|
|
|
Compromised machines sending out highly profitable spam, says IBM security strategist
The people behind the Storm worm are making millions of pounds a day by using it to generate revenue, according to IBM’s principal web security strategist.
Joshua Corman, of IBM Internet Security Systems, said that in the past it had been assumed that web security attacks were essential ego driven. But now attackers fell in three camps.
‘I call them my three Ps, profit, politics and prestige,’ he said during a debate at a NetEvents forum in Barcelona.
The Storm worm, which had been around about a year, had been a tremendous financial success because it created a botnet of compromised machines that could be used to launch profitable spam attacks.
Not only do the criminals get money simply for sending out the spam in much more quantity than could be sent by a single machine but they get a cut of any business done off the spam.
The weak point in this case was the end user who visits a compromised site or who falls for a trick of social engineering.
Related articles
If you click on the link in a phishing email, you could unwittingly find yourself part of a botnet. We explain what the cyber criminals are up to these days
Computers are extremely powerful but still cannot completely replicate our brains
Everyone makes mistakes, but some can be averted if you follow our advice
Q.Is it a genuine call from Microsoft?
Q.How can I turn Autoplay back on?
Q.Is it legal to re-use my Windows 7 upgrade disc on...
Be a money saving expert
Return of the Mac computer
The benefits of owning a smartphone
Choose Gold, Silver or Bronze membership
Save up to 40% on the cover price of each issue
Get access to the subscriber club exclusive website
Our price won't be beaten by any shop or website
How to see and edit the new Timeline view in Facebook and protect your privacy
|
|
|
|
|
Nikon Coolpix S570 BlackPrice: £66.99 |
Back Issue CD-Rom 13 (2010)Price: £9.99 |
Marine AquariumPrice: £15.41 |
Print Saver EcoPrice: £19.99 |
Norton Internet Security 2012 - 3 PCs, 1 year protectionPrice: £24.99 |
Details?
The fact that you misspelled "storm" as "strom" when naming the page with the article makes the entire article suspect, IMO. And yes, how is this one different from all the other bots and zombie masters?
Posted by Michael, 13 Feb 2008
Wakie wakie...
I sometimes wonder wether IT people do any investigative reading. UV light seems to incite happy mushroom syndrome. The world has many governments which turn a blind eye to illegal and immoral activities for one reason or another. Funny how the sources of such activities keep coming from the same old countries. Is this not evidence enough without the fact that companies within the Western world are hiring these individuals as "professionals". There are roses to smell, get out there.
Posted by LG, 12 Feb 2008
What sources?
What are your sources? Who told you that they are making millions and what evidence do you have? I put it to you that you simply made up this story and have no facts what so ever.
Posted by Glen, 11 Feb 2008
No, it's more than likely
Who'd bother for thousands a day? The development of these bots would cost millions. As corrupt economies - well, wake up and read the news outside of internet - they exist :(
Posted by reader, 12 Feb 2008
Idiotic
This isn't news, every botnet is meant to be profitable. Why do you have idiots writing for you?
Posted by Cendamos, 11 Feb 2008
Highly Unlikely
Even given the laughably weak abilities of international law enforcement in this regard, it's highly unlikely that a single entity, or even multiple related entities, are managing to hide millions of dollars on a daily basis from money laundering controls. Thousands a day might be possible, but much more than that on a regular basis and what IBM are suggesting would have to involve corrupting governments or even whole economies. That's always possible, it frankly, IBM need to cite some pretty compelling evidence for this claim.
Posted by Jonathan, 11 Feb 2008
Grammer
It would be nice if the author of this article bothered to use proper English grammar, or perhaps his editor could pay a little more attention and correct it before it the article gets published?
Posted by Not That Stupid, 11 Feb 2008