ, I love your Christ. It is just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Gandhi never actually said he did not like Christians, just that they do not act like Christ.

That wasn't weird or anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491528)

Glad that wasn't weird or anything... lol wtf

What is it that is bad, exactly? (2, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491536)

What is it that is bad, exactly?
  1. All copies of the software were deactivated remotely
  2. The whole thing was a hoax
  3. The hoax was to raise awareness
  4. The author used the publicity to advocate a cause that he personally considers important

Which of these are bad? And why? I've often heard that getting a personal message out via publicity stunts is a good thing (The Yes Men) and now all the sudden it's bad, and we should pay no attention to these reprehensible people whose only method is deceit?

Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491588)

Well the Yes Men don't try to get me to install stuff to my PC for one thing. This time we're assuming it's something harmless, but this would have been a fantastic way to do something malicious.
Many people will poke fun at the religious angle of it, but frankly I would be critical of this stunt even if it was for a cause I believed in.

Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? (1)

tigre (178245) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491810)

Many people will poke fun at the religious angle of it, but frankly I would be critical of this stunt even if it was for a cause I believed in.

And seeing as it _is_ a cause I believe in, I will chime in with said criticism. It's not unlike those tracts that look like money that people sometimes leave as "tips". Great way to get attention, but in the end it's generally the wrong kind of attention, rather anti-persuasive.

Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492400)

Well the Yes Men don't try to get me to install stuff to my PC for one thing.

If they succeed in getting you to download, install, and execute untrusted and unvetted code, that's your fault. I really consider any "threat" that requires my active participation to be a complete and total non-issue.

Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? (1)

LOLLinux (1682094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491670)

Because using lies and hoaxes to spread the word of Jeebus is somewhat hypocritical?

Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492146)

What did they lie about? It might not have been what you expected, but I see no lies here.

Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492324)

The fact that all copies of the software were deactivated remotely. It's a needless act of destruction, only somewhat justified by the fact that they themselves created it.

I See A Beautiful Thing Here (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491580)

The Genie is out of the bottle. This has been an excellent learning experience. We now know of a couple of hundred utilities that will clean up some far away places in Windows. My personal thanks to those that made these programs.

So release a crack (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491602)

Come on, this is good and easy fun. Pop it in IDA, trace it down to its fail point (calls to check the date?), replace critical code (i.e. jumps) with a fixed condition (i.e. jmp rather than jge), and done. The branch can be fixed; or the entire call/compare/branch can even be replaced with nop, nop, jump. It's even feasible to replace the 4 + 2 byte call with CMP %eax, %eax and a NOP, and the branch with a JZ branch (jump if comparison is equal/zero/etc).

Re:So release a crack (1)

techhead79 (1517299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491766)

Great idea, so do you want to sift through countless lines of assembly. Why are we jumping to assembly though...who says a decompiler wont produce good enough code first? But I got a better question for you, why do you think it did what it claimed to in the first place?

My vote is the NSA nocked on his door and told him he can undo the damage he did or they send him to prison as a terrorist...and lucky him he put a back door in so he can see what everyone was trying to hide. I mean come on the NSA/FBI what have you can't install their crap on every system in the world...what better way than to get someone to write up a program that gets all the idiots in the world to install a program for them that does the same thing?

Re:So release a crack (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492288)

Great idea, so do you want to sift through countless lines of assembly.

Run, generate a call trace, walk backwards to a suspicious function (one that calls getdatetime() or such), etc. It's easy to find system calls and log the call path with a debugger. This is more a strategy exercise than an exercise in brute force reading and altering raw code, which means it's both fun and actually not much work if you know what you're doing.

Why are we jumping to assembly though...who says a decompiler wont produce good enough code first?

Because there's no such thing. Optimization destroys decompilation. Currently the very best and most awesome decompilers generate a clunk of garbage code, and then you have to examine it and determine structure, feed that back to the decompiler, and it uses the new information to generate a better decompilation. In the end it's still garbage code, but it shapes up well enough.

Besides, a decompile is less intuitive than tracing debugging for this problem.

My vote is the NSA nocked on his door and

And you need to remove your idiot cap. This makes no sense in the scope of the real world.

Phew.. (1)

KraftDinner (1273626) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491604)

Oh good, the site is down. Now we can all forget about what this moron's message was(whatever it was) and move on with our lives.

Re:Phew.. (1)

LOLLinux (1682094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491744)

Unfortunately it's up still.

Text of Site since it is down (0, Redundant)

DarKnyht (671407) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491714)

We want to thank every media outlet, financial supporter, security expert, and forensic investigator that showed us support.

As you probably noticed, your copy of DECAF no longer works. We have disabled every copy of DECAF. We hope that as you realize this was a stunt to raise awareness for security and the need for better forensic tools that you would reconsider cutting corners on corporate security. Also, governments should not rely on a tool to automate the process of forensics but rather invest in the education of investigators and forensic tool experts. If we were able to assist every government agency in their computer crime investigations, we would. The problem is DECAF is just two people. As a security community at large, we need to band together and start relieving some of the burden off our government by giving back.

It also goes to show that if two people can make an impact as big as DECAF did; imagine how much positive we could all do together. Lately our media has been presenting many individual people (balloon boy, white house visitors, etc) who have been manipulating media outlets for selfish publicity in hopes of being "successful". The problem is that America has grown to be selfish, self-reliant, prideful, and a arrogant monster. We leave our marriages, neglect our kids, chase positions/status at work, chase materialistic property and only think of ourselves. In the mean time our whole country goes down the tubes.

These problems individuals are facing are not new. They are due to you trying to fill the void in your life with things of this world. Most everyone has bitter roots, some have been victimized, others are just neglected. You go through the woes of life with no life support.

I too would still be swallowed up in my prideful and selfish ways. I would still be with my addictive behaviors; womanizing, pornography, stealing, hacking, lieing, manipulating, and fighting. DECAF would have been a perfect way to feed my addictions. Instead I used it as a way to bring you a message. A message of freedom, a message of peace, a message of transparency and a message of unity. As you learn a little about me, understand I faced the same things I am speaking about. I didn't address the fruits of my life, I addressed the bitter roots of my life. Religion didn't do it for me. Catholicism didn't do it for me. Athiesm didn't do it for me. Agnostic didn't do it for me. Unity and education did it for me. Only one man gets credit for it. Jesus Christ. Once I learned Christ wasn't about that foolishness I seen on t.v. or seen in other "Christians", I realized I was missing the point. I couldn't look past the Christians to see the CHRIST. I accepted Him as my savior and then started putting Him in positions over my life. My life changed and yours can too. It was about relationship.

Romans 10:9 - "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Stay tuned for the release of the forum and if you are interested in joining, please send an email to join@decafme.org

It's not hard to figure out what their intent was. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491734)

MS created a forensic tool. People became paranoid that this tool might expose their activities, which are sometimes illegal, and often immoral, to the light of day. Two people developed a piece of software as a form of social commentary to show how depraved modern society is, because people want to hide their shameful activities. They did a good job, up until their final explanation. If they explained their intentions more clearly, then it would have been a success. Instead, it fell short at the end. Good job, but not quite good enough.

Re:It's not hard to figure out what their intent w (1)

LOLLinux (1682094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30491772)

People became paranoid that this tool might expose their activities, which are sometimes illegal, and often immoral, to the light of day. Two people developed a piece of software as a form of social commentary to show how depraved modern society is, because people want to hide their shameful activities.

So you live in a house with no walls and with CCTVs all over the place so you can be constantly monitored by the police and any other government organization? And you never have conversations with people without everyone being able to hear what you're talking about?

First Po5t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30491862)

To them...then IT a break, If

Countdown to REAL DECAF in 3, 2, 1 .... (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492006)

you are aware that it wont take long before some party comes up with a working DECAF after this point, right ?

goverment threatens decafe authors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30492360)

well it seems rather suspect to me that this comes out soo long after the tool was released. As the ideas behind the program where not out of teh relm of possiblity. I think the goverment would have a huge intrest in removing this software from peoples comeputers and punishing the authors. I mean if i was an author who wrote an anti govt comp forensics tool and they came knocking at my door threating to make me disapear like the rest of the terrorist they capture i would come out and say it was a hoax and deactivate it as well. I smell the stench of a goverment hand in this... Can some body say conspiracy............

Open Sourced (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30492426)

If that had been opened sourced, everyone would have seen that this wasn't for real.

Re:Open Sourced (1)

Feanturi (99866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492728)

If everything was open sourced, there would have been no need for it in the first place since the world would run on unicorn farts and love.

coffeemate (1)

Scarumanga (1022717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30492626)

my solution to this is coffeemate
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?