RIAA worm

Posted by   Virus Bulletin on   Jan 14, 2003

RIAA allegedly buying worms to stop P2P piracy

It would appear Gobbles Security has done it again, only this time under the guidance of everyone's favourite dark corporation, the RIAA. Before going into details, an unnamed security consultant had this to say about the group: 'They're real, and they're damn good. They have made what appeared to be extremely exaggerated claims in the past, and when mocked, they have demonstrated that they are serious.'

Gobbles has claimed to have created and released a worm that exploits vulnerabilities in several popular MP3 players to infect P2P software, and which has now infected '95% of all p2p-participating hosts'. The worm catalogues media on the target's machine, and reports it back to the RIAA. When another user of a P2P network attempts to download a file from an infected machine, the worm fingerprints it, decides on the best way to exploit it, and sends back a Trojanised file which, when played, will infect the downloader. Furthermore, Gobbles claims to be building its own distributed denial of service network using similar techniques.

So, is it true? It does seem a little unlikely that the RIAA would open itself up for possible legal action like this, although one could also consider the Berman Bill (discussed below). Hacktivismo, a group backed by the Cult of The Dead Cow, think it's unlikely, 'especially considering that many of [Gobbles'] posts contain similiar such joking claims - like the last one, a claim he was working with iDefense (he wasn't).' Here at Virus Bulletin, we're still undecided but, for the sake of argument, let's consider for a moment it is...

So what would this mean for the anti-virus community? First, it'll be interesting to see how the RIAA responds to this - will it flat out deny it, or say nothing? If Gobbles' claims are shown to be true, and the RIAA is shown to be implicated, will it be liable for legal action? Finally, (again, assuming the claims are true) which anti-virus vendor will be the first to detect this?

At the time of writing, no comment is available on the RIAA website. Considering the condemnation they'd be likely to receive, it seems unlikely that they would admit to this straight off.

Would they be liable if it is true? Well, perhaps. Howard Berman's 'P2P Piracy Prevention' bill would effectively legitimise these actions. However, although he is expected to reintroduce it in this Congressional session, the bill has not yet passed.

Which AV vendor would be the first to detect the worm? Well, if it is backed by the RIAA, perhaps none of them. H+BEDV recently got into trouble for detecting 'cost- incurring [read as 'porn'] dialers as viruses' under German competition law. Symantec's website states that they don't detect spyware or adware, as 'while they may be objectionable, [they] are not malicious', and 'detecting them only leads to unnecessary virus alerts which could cause you to believe that you have run or received a dangerous program when you have not', which sounds like a semi-plausible excuse to avoid a potential legal mine-field. At VB2002, Sophos's Graham Cluley discussed eBugs such as the FBI's 'Magic Lantern', and questioned whether AV vendors should detect them - he was able to find few reasons not to detect them, so perhaps Sophos will be forthcoming in identities.

Normally this would be the point to end with a sarcastic and caustic comment regarding Gobbles Security. However, by taking both the moral high-ground ('the hard-working artists who p2p technology rapes, and the RIAA protects'), and the moral low-ground ('The professional staff of GOBBLES Security believe that by releasing our advisories without vendor notification of any sort is cute and humorous, so this is also the first time the vendor has been made aware of this problem. We hope that you're as amused with our maturity as we are'), Gobbles has confounded our efforts. At the time of writing, only The Register has any other commentary on this, so the next few days should prove interesting.

Posted on 14 Jan 2003 by Virus Bulletin

 Tags

twitter.png
fb.png
linkedin.png
hackernews.png
reddit.png

 

Latest posts:

VB2019 paper: APT cases exploiting vulnerabilities in region-specific software

At VB2019, JPCERT/CC's Shusei Tomonaga and Tomoaki Tani presented a paper on attacks that exploit vulnerabilities in software used only in Japan, using malware that is unique to Japan. Today we publish both their paper and the recording of their…

New paper: Detection of vulnerabilities in web applications by validating parameter integrity and data flow graphs

In a follow-up to a paper presented at VB2019, Prismo Systems researchers Abhishek Singh and Ramesh Mani detail algorithms that can be used to detect SQL injection in stored procedures, persistent cross-site scripting (XSS), and server‑side request…

VB2020 programme announced

VB is pleased to reveal the details of an interesting and diverse programme for VB2020, the 30th Virus Bulletin International Conference.

VB2019 paper: Cyber espionage in the Middle East: unravelling OSX.WindTail

At VB2019 in London, Jamf's Patrick Wardle analysed the WindTail macOS malware used by the WindShift APT group, active in the Middle East. Today we publish both Patrick's paper and the recording of his presentation.

VB2019 paper: 2,000 reactions to a malware attack – accidental study

At VB2019 cybercrime journalist and researcher Adam Haertlé presented an analysis of almost 2000 unsolicited responses sent by victims of a malicious email campaign. Today we publish both his paper and the recording of his presentation.

We have placed cookies on your device in order to improve the functionality of this site, as outlined in our cookies policy. However, you may delete and block all cookies from this site and your use of the site will be unaffected. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to Virus Bulletin's use of data as outlined in our privacy policy.