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!

Microsoft Settles With No-IP After Malware Takedown

timothy posted about three weeks ago | from the semi-mulligan dept.

Microsoft 83

Trailrunner7 (1100399) writes It's been a weird couple of weeks for Microsoft. On June 30 the company announced its latest malware takedown operation, which included a civil law suit against Vitalwerks, a small Nevada hosting provider, and the seizure of nearly two dozen domains the company owned. Now, 10 days later, Microsoft has not only returned all of the seized domains but also has reached a settlement with Vitalwerks that resolves the legal action. Some in the security research community criticized Microsoft harshly for what they saw as heavy handed tactics. Within a few days of the initial takedown and domain seizure Microsoft returned all of the domains to Vitalwerks, which does business as No-IP.com. On Wednesday, the software giant and the hosting provider released a joint statement saying that they had reached a settlement on the legal action. "Microsoft has reviewed the evidence provided by Vitalwerks and enters into the settlement confident that Vitalwerks was not knowingly involved with the subdomains used to support malware. Those spreading the malware abused Vitalwerks' services," the companies said in a joint statement. "Microsoft identified malware that had escaped Vitalwerks' detection. Upon notification and review of the evidence, Vitalwerks took immediate corrective action allowing Microsoft to identify victims of this malware. The parties have agreed to permanently disable Vitalwerks subdomains used to control the malware."

cancel ×

83 comments

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

"Sorry about that" (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425477)

"We did the thing we should have done in the first place after some guys pointed out what a bunch of dumb motherfuckers we'd been."

Re:"Sorry about that" (3, Informative)

theskipper (461997) | about three weeks ago | (#47425985)

"And luckily no one will remember what our employees were posting in public forums about the issue, nor our sock puppets that modded them up"

http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

Re:"Sorry about that" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47427193)

The next day bing was serving malware through ads so they should have their domain revoked for a week or so as well.

Re:"Sorry about that" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47429355)

Now if only they had acted on those usability reports about Windows 8 and Metro...

Short version of article (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425499)

Microsoft fucked up, again.

Re:Short version of article (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about three weeks ago | (#47425569)

Not really. They got away with it at no real cost. Chances are our "small Nevada hosting provider" was cooperating fully with Microsoft, and playing the victim card helps avoid bad press. Or it could be covering up a National Security Letter.

Re:Short version of article (4, Insightful)

gauauu (649169) | about three weeks ago | (#47425685)

Not really. They got away with it at no real cost. Chances are our "small Nevada hosting provider" was cooperating fully with Microsoft, and playing the victim card helps avoid bad press. Or it could be covering up a National Security Letter.

I don't know, the message from No-IP includes the statement: "While we are extremely pleased with the settlement terms, we are outraged by Microsoft’s tactics and that we were not able to completely and immediately restore services to the majority of our valuable customers that had been affected." This sounds an awful lot like code for "Microsoft paid us a metric crap-ton of money, but part of the agreement is that we wouldn't tell how much."

Re:Short version of article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425877)

That's what settlements are.

Re:Short version of article (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about three weeks ago | (#47427369)

"Microsoft paid us a metric crap-ton of money..."

Petty cash... And besides, this "news" is a press release. Everybody got what they were looking for (except the users of the domains) and it will be forgotten like yesterday's lunch. Smells like fish

Re:Short version of article (2)

JosKarith (757063) | about three weeks ago | (#47429993)

When the 800-lb gorilla in the room gestures at you to drop your pants the only choice you have is whether he breaks your arm first or not...

Re:Short version of article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47430219)

You missed the "A MillionActually, Many MoreThank Yous". "Actually, Many More...", given the particular sentence, may jokingly refer to dollars.

Shoot first, ask questions later (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425571)

It's the law. According to an American judge.

Complete clusterfuck (5, Interesting)

ShaunC (203807) | about three weeks ago | (#47425597)

Microsoft identified malware that had escaped Vitalwerks' detection. Upon notification and review of the evidence, Vitalwerks took immediate corrective action allowing Microsoft to identify victims of this malware.

Yeah, if waking up one day to find that most of your business has been handed over to another company is what passes for "notification" these days.

I hope Microsoft paid them handsomely.

Re:Complete clusterfuck (1)

infinitelink (963279) | about three weeks ago | (#47426639)

Microsoft identified malware that had escaped Vitalwerks' detection. Upon notification and review of the evidence, Vitalwerks took immediate corrective action allowing Microsoft to identify victims of this malware.

Yeah, if waking up one day to find that most of your business has been handed over to another company is what passes for "notification" these days. I hope Microsoft paid them handsomely.

For the land of the free, judicial misbehavior never seems to be mentioned when due a mention while it is blared from the rooftops when they rule correctly. IT SEEMS to me that the most important target of criticism here is missing since Microsoft went to--and got--an order by an authority, who should have had the competence to know better than to seize the private property of one and hand it over to another private party. Then again, everyone is afraid of the oligarchy of robes.

Re:Complete clusterfuck (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about three weeks ago | (#47429061)

They were disabling the domains not selling them to another company to use. And it seems like this incident was settled by using the protections built into the judicial system. In the end the company was compensated and MS got the offending domains disabled. The bigger question is why does MS even make the effort to root out malware and shut it down? Identifying and taking down malware networks benefits everyone using the internet not just MS.

Could have been avoided (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425613)

If only the idiot judge that approved the request for injunction had demanded to see some factual evidence that No-IP was actively aiding from the two bot herders also listed in the motion instead of just taking Microsoft's flimsy insinuations for it. Plus, it might have helped if the judge had given No-IP the chance to defend themselves before court instead of permitting the ex-parte session.

Re:Could have been avoided (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425969)

More importantly, it's absolutely *insane* that companies can seize other companies' assets like this. This is something only law enforcement should be able to do.

Re:Could have been avoided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426251)

Um, no its not like that. Microsoft got the approval of the court to get the domains and in the court order it directed the registry operators involved (like Verisign) to change the addresses of the authoritative name servers for No-IP's domains to Microsoft. All Microsoft had to do was take the court order and deliver it to the legal depts of the respective registries. It's a bit like the your bank getting a court judgement against your for non-payment on a car loan, and then hiring a repo company to take back your car. No law enforcement is involved unless you were to prevent the repo company from doing their job.

Re:Could have been avoided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426417)

No, that's not what it's like at all. A court basically allowed Microsoft to seize another company's addresses. That's fucking insane. No such redirections should be allowed by companies.

Re:Could have been avoided (1)

charlesr44403 (1504587) | about three weeks ago | (#47427057)

As a no-ip.com customer, for a while I feared that MS was being given a legal monopoly on dynamic-ip resolution. You never know these days.

And it was all a smokescreen (-1, Troll)

glomph (2644) | about three weeks ago | (#47425637)

to conceal the obvious... that the viral-growth medium they've been distributing for decades is the -real- problem.

Re:And it was all a smokescreen (1)

John Bokma (834313) | about three weeks ago | (#47425765)

Yeah, right, like malware only runs on Windows.... The real problem is that a lot of ISPs take a lot of time (if ever) to do anything about this. You really think that nobody has reported this before MS decided to take action?

Re:And it was all a smokescreen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47428571)

Yeah, right, like malware only runs on Windows.

Not all of it, just 98.27% of all malware last year.

I hope they got a lot of money from Microsoft. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425639)

I hope they got a lot of money from Microsoft. They lost me as a paying customer because I cannot rely on their service anymore.

Re:I hope they got a lot of money from Microsoft. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425851)

And the ones actually paying for this are the suckers still buying windoze.

What about the Judge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425655)

The judge who made all this shit possible needs to have his creds pulled asap.

I see these and laugh (4, Insightful)

portwojc (201398) | about three weeks ago | (#47425671)

I always find it funny to see Microsoft using legal actions to fight malware rather than just fix the problem...

Re:I see these and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425713)

The "problem" is people you idiot. Hard to prevent malware when people will click Yes on any scary warning they are presented with.

Re:I see these and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426031)

If every program ran in its own sandbox there wouldn't be any scary warning and there wouldn't be any malware.

Re:I see these and laugh (1)

0123456 (636235) | about three weeks ago | (#47426381)

If every program ran in its own sandbox there wouldn't be any scary warning and there wouldn't be any malware.

Yeah, because who cares wehther the bad guys are capturing everything you type into your web browser?

Re:I see these and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426725)

Not sure what mechanism you have in mind. In this perfect OS the web browser is isolated from other programs, and keylogging is impossible because key presses are only sent to the program with focus.

Re:I see these and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426923)

They can still do it by spoofing the entire web browser.

The countermeasure to that is to use some code signing down to essentially a TPM chip. Which we all know Slashdot loves.

Re:I see these and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47427149)

You don't need a special chip to implement code signing: just verify signatures in the OS and don't let applications modify the OS.

Re: I see these and laugh (1)

KevReedUK (1066760) | about three weeks ago | (#47433271)

Are you also proposing that this browser not support plugins? Otherwise, what's to stop malware writers creating a plugin that captures input and phones home with it? Or are you suggesting that the browser only support plugins obtained from some kind of walled garden? Who will police it? In the end, the problem remains that people will be the weak link. When discussing security, even computer security, it has always been thus, and likely always will be.

Re:I see these and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47427855)

The "problem" is people you idiot.

People I idiot? What does that mean? I didn't even know that idiot was a verb, so cut me come slack.

Re:I see these and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47429489)

He omitted a comma after people, which is fairly common online.

Re:I see these and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425745)

You mean sending in a commando and fire the servers till they don't say a blip?

Re:I see these and laugh (3, Informative)

John Bokma (834313) | about three weeks ago | (#47425781)

I am no longer surprised that even at a tech site people really think that malware is a MS-only issue...

Re:I see these and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425997)

Malware isn't an MS-only issue, but their operating systems are certainly far more insecure than they should be.

Re:I see these and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47428723)

Given that 98.27% of it IS a MS-only issue, you should not only be unsurprised, you should be grateful that we're staying informed despite the storm of astroturf and hype pretending it isn't.

Re:I see these and laugh (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about three weeks ago | (#47428875)

actually, 90% of malware these days relies no non-OS / browser specific exploits. Its all flash, Java, PDF.

Of course, 98.27% of stats online are plucked from the ether.

Re:I see these and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47429089)

Of course, 98.27% of stats online are plucked from the ether.

So show us some verifiable evidence for any significant malware rates on non-Microsoft OSs.

The worst I've seen was some AV vendor stats suggesting that around 2.5% of all malware was _targeting_, not infecting, Android. Actual infection rates on all other OSs are a rounding area compared to Microsoft's share.

Re:I see these and laugh (2)

disposable60 (735022) | about three weeks ago | (#47425791)

When lawyers make decisions, the decision is always 'Pay some lawyers!' Never 'Pay some engineers!'

In other news... (3, Funny)

Scutter (18425) | about three weeks ago | (#47425733)

...an unnamed small Nevada hosting provider was the subject of an intense and unannounced BSA audit on Thursday...

Re:In other news... (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about three weeks ago | (#47426065)

...an unnamed small Nevada hosting provider was the subject of an intense and unannounced BSA audit on Thursday...

I get the feeling that the actual headline is "Vitalwerks staff vacationing in the Caribbean for the next couple of months".

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47429221)

Good point. Our last encounter with them wasted hundreds of man-hours and several months worth of hassle to finish. We also wasted about $10k on hiring a law firm that they dictated to create a compliance plan. They even damaged our reputation with a couple of important customers when they called them to accuse us of using pirated software. Other than a single Mac running Adobe CS, every other piece of software we run is open source. Also, their "discovery tool" locked-up our main cisco switch and caused an almost ninety minute outage. It took a while to troubleshoot because who would think their laptop could make a switch require a reboot?

I can't imagine what a nightmare it would have been if we had a few hundred desktops running Windows with Microsoft Office.

This was never about malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425779)

If you think about it, Microsoft has a close relationship with the NSA - see the _NSAKey scandal.
Routing all traffic No-ip traffic through MS controlled servers, it can safely be assumed the data was routed to the NSA.
The full list of no-ip names and associated internet addresses (and thus identities of the users) I think could be a very valuable thing for the government.
It smells wrong.

Re:This was never about malware (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about three weeks ago | (#47426103)

If you think about it, Microsoft has a close relationship with the NSA - see the _NSAKey scandal.
Routing all traffic No-ip traffic through MS controlled servers, it can safely be assumed the data was routed to the NSA.
The full list of no-ip names and associated internet addresses (and thus identities of the users) I think could be a very valuable thing for the government.
It smells wrong.

Um you could get their identity by traceing each dns entry to its ip address in most cases

Good Job, Microsoft (1, Insightful)

N3tRunner (164483) | about three weeks ago | (#47425929)

Even if they may have jumped the gun in this case, at least somebody's out there trying to do some enforcement.

Re:Good Job, Microsoft (0)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about three weeks ago | (#47426007)

Yeah, who cares about all the collateral damage? What matters in free countries is that we catch the 'bad guys'!

Re:Good Job, Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426861)

I agree. Disable all spam filters, end the blacklists, and drop SPF. They cause so much collateral damage, and this is unnacceptible.

Re:Good Job, Microsoft (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about three weeks ago | (#47427367)

To compare spam filters and such with seizing a company's assets using the power of government thugs is absolutely absurd. I'd say you seem like a shill, but in reality, that's wishful thinking on my part. Shills and the mentally challenged are often indistinguishable.

Re:Block all IE browsers (1)

mbeckman (645148) | about three weeks ago | (#47429773)

I run an ISP. Is it kosher for me to block all IE browser traffic? After all, IE is one of the largest vectors of malware infections on earth. At least I'd be "out there doing some enforcement."

Microsoft enforcement policy: "Ready! Fire! Aim!"

BTW, I didn't see where Microsoft apologized for their actions to the Internet community.

Tell me please, oh slashdot comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47425945)

How does this spin with Microsoft as the bad guy?

The thread the other day was one way to spin MS as the bad guy . . . but this goes in another direction. Can we reverse the spin?

I don't like Redmond, but all the /. tail chasing's got me dizzy.

How does it NOT? (2)

Uberbah (647458) | about three weeks ago | (#47425999)

If Microsoft wasn't the "bad guy", why offer a settlement less than two weeks later?

I don't like Redmond

For some reason I feel like doubting the sincerity of this statement.

Re:How does it NOT? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about three weeks ago | (#47426257)

If Microsoft wasn't the "bad guy", why offer a settlement less than two weeks later?

To avoid court costs.

And you don't know that they offered a settlement. MS could have simply told them to STFU or they'd be countersued for X, Y, and Z. Maybe MS threatened to publicly release evidence that showed they were actively aiding and abetting the malware shit MS was called in to clean up.

You can blindly hate MS all you want, but no-ip and its siblings have a less than stellar reputation themselves.

Re:How does it NOT? (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about three weeks ago | (#47427905)

To avoid court costs.

Because they knew they had fucked up. Badly. Claiming that a corp the size of Microsoft is afraid of a little lawsuit - days after having someone's business raided - is about as believable as your Craigslist ad for oceanfront property in Nebraska.

And you don't know that they offered a settlement. MS could have simply told them to STFU or they'd be countersued for X, Y, and Z.

Your protests don't pass the laugh test. If Microsoft could sue for X, Y, or Z, they never would have agreed to a settlement so quickly.

Maybe MS threatened to publicly release evidence that showed they were actively aiding and abetting the malware shit MS was called in to clean up.

Then they would have done so.

You can blindly hate MS all you want, but no-ip and its siblings have a less than stellar reputation themselves.

Go home, Microsoft fanboi, you're delusional. The response would have been the same if it were Microsoft or Google or Samsung pulling the same crap.

Re:Tell me please, oh slashdot comments (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about three weeks ago | (#47428951)

I don't like Redmond

so why are you slobbering their knob?

A real malware takedown... (2)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about three weeks ago | (#47426013)

...would be shutting down these god damn Windows machines that are infected zombies taking on the malicious tasks that this whole damn situation is about. No-IP is nothing without Microsoft's infected junk spewing garbage and infections all over the Internet. It's not like Microsoft doesn't hold the keys to immobilize a system running their own operating system anyway, they have the kill switch built right in to the OS before you even buy the license to run it in the form of WGA.

Re:A real malware takedown... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426461)

You skip your meds today? You're usually not this much of a paranoid, rambling asshole. Sit down and sip some tea, kid.

The numbers never did add up (2)

whoever57 (658626) | about three weeks ago | (#47426063)

Microsoft portrayed No-IP as primarily a business making money from botnet operators, but Microsoft only listed a few hundred subdomain names that were implicated. Compared to what I imagine is hundreds of thousands, or millions (or tens of millions) of subdomain names that No-IP must support to have a viable business, it's a tiny fraction.

Re:The numbers never did add up (3, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | about three weeks ago | (#47426121)

So I actually RTFA, and I see that it is 5 million subdomain names. That is a few hundred subdomains implicated as used by botnets against 5 million. It doesn't support a conclusion that No-IP was somehow in league with the botnet operators or that support for botnets was a significant part of No-IP's business.

Great. Now what about Github? (1)

Megane (129182) | about three weeks ago | (#47426229)

Any update on the Qualcomm DMCA takedowns at Github? [slashdot.org]

Re:Great. Now what about Github? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47427103)

      [ http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/07/08/1514206 ]

There's at least one clear takeaway from this... (0)

markana (152984) | about three weeks ago | (#47426247)

Azure doesn't scale. The load placed on if by redirecting the domains was probably far less than the surge that a suddenly-popular web host might encounter, yet it failed miserably.

Microsoft might not have to pay any monetary damages for the havok they caused, but they might get a hit to their pocketbooks anyway.

People looking to move their operations to the "cloud" would do well to look at this performance, and consider what might happen to *their* traffic...

Re:There's at least one clear takeaway from this.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47427339)

It wasn't a load problem. The setup was just wrong (recursive resolvers used as authoritative servers didn't answer non-recursive queries correctly). It wouldn't have worked if Microsoft had given it all the CPU power and network capacity in the world. Garbage in, garbage out.

Re:There's at least one clear takeaway from this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47427807)

It took more than 250 milliseconds to respond to a query while the ping time was around 100 milliseconds. I would say it was definitly a load problem too.

Re:There's at least one clear takeaway from this.. (1, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | about three weeks ago | (#47428035)

It wasn't a load problem. The setup was just wrong (recursive resolvers used as authoritative servers didn't answer non-recursive queries correctly). It wouldn't have worked if Microsoft had given it all the CPU power and network capacity in the world. Garbage in, garbage out.

The takeaway is either:

1. No business should use Azure because Azure doesn't scale. OR:
2. No business should rely on Microsoft services, because Microsoft does not have the necessary competence.

This is only the latest in a line of screwups by Microsoft in their service offerings.

A quick question, if I may? (5, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | about three weeks ago | (#47426391)

Who made Microsoft the fucking internet police anyway?

Re:A quick question, if I may? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426505)

This.
Time to take down microsoft.

Re:A quick question, if I may? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47427237)

.. for serving malware themselves: its called Windows.

Re:A quick question, if I may? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426623)

Why the former Sneakernet police, IBM.

Re:A quick question, if I may? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47427429)

After they were informed that the Internet wasn't just a fad, they asked the NSA if they could help police the Internet, since they had already ported Carnivore from Unix to MS's OS.

Re:A quick question, if I may? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about three weeks ago | (#47431523)

<i>Who made Microsoft the fucking internet police anyway?</i>

A judge who clearly needs to be impeached for wild and willful violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Re:A quick question, if I may? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47433059)

I'm a day late to this conversation, so probably a useless comment at this point, but this is my question as well. Doesn't anyone else here in this crowd find it *extremely* unsettling that a large corporation was pretty much just given law enforcement power over *another* corporate entity (let alone private citizens)? That sets a very troubling precedent. What gives? Is there just something about this issue I'm completely not seeing?

Microsoft should be taken down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426485)

They are the malware and they think they are above the law.

Epic Microsoft Marketing in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426589)

1) We're da boss. We will crush you. What you say, or what evidence you provide, is irrelevant.
2) Media fanfare. We're nice, really we are! Evil is not us, it's this helpless victim we crushed for your good!
3) Settlement. Problem solved, mischief managed, enemies/innocent parties crushed. Maybe even plausible deniability as a bonus.
4) Profit!?

Thanks M$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47426827)

We had over 50 customers with DVR, CCTV and various other services running using no-ip paid domains effectively shutdown during this time.. Hopefully no-ip will pass the buck they get not just the problem caused by MS. All our customers that were affected are using DHCP based internet connections either because STATIC IP's were too expensive for them or didn't fit with their business needs. I love how one company can back door another and effectively neuter them but the end user is really the one screwed

Re:Thanks M$ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47427107)

Innocent victims (aka the third parties) might have a window for a class action suit versus Microsoft for the damage/losses they caused by this wee stunt. Hurting an innocent third party or few isn't smiled upon I would hope.

How many died? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47427727)

How many people (especially children) died while the security cameras, VIOP phones, and/or security systems were down?

UK e-petition against domain domain seizures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47428451)

UK e-petition against domain domain seizures:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/67055

"To deter foreign entities from hijacking internet domains owned by UK citizens, where no crime has been committed in the UK by the domain owner in the UK, or its customers that use domain services in the UK (who have been entirely innocent parties), then they should be entitled to compensation from foreign parties that have hijacked the internet domain despite laws that have evolved to become legal domain hijacking in a foreign country."

Microsoft got it wrong (0)

melting_clock (659274) | about three weeks ago | (#47428817)

Instead of doing the right thing and approaching the hosting provider, Microsoft acted as a bully and took action that hurt many innocent customers. It is the role of law enforcement to take action against criminals, not some company or individual that feels they are above the law.

Computer crimes are a growing problem internationally that needs better coordination between law enforcement agencies around the world. There does need to be better mechanisms for dealing with hacking, SPAM, phishing, DDoS attacks, invasion of privacy and other crimes. While companies and individuals should have a role in supporting this action, they should not be taking direct action, particularly when they target the wrong people. Hosting companies should be give the normal presumption of innocence, notified of illegal activities using their services and be given the opportunity to take action. Only when the actively participate or continue to facilitate criminal activity should action be taken against them by the appropriate authorities.

The idea of a presumption of innocence is lost on many companies, as shown in the pursuit of DRM and other copy protection measures in the name of piracy, they do little to slow down the pirates but end up hurting their paying customers. When customers give up in disgust and stop buying their products, the lost sales are blamed on piracy... People or organisations that have lost touch with reality should not be acting as police.

How many URLs, deep links, camera URLs logged??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47429047)

Since all the traffic were directed to Microsoft servers, how many URLs, deep links, camera URLs, port numbers, protocols etc got logged???
How many servers were set up to do all this?
And how many years did the preparations take to write the software and prepare all the servers?
And when all this logge informaton is sold, how long before it all turns into one massive security nightmare?
How much will NSA trolls pay for this logged information?
And is that anywhere near the amount of money settled with Vitalwerks?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>