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!

Creators of Massive Botnet Arrested

CmdrTaco posted about 9 years ago | from the well-maybe-don't-do-that dept.

Security 243

DigitumDei writes "Dutch police has nabbed 3 men (aged 19,22, & 27) who alledgedly used the toxbot trojan to create a botnet of over 100000 machines. The trio conducted a DDOS attack against an unnamed US company in an extortion attempt, as well as using phishing tactics to hijack PayPal and eBay accounts. From the article: 'Police seized computers, cash, a sports car, and bank accounts at the three men's residences, and additional arrests are expected. The three were to be taken before a magistrate in Breda, a city approximately 25 miles south of Rotterdam, on Friday. The botnet was dismantled, prosecutors said, with help from the Dutch National High Tech Crime Center; GOVCERT.NL, the Netherlands' Computer Emergency Response Team; and several Internet service providers, including the Amsterdam-based XS4ALL.'"

cancel ×

243 comments

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

Extortion? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763827)

Dat's a nice website ya got dere. SHAME if sumtin happened to it.

/Godfather music in background

Re:Extortion? (1, Funny)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | about 9 years ago | (#13763862)

Sad but true...DDoS extortion is actually pretty common. Not really much other use for a botnet that big...'cept maybe to crunch an unholy large number of SETI packets.

Maybe if they put all those computers together to type up story submissions, occasionally I wouldn't have to see one with a glaring gramatical error in the first three words.

glaring gramatical error (-1, Offtopic)

wiredog (43288) | about 9 years ago | (#13763997)

I suspect that the submitter is Dutch, which indicates that English isn't his first language.

Re:glaring gramatical error (2, Funny)

DigitumDei (578031) | about 9 years ago | (#13764059)

Unfortunately I am not.

Blushing profusly right now; amazing how previewing twice just meant I read "has" as "have" in my mind twice.

Re:glaring gramatical error (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764103)

LOL

And then I typo profusely.

Re:glaring gramatical error (1, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | about 9 years ago | (#13764078)

Heh. From what I know of the Dutch, I'd be more likely to believe the submitter was Dutch if there wasn't a grammatical error. I hear they make fun of school kids over there who only speak three languages.

That being said, you're probably right. The most common mistake people make in foreign languages is subject/verb agreement.

Re:glaring gramatical error (0)

sosume (680416) | about 9 years ago | (#13764127)

I suspect the poster made the errors on purpose to highlight a certain dutch accent in TFA...

a botnet of over 100000 machines (4, Funny)

wiredog (43288) | about 9 years ago | (#13763831)

I hereby declare a new metric for measuring the size of botnets: The MegaBot. 1 MegaBot==10E6 Bots.

Re:a botnet of over 100000 machines (4, Informative)

catch23 (97972) | about 9 years ago | (#13763867)

My math is a bit rusty, but isn't 100000 == 10e5? It should be a 100 kilobot instead....

Re:a botnet of over 100000 machines (5, Funny)

liquidpele (663430) | about 9 years ago | (#13763925)

There you go, ruining a perfectly good idea with your "math" and "logic"!

Re:a botnet of over 100000 machines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763970)

actually, it's 1e5. XeY means X*(10^Y)

Re:a botnet of over 100000 machines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764054)

actually, it's 1e5. XeY means X*(10^Y)

For the non-beginners at this game: eee equals about 1421

Re:a botnet of over 100000 machines (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | about 9 years ago | (#13764041)

Simple: 0.1 Megabots.

=Smidge=

Re:a botnet of over 100000 machines (5, Funny)

mustafap (452510) | about 9 years ago | (#13763904)

>1 MegaBot==10E6 Bots.

No no no no no. How many times to we have to tell you?

1MegaBot == 1024*1024 bots.

Dammed marketing bots.

Re:a botnet of over 100000 machines (5, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | about 9 years ago | (#13764114)

No no no no no. How many times to we have to tell you?
1MegaBot == 1024*1024 bots.


No!! You're talking about a MebiBot!

// Random Mebi [wikipedia.org] Enforcement Zealot

Damn. (2, Informative)

wiredog (43288) | about 9 years ago | (#13763978)

I saw that as 1000,000 machines, but it's only 100,000 machines. So it's a 0.1 megabot botnet, not a full megabot botnet.

Re:Damn. (0)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 9 years ago | (#13764024)

It won't compile with the comma in there.

Re:a botnet of over 100000 machines (1)

Epistax (544591) | about 9 years ago | (#13764000)

I suggest the computing power be listed in units of moonlander equivalents.

Pwned! (1)

mattcurrie (192138) | about 9 years ago | (#13763834)

Pwned!

If only i had my own 100k computer matrix... (1)

Monolith2 (922038) | about 9 years ago | (#13763835)

Id never lose another ebay auction. 100k snipes every nanosec!

Re:If only i had my own 100k computer matrix... (4, Insightful)

kalirion (728907) | about 9 years ago | (#13763873)

What's the point when you can just put in your maximum bid and eBay raises your active bid as the bidding warrants?

Re:If only i had my own 100k computer matrix... (0, Offtopic)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 years ago | (#13763922)

Id never lose another ebay auction. 100k snipes every nanosec!

Try bidding like you mean it, cheapskate!

Wow. (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 9 years ago | (#13763840)

A city-wide Thieves Guild is understandable, but a National Crime Center is just going too far.

Re:Wow. (0, Offtopic)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 years ago | (#13763942)

A city-wide Thieves Guild is understandable, but a National Crime Center is just going too far.

I bet you crack up every time you hear "You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

In the USA we have a National Crime Center, too. It's Washington DC. Amazing how fast they can make billions disappear, no bots, no phishing.

Watchout for your cornholes! (-1, Flamebait)

blankoboy (719577) | about 9 years ago | (#13763845)

On second thought......"let 'er rip!!".

/bums deserve a daily rapin' for many years.

I for one (-1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 9 years ago | (#13763847)

welcome our new botnet overlords......

Good, but... (-1, Flamebait)

sofakingon (610999) | about 9 years ago | (#13763850)

I wonder how much enforcement the Dutch police do for the MPAA/RIAA? Maybe, just maybe, if other criminal justice systems went after CRIMINALS, they could (once again) vailidate their existance. I remember when I was a kid you could actually approach a cop for help without them making it feel like a burden, or worse, being scared of even approaching them.

Re:Good, but... (5, Interesting)

seti (74097) | about 9 years ago | (#13763889)

When I was in uni, we had a guy from the Belgian Computer Crime Unit (CCU) come and talk to us about computer criminality. We asked a load of questions, including whether they actually actively went after casual downloaders. Basically they said they were so swamped going after child pornography sites, they did not have any resources at all for those kind of activities.

Most police "cybercrime" units are still very underfunded.

Re:Good, but... (1)

Cooper_007 (688308) | about 9 years ago | (#13763898)

Since the last A in both those abbreviations stands for 'America', it's probably not a heck of a lot... We've got Stichting Brein here who claims to represent copyright holders, but aside from the occasional high-profile bust that is intended to show they're still at it, they aren't doing that much. If they are, they're managing to keep their activities well hidden.

Re:Good, but... (1)

DingerX (847589) | about 9 years ago | (#13763899)

That's 'cos cops like helping kids. Very few cops are shot by 8-year-olds who can't find their mommy.

Re:Good, but... (1, Funny)

crawling_chaos (23007) | about 9 years ago | (#13764021)

Very few cops are shot by 8-year-olds who can't find their mommy.

Ah, I see you have never visited Detroit.

Re:Good, but... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763932)

Well, just like the marijuana laws on the books (forced by other countries), it's public policy not to enforce things that are considered a waste of law enforcements time.

The government said themselves that making file sharing a criminal offence just turns a large portion of the population into criminals for no real benefit. This is similar to the drugs policy. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

However, a policy of non-enforcement has led to a situation where reliance upon non-enforcement has become common, and because of this the courts have ruled against the government when individual cases were prosecuted.

This is because the Dutch Ministry of Justice applies a gedoogbeleid (policy of tolerance) with regard to soft drugs: an official set of guidelines telling public prosecutors under which circumstances offenders should not be prosecuted. This is a more official version of the common practice in other countries, in which law enforcement sets priorities as to which offenses are important enough to spend limited resources on.

Proponents of gedoogbeleid argue that such a policy offers more consistency in legal protection in practice, than without it. Opponents of the Dutch drug policy either call for full legalization, or argue that laws should penalize morally wrong or decadent behavior, whether this is enforceable or not.

So no, the government tends to go after real criminals, rather than waste time on teenagers with too much free time.

Re:Good, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764027)

Real crimes like giving speed tickets and enforcement of parking violations.

Re:Good, but... (0, Offtopic)

Ogive17 (691899) | about 9 years ago | (#13764140)

I don't think any government actively goes after drug users, they go after the distributors. The only people who get charged with using drugs are the ones who are dumb enough to do it publically or get high and get in an accident.

mmm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763851)

the creators of the slashdot network are still at large tho :)

25 miles south of Rotterdam? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763853)

Does this info really help? How many Americans know Rotterdam? For that matter, how many Americans know the Netherlands? I've learned to alsways say "close to Paris" or "Close to London" when describing locations in Europe. Even if I'm talking about Madrid.

Re:25 miles south of Rotterdam? (1)

mtjs (918147) | about 9 years ago | (#13763870)

It is close to Jabbeke -- the city where I live. HA! Sais it all.

Re:25 miles south of Rotterdam? (1)

laejoh (648921) | about 9 years ago | (#13764215)

LOL!

Re:25 miles south of Rotterdam? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763883)

For that matter, how many Americans know the Netherlands?

lol, what? si taht past teh stonebrunt mountains??/ what server u play on

Re:25 miles south of Rotterdam? (0)

poopdeville (841677) | about 9 years ago | (#13763961)

Yeah, de_rotterdam is a fun one.

Re:25 miles south of Rotterdam? (4, Insightful)

badfish99 (826052) | about 9 years ago | (#13764017)

I always thought that Americans were just plain ignorant about European geography. Now I know it's because you've been going round telling them that Madrid is close to London.

Re:25 miles south of Rotterdam? (1, Insightful)

RickySan (887756) | about 9 years ago | (#13764201)

If you look at it on the scale of things then for them thats probably true.. Holland fits 144 thousand times into a country the size like Canada (which is a bit bigger then the states), with distances like that their mindset towards them is different. so that distance would probably be close for their standards.. It's one thing to bitch about their lack of geographical knowledge (which we all know is pretty bad when it comes to overseas knowdledge), but you have to see the other side of the coin as well. How much do you know about the states?, your knowledge about that is probably just as bad as theirs is of europe;)

Re:25 miles south of Rotterdam? (3, Funny)

Koredor (561729) | about 9 years ago | (#13764036)

Does this info really help? How many Americans know Rotterdam?

Rotterdamn....that sounds vaguely familar.. Oh yeah now I remember it was one of my options for music in Ridge Racer for Play Station.

As to not be marked off-topic, the question really becomes not what to do with those behind the botnet, but what to do with the botnet itself. One could patch the entire network via the use of the very trojan that created it (which we know is illegal), but I think this might be a good change to get some extra cycles for SETI. I can just see Team Dutch National High Tech Crime Center moving up the rankings now.

Dutch tulips. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763859)

Hopefully, some Dutch tulips will be meeting Bubba soon.

Good! (5, Insightful)

RedNovember (887384) | about 9 years ago | (#13763864)

I'm happy these guys were arrested. Things like this scare companies and people away from technology. Not to imply that modern companies will survive without computers, but will your boss think long and hard before approving tech budgets? You bet. I've never heard of a bunch of crackers extorting a company.

This will also give them pause when hiring former hackers. They might think "Is this guy going to give extortionists inside info?"

On the other hand, security folks may have a budget windfall thrown their way. Considering '"Each time the Trojan was stopped by anti-virus defenses, they made a new version," he said. "This was not just a one-off. The sheer number of variants shows this wasn't a crime they committed just once."' Those security people better get to it.

Re:Good! (4, Informative)

liquidpele (663430) | about 9 years ago | (#13763958)

"I've never heard of a bunch of crackers extorting a company."

You serious? That's the whole problem. These guys will email a company demanding $30,000 USD, or they will DOS their website business and make them loose even more. Most companies pay. Here is a glorified story [csoonline.com] about some company that refused to pay. Ended up costing them a lot more, but they got through it.

Re:Good! (2, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 9 years ago | (#13764097)

the problem with most DOS attacks that hit the news is once it hits the news, thousands of individual web users from around the world all click the link just to see if the site is still down.

Each person doing that is unwittingly taking part in the DOS attack.
If you think slashdot effect is bad, think about the slashdot AND routers/yahoo/NYT/humble news sties all ganging up on one site.

This is how googlewent down recently, not because of the worms activity, but because of peoples curiosity.
Sure, the worm had an effect, but nowhere near as bad as the casual knock on effect of browsing.

How many times have you done the following:

Seen a story saying xyz.com is under attack.
Your action -
"is it still under attack?" .....CLICK.... .....no response..... .......CLICK CLICK.....
"Yep, its still down".

if thats similar to your actions, congrats, you are personally a bot :)

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764170)

Most news sites don't supply links for that exact reason. You have to search for the company/group website yourself, and most people don't care that much.

Re:Good! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 years ago | (#13763988)

I'm happy these guys were arrested. Things like this scare companies and people away from technology. Not to imply that modern companies will survive without computers, but will your boss think long and hard before approving tech budgets? You bet. I've never heard of a bunch of crackers extorting a company.

In my experience a 'boss' who is scared of technology because of the risks is a doofus and should be replaced by someone with some spine and intelligence. Most problems of internal security stem from poor planning and failing to keep up. Any boss who thinks they can just approve one P.O. for security is thinking in ancient terms.

This will also give them pause when hiring former hackers. They might think "Is this guy going to give extortionists inside info?"

Hiring former hackers isn't necessarily a good thing. Many of these 'hackers' are the bad hackers, little formal understanding of technology, no depth of skills, poor interactive habits in a professional environment, etc.

On the other hand, security folks may have a budget windfall thrown their way. Considering '"Each time the Trojan was stopped by anti-virus defenses, they made a new version," he said. "This was not just a one-off. The sheer number of variants shows this wasn't a crime they committed just once."' Those security people better get to it.

Shouldn't be. Only a Reactionist IT manager is going to suddenly jump on spending every time something new comes around. That's your classic hand-wringer who won't spend the money to close the door until after the horses have left the barn.

ahh.. shut the f*** up... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763999)

I'm happy these guys were arrested.

What are you trying, hypocrite? Pulling an Insightful here?

No problem. The folks here are simple minded when it comes to anything than computers.

Re:Good! (1)

5.11Climber (578513) | about 9 years ago | (#13764090)

This will also give them pause when hiring former hackers. They might think "Is this guy going to give extortionists inside info?"

I think the days of companies hiring former hackers to bolster internal security is gone. Organized crime has taken over the field and any company that thinks a former hacker will be good for security is in for a big surprise.

About time (5, Funny)

dow (7718) | about 9 years ago | (#13763865)

I get so many of these zombie machines trying things everyday and never hear about anyone getting caught. Hope they get sentenced to ten years of Windows XP.

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763928)

Worse, let's sentence them to Windows Me.

Re:About time (4, Funny)

mindaktiviti (630001) | about 9 years ago | (#13764028)

Because we all know that 10 years of WinME would result in cruel and unusual punishment, even for them.

Re:About time (1, Funny)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | about 9 years ago | (#13764077)

Actually, that might constitue a war crime.

Why? (5, Funny)

AAeyers (857625) | about 9 years ago | (#13763871)

...who alledgedly used the toxbot trojan to create a botnet of over 100000 machines.

It seems a little harsh to get arrested for only infecting 32 machines.....

Re:Why? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763972)

shame that didn't get moded as funny

i got it at least ;-)

Re:Why? (0)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | about 9 years ago | (#13764029)

Assuming you are referring to number of infected machines as reported to/by anti-malware companies: this has little to do with the botnet size.

Those AV companies don't have real-time botnet-size counters, they only have some 'listening ears' and reports of infected machines coming in. These botnet operators were using often-updated variants of this worm to infect machines, do you think this low reported number includes all variations? Most zombie machine owners don't even know they're infected, and very few of those infections are reported to AV companies. A low number of reports may even help to keep a botnet 'under the radar' long enough to grow to a significant size.

I submitted this story days ago, but anyway: 100,000 = big? I suppose we haven't seen nothing yet. Stay tuned, more to come.

Re:Why? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764105)

You didn't get it did you?

Re:Why? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764166)

What the hell are you talking about?

Slashdot ain't what it used to be. :-(

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764193)

I was talking about alwins obvious lack of understanding of the 10 kinds of people in the world. those that get binary and those that don't.

he obviously missed the reference to the binary version of decimal 32 by making this statement
Assuming you are referring to number of infected machines as reported to/by anti-malware companies: this has little to do with the botnet size.

Re:Why? (1)

dascandy (869781) | about 9 years ago | (#13764188)

replace it at will with "who allegedly used the toxbot trojan to create a botnet of over 11001000000000000 computers". Although I think most normal people will choke on such numbers (11001 trillion computers!?) , calling them impossible :)

Awesome, Totally Awesome! (1)

jeffs72 (711141) | about 9 years ago | (#13763872)

With the stereotypical tech-ignorant law enforcement of today, it's refreshing to see some crime fighters not only understand that this is a serious enough crime to warrant the manpower to investigate, but then to actually pull off catching them. Hats off to the Dutch law enforcement agencies involved. Good work.

Let the punishment fit the crime (0, Troll)

EwokMolester (918844) | about 9 years ago | (#13763879)

I didn't bother to read TFA, but I hope the normally laid-back Dutch courts impose a stiff sentence as a precedent.

However, seeing what I saw on a recent trip to Amsterdam, I wouldn't be surprised if they get away with a non-custodial sentence and a free blow-job.

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime (2, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | about 9 years ago | (#13764051)

Because real studies have shown that stiff sentences do wonders besides making the pitchfork carying mob happy?

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime (1)

EwokMolester (918844) | about 9 years ago | (#13764083)

Precedent
3 [C] LEGAL a decision about a particular law case which makes it likely that other similar cases will be decided in the same way:
The judgment on pension rights has established/set a precedent.

Therefore; in this case setting a precendence of a heavy sentence may discourage others from similar activities.

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime (2, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | about 9 years ago | (#13764134)

I know the ideas and reasoning behind stiff sentences, that doesn't mean it works.
Like amputating a hand after stealing, very scary but does it actually make crime rates go down?
If one isn't afraid of getting caught the sentence doesn't matter.

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime (1)

EwokMolester (918844) | about 9 years ago | (#13764180)

If you are going to punish, punish properly. A lot of effort went into catching these criminals without proper punishment all that effort will be wasted.

PS. Whilst I don't agree with cutting people's hands off. It IS a very effect way of reducing crime, that has been proven to work.

Crime is organized (1)

rob_squared (821479) | about 9 years ago | (#13763882)

So should it's resistance be.

My hat's off to them that they nabbed 3 guys, but there must be other botnets out there. And I think an effective way to stop it would be at the user level. It would be like taking away all the soil and water from coca farmers. Sure, have your plants, but can you grow them?

Disclaimer: I am not equating botnets to drugs.

stop it at the user level (1)

defMan (175410) | about 9 years ago | (#13764157)

I agree. Let's take away the users. That'll teach those mean botnet people. Did you have any specific method in mind?

In Soviet Russia, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763886)

Botnet dismantles you!

How do you dismantle a botnet? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763888)

Surely those computers are still vulnerable to the toxbot trojan at best, or just waiting for somebody to give the right commands at worst.
Unless you use the trojan to patch the system of course, but that would be illegal.

Re:How do you dismantle a botnet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764013)

I suppose to dismantle a botnet you would have to send a command to wipe all the hard drives.

Utter Bulloney! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764085)

How do you dismantle a botnet?

That's exactly why this article is bulloney. We are supposed to believe that the Dutch police went around to 100,000 machines in bedrooms around the world and dutifully used Norton to clean off this nasty little trojan and turn on firewwalls. The reality of it is that they have shut down one server that may have been being used to control the botnet. They don't really have a clue if there are other servers or not. Regardless, there are still 100,000 bots sitting out there eagerly waiting for instructions.

I suspect that, if the botnet was actually shutdown, the botnet will be operational again within a week.

Re:Utter Bulloney! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764186)

yes they are awaiting commands...from the owners...who are arrested.

the bots probably have more security than the original system ever did.

not to mention you can send commands to remove itself i am willing to wager

Sure, this will solve the problem... (4, Insightful)

dachshund (300733) | about 9 years ago | (#13763895)

The lesson for these guys is: next time you try to profit off of your computer crime, make sure that you have strong connections with organized crime, or live in a country with lax computer crime laws and have a tight financial relationship with the police. I'm glad to hear about this sort of thing, but I don't think it's going to do anything to actually reduce the number of bots out there. Rather, it'll just ensure that future botnets are run by nastier, better-protected individuals and organizations.

I wonder what it would take to convince the world that these unsecured machines are an actual security threat, rather than an annoyance?

Re:Sure, this will solve the problem... (1)

imsabbel (611519) | about 9 years ago | (#13764167)

Wow.

You got it.
Now we should stop arresting burglers and muggers, because that would only teach them to never attempt crime without being backed by the mob, right?

What a great idea... (4, Insightful)

MarkusQ (450076) | about 9 years ago | (#13763900)


The botnet was dismantled, prosecutors said, with help from...

Why didn't I think of that! That's 100,000 lusers that won't be getting infected again soon, unless they learn enough to reassemble their boxen, by which point...*sigh* What am I thinking? They'll probably just buy new systems and throw the piles of parts out. They'll be back on bot nets by this weekend.

What they need to do is dismantal the owners!

--MarkusQ

Re:What a great idea... (1, Funny)

DingerX (847589) | about 9 years ago | (#13763920)

Just the net was dismantled. The actual bots are now bot-Ronin, who will prove their loyalty by DDoSing the appropriate law enforcement websites into oblivion, before wiping their BIOS en masse.

users ... (1)

siropel (802188) | about 9 years ago | (#13763901)

who don't update, don't use antivirus software ...or don't use linux encourage these kind of activities

Linux not being used enough? (2, Interesting)

Tominva1045 (587712) | about 9 years ago | (#13764086)


...or use Linux.

Are Linux boxes invulnerable? Is the gauntlet being thrown at our feet? (lol)

I'm happy they did get nabbed though. There are plenty of fun things to do in life instead of extortion.

Bank accounts! (1, Funny)

Kagura (843695) | about 9 years ago | (#13763903)

and bank accounts at the three men's residences

Ahaha, who keeps bank accounts at their residence, of all places?!

oblig (-1, Troll)

RedNovember (887384) | about 9 years ago | (#13763907)

Dino: Good morning, Colonel. Colonel: Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you. Luigi: (looking round office casually) You've ... you've got a nice DDoS army here, Colonel. Colonel: Yes. Luigi: We wouldn't want anything to happen to it. Colonel: What? Dino: No, what my brother means is it would be a shame if... (he knocks something off mantel) Colonel: Oh. Dino: Oh sorry, Colonel. Colonel: Well don't worry about that. But please do sit down. Luigi: No, we prefer to stand, thank you, Colonel. Colonel: All right. All right. But what do you want? Dino: What do we want, ha ha ha. Luigi: Ha ha ha, very good, Colonel. Dino: The Colonel's a joker, Luigi. Luigi: Explain it to the Colonel, Dino. Dino: How many bots you got, Colonel? Colonel: About 10000 altogether. Luigi: Five hundred! Hey! Dino: You ought to be careful, colonel. Colonel: We arc careful, extremely careful. Dino: 'Cos things break, don't they? Colonel: Break? Luigi: Well everything breaks, don't it colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear.

Line breaks FTW (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13763965)

Dino: Good morning, Colonel.
Colonel: Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you.
Luigi: (looking round office casually) You've ... you've got a nice DDoS army here, Colonel.
Colonel: Yes.
Luigi: We wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
Colonel: What?
Dino: No, what my brother means is it would be a shame if... (he knocks something off mantel)
Colonel: Oh.
Dino: Oh sorry, Colonel.
Colonel: Well don't worry about that. But please do sit down.
Luigi: No, we prefer to stand, thank you, Colonel.
Colonel: All right. All right. But what do you want?
Dino: What do we want, ha ha ha.
Luigi: Ha ha ha, very good, Colonel.
Dino: The Colonel's a joker, Luigi.
Luigi: Explain it to the Colonel, Dino.
Dino: How many bots you got, Colonel?
Colonel: About 100000 altogether.
Luigi: A hundred thousand! Hey!
Dino: You ought to be careful, colonel.
Colonel: We are careful, extremely careful.
Dino: 'Cos things break, don't they?
Colonel: Break?
Luigi: Well everything breaks, don't it Colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear.

And, eventually, they got caught... (1)

digitaldc (879047) | about 9 years ago | (#13763919)

Police seized computers, cash, a sports car, and bank accounts at the three men's residences, and additional arrests are expected. The three were to be taken before a magistrate in Breda, a city approximately 25 miles south of Rotterdam, on Friday.

What kind of computers? How much cash? What kind of car? What were the residences like?
Come on, we need better details for the upcoming movie & tv special.

These guys had to know they were going to get busted, someone probably was bragging about how many PCs they zombified.

Re:And, eventually, they got caught... (1, Funny)

ray-auch (454705) | about 9 years ago | (#13763987)

you don't need the real details for the movie - what kind of cash / computer / car / house is determined by the product placement contracts.

So stupid... (0)

ChrisF79 (829953) | about 9 years ago | (#13763981)

How do criminals think they'll get away with something like this? I just don't get it really. Even if you successfully set up the botnet and the company decides they do want to pay you off, how do they think they're going to remain anonymous, collect the money, and fade into oblivion (or fade into bolivian if you're Mike Tyson [tripod.com] ). Perhaps I just don't have the cunning mind of a criminal but the logic really escapes me.

Re:So stupid... (1)

jcr (53032) | about 9 years ago | (#13764016)

How do criminals think they'll get away with something like this?

I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and say.. Maybe because so many of them have gotten away with it?

There are ways to collect money anonymously, like having the victims give it to a courier who knows nothing, who will take it to a dead drop, etc.

I'm glad these perps were caught, but there are many, many more left to catch.

-jcr

Re:So stupid... (1)

Quill_28 (553921) | about 9 years ago | (#13764081)

I believe some studies have shown that criminals have self-esteem problems.

Instead of thinking they are not good enough they think they are simply smarter and more important than anyone else.

I would guess they never dreamed they would be caught.

Re:So stupid... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764220)

fade into bolivian
What is this Bolivian oblivion you speak of?

Environmental problem (2, Funny)

rbanffy (584143) | about 9 years ago | (#13763983)

It seems to me that unpatched Windows boxes are becoming an environmental problem ;-)

Re:Environmental problem (2, Insightful)

onepoint (301486) | about 9 years ago | (#13764064)

What I would like to see is all those machines patched up, I would guess that it could be possible to slide a patching program via the bot-net.

Onepoint

p.s. In thinking about this, I find that most likely it would be illegal

Limited time (4, Interesting)

squoozer (730327) | about 9 years ago | (#13763986)

I forsee the day when bot nets are a thing of the past. While I admit that currently most police forces couldn't catch a virus by opening infected email things seem to be changing.

The scale of setting up a useful botnet is such that there are thousands of tiny ways that you could screw up and leave a drity great big flag pointing out your location / identity. Even the most carefully created botnet will contain some useful information to track down it's owner. In fact the very nature of the beast means that at some point you will have to contact it which potentially gives away your location. Ok you can run through proxies and use other methods to hide you identity but it only takes one slip up which someone technical is watching. Of course you also have the problem of collecting you payments. While you might be able to hide in the online world hiding from the banking world is much harder. At some point you have to collect you money.

All in all I think it would be easier to just go into kidnapping or drug dealing. The profit margin has got to be higher.

Re:Limited time (1)

Have Blue (616) | about 9 years ago | (#13764138)

The problem with this is the same as the problem we always point out in anti-piracy schemes- as soon as *one* botnetter figures out a better automated method, it's distributed over the net and they all have access to it. It's like evolution, only the selection criteria are whose creator gets arrested and whose keeps "innovating".

Think of a Beowulf cluster of those... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764002)

I can't believe nobody's said that yet!

Oh crap. Here they come... (1, Interesting)

joey_knisch (804995) | about 9 years ago | (#13764019)

Zombie Master

(SCARY PIC HERE)

Creature - Lord
All Zombies gain "(1b): Regenerate this creature" and swampwalk. (They're unblockable if defending player controls a swamp.

He controlled the zombies even before his own death; now nothing can make them betray him.

2/3

MegaBotNet... (0, Offtopic)

GungaDan (195739) | about 9 years ago | (#13764030)

REJUVENATE!

The smell of cash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13764117)

I guess the government will go after these network abusers when they smell cash and unpaid taxes.

get your facts right (1)

RickySan (887756) | about 9 years ago | (#13764154)

Rotterdam - > Breda Total Est. Distance: 30.09 miles (roughly 51.15 Km)

Why Europe? (1)

1zenerdiode (777004) | about 9 years ago | (#13764203)

Why is it that these arrests always seem to be made in Europe? Is it because the legal climate is different, or is the incidence of criminal extortion over the internet higher there? Is Europe the locus of the crime? I always thought Eastern Europe (e.g. Russia, baltic states) and the east were worse. Is it that they don't enforce in those places so you never hear about it?

---
tjc
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?