botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers
in [Spyware]
|
From: gtownfunk on 6 Mar 2010 01:06 In the most basic sense, it is absolutely true that a botnet is little more than a distributed computing platform. I'll throw my own thoughts out there on the subtle differences: A botnet benefits more from and exploits its geographical diversity than does a conventional distributed computing application. A botnet also implies there is some command and control aspect. -whereas- Most distributed computing applications benefit from being able to pool computational resources and are driven on the communication side by little more than maximum throughput and minimal latency. Most applications aren't told what to do by the server, they are programmed to do what they do and request data to process and return the results. Trust me on this, there are many companies out there running distributed applications who would LOVE to have the power and control that a bunch of teenagers managing their IRC botnets had over a decade ago. Ben Camp http://www.botnetworks.com/
From: David H. Lipman on 6 Mar 2010 06:18 From: "gtownfunk" <ben_camp(a)yahoo.com> < snip > | Trust me on this, Because of the C2 aspect of a botnet.... Why ? Who ? Vetting ? -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: ♥Ari ♥ on 6 Mar 2010 09:23 On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:31:36 -0800 (PST), gtownfunk wrote: > Our software allows the comfort of experimenting with your own network > of bot agents without the risks of malware and out of control > propagation looming overhead. Trying to break /any/ system is the only way to validate its security. How else are you going to test it? Just claim it is secure? > Like I said earlier, you yourself may know all about botnets > already.. and as such you might not be a potential customer of > ours. Time is money, I'm sure $1995 is barely the overhead your > company pays each week to keep you around. I have a hard time firing myself. lol > Our objective is not to provide a fancy feature-rich botnet for > hardcore consumption. Our intent is to enlighten with simplicity > not to obscure with complexity. > > If we can help someone who is interested but doesn't have the time to > get knee-deep in black hat websites, then we have succeeded. > > Here's a quick example of a "benevolent botnet" that could reduce risk > but wouldn't realistically provide a windfall of savings... A simple > botnet could query local DNS servers and report back any anomalies. > This way, a DNS hack could likely be detected even if it was to only > affect a small percentage of the internet. > > Hope that helps clear things up. Whether you get $1995 for your software, whether it is worth that, less or more, isn't your decision. You have built your revenue model on false pretences. Maybe it is right but if so it's not because you have secured that information from market research. The info you get from Usenet historically will not be from business owners but from code boys and those with a bunch of spare time on their hands. With absolutely unproven qualifications. Best of luck with that. -- All you Ferrari drivers, come join us at www.ferrarichat.com !
From: Dustin Cook on 12 Mar 2010 04:59 "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:hmsalm$gce$1 @news.eternal-september.org: > "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message > news:hmpr0601rq6(a)news3.newsguy.com... > >> Like there is no benevolent virus, there is no benevolent botnet. > > This assumes that computing power is being stolen. Otherwise a botnet is > just called distributed computing. A virus is always called a virus > whether it steals computing power or not - it is assumed that an > infecting virus will always be malicious because it is stealing power at > the very least. The definition of virus has nothing to do with malware, > whereas the definition of botnet seems to be "malicious distributed > computing network". > > > It's not malicious for stealing cpu cycles alone. It's considered malicious because it makes unwanted changes to other aspects of the system, sometimes with dire results; and not intended by the author. Obviously this applies to viruses, and not this fellows botnet for sale... -- "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
From: Dustin Cook on 12 Mar 2010 05:03
"Ant" <not(a)home.today> wrote in news:GqSdnXmiU5oXQQ3WnZ2dnUVZ8tudnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk: > "gtownfunk" wrote: > >> - Written in C# > > Yuk. > >> instead of obscure scripting languages hackers might use > > Bot authors prefer ASM, C or C++. > >> - Runs on the .NET Framework you are familiar with > > Am I? I did a five day course on it once. > So, it won't run on a unix box. > > > It's .NET based? Well, I know of 2 computers in this house that aren't able to run it short of me installing the .NET support files beforehand. What a sorry state of affairs. Most potentially malicious code was asm, c, or c++, even VB at times.. but now.. .NET? I'm going to go in a corner a puke now. -- "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior |