College Classes On Malware Writing Still Piss Off Anti-Virus Firms
from the security-through-obscurity dept
Over five years ago, we wrote about a college that was starting to offer a new computer science class in writing computer viruses. And, of course, various anti-virus companies went ballistic, claiming how dangerous it was. Yet, as we pointed out at the time, anti-virus companies don't have the greatest track record in actually stopping viruses -- so it seemed only reasonable to teach people to better "think like the enemy." Anyway, it appears not much has changed. Theodp writes in to let us know about an article in Newsweek about a very similar course being taught at Sonoma State University by George Ledin, where students are tasked with creating their own malware.Once again, various security companies are condemning the technique, even sinking so low as to compare Ledin to A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear technology to North Korea. They even insist they won't hire his students -- which seems particularly short-sighted. As Ledin points out, it appears that this is really more about the security companies wanting to keep the world more scared than they need to be of malware, so as to pretend that they're the only ones who can solve the "problem" -- when the truth is they're not very effective at it. He complains that anti-virus firms keep their code secret (thank you, DMCA). He points out that if they were willing to open it up, and let lots of folks work on improving it, it would get much, much better. All he's trying to do is help more people understand the enemy without first having to work at one of those companies that's been so ineffective in stopping malware -- in the hopes that maybe some of his students can actually come up with a better soltuion.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: education, george ledin, malware, teaching, viruses
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's the beginning of the end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Actually, he regularly submits stuff, some of which we post, some of which we don't. But there have been plenty since January, so not sure where you got your "stat" from.
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?site=&q=theodp
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My guess is that it's one of "The Mas"'s co-workers. As such, he too good for us common folk. He/She just shares their ideas with "The Mas" these days.
Ho hum. Trollin along...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why not...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What?
WTF?
Monopoly, what monopoly, where is this bill gates of the anti-virus.
How come "MY" anti-virus is free?
How come "MY' anti-malware is free?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why not ledin starts his own open source antivirus project
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Where's my man, theodp??? His friends down here in the trenches miss him!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what about ClamAV?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
must be something in the water
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Given that AV/security companies make their living from fighting malware, sometimes I wonder whether they might have a secret "branch" that actually funds or develops malware itself. This way, they make sure they don't run out of business, while at the same time aid their "effectiveness" claims by developing thing the cure together with the disease... Hey, maybe that is the real reason why they are pissed off?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: what about ClamAV?
I once used ClamAV in conjuction with WinPooch and that worked ok, but I never tweaked it enough to turn off the annoying stuff.
You need to install something else on top of Clam to make it useful, like a resident scanner.
That said, I'm a Linux user these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's the beginning of the end.
It is definitely a fear-based market, but it is certainly not a monopoly. There are way too many players in the market to call it that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The only thing keeping big AV alive now............
The biggest threat to computer security is IMO; the trial versions included on retail computers. Once the trial runs out, the average user just keeps on going with no shield at all. I've repaired quite a few of these. Once they get so laden that they take an hour to boot up fully, they come crying for help, & I clean it up give them a good free AV and firewall & never hear from them again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
signature based detection doesn't work
usually that one person was not very skilled and the software was [somewhat] quickly identified and updates released to handle the outbreak.
malware today is far more complex, and has been for about 4 years.
in the last couple of years, malware has taken a different turn. it's not nearly as automated, it's written/modified by teams of professionals who are financed by criminal organizations or rogue nations, and its intent is to do more than annoy.
the result are releases and variants that are re-tooled manually and aren't identified before widespread release. they often slip right by anti-virus software because the user gets suckered into installing it: i.e. vundo, virtumonde, or any of the numerous phony anit-virus or anti-spyware packages that end up on machines. the signatures are at best not detected, and at worst ignored by the user.
there is a reason there are hundreds of thousands of zombies in the the storm and kraken botnets: using anti-virus software to protect your computer from tampering is like giving your child antibiotics to protect them from kidnappers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: must be something in the water
half the reason is that people are happy being ignorant and half the reason is that the "protectors" of the world (cops, feds, security vendors) want to keep their clients and the competition as ignorant as possible.
people always freak over youtube videos on lock picking, or TV shows that teach people about how the drug trade works, because they don't understand that all information is good.
there is this stupid idea that you can protect people by burying information. that's ridiculous. you protect people by putting information out in the open where anyone, good or bad, can find and fix the problem.
the criminals already have the information. they already know how to pick locks, or make crystal meth, or sneak metal onto an airplane. the rest of us need this information too, so we can figure out how to protect ourselves effectively.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We need more than AV
AV software was fine in the 20th century as most malicious code writers were interested in little more than mass propagation. Under that model the statistical chances of an infection being identified and reported to an AV vendor (so the rest of us get a signature) were pretty favorable.
The problem is the model has changed. Malware writers now leverage their skills to make money. Under that model spear attacks are used rather than mass propagation. This dramatically reduces the statistical chances of a useful signature being created. We've had a number of incidences where systems have been infected for 2+ years before being detected.
So why do AV vendors refuse to adapt? One word, "money". A signature based model generates a reoccurring revenue stream month to month. What we need is better HIPS and app control technology which does not lend itself to a reoccurring revenue stream. So if they fix what ails us, AV vendors end up hurting their bottom line. Not much of a business motivation there.
So the more bright folks we can have up to speed on malware who have learned their skills outside of the AV bubble, the more likely someone is going to hit on and actually release something that will address the current model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why not...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Recruiting pipeline
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]