Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers

Reply
Thread Tools

botnetWorks - Call for experimental botnet beta testers

 
 
gtownfunk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-05-2010
On Mar 5, 8:31*am, "T.H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> gtownfunk wrote:
> > We are just about to release a product and are looking for some
> > serious beta testers to give it a spin and let us know how you like
> > it:

>
> > snip...

>
> I like your Micro$oft marketing model. *Selling /Beta/ software to the
> end user. *SELLING Beta software.


Well, to be clear the preliminary pricing information that is on the
website is not for the beta testers program. Some pending updates to
the website will go live in a couple hours since I suppose this was
not clear enough. Right now our projected release date is May 31st.
We're hoping to have beta copies in the hands of our testers around
April 1st.

>
> It has worked for Micro$oft though. *You are more honest than Micro$oft
> about the developmental state of your product. *That is *a refreshing truth.
>
> Good luck.


*grin*

Ben Camp
http://www.botnetworks.com/


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
FromTheRafters
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2010
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> 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".


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David H. Lipman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2010
From: "FromTheRafters" <(E-Mail Removed)>

| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
| news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>> 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".


FTR wins the prize.

I figured you would understand as you had mentioned the SET@Home project.

Compare D-Computing vs. Botnet and what constraints are there on the C2 mechanism ?

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp


 
Reply With Quote
 
FromTheRafters
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2010
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> From: "FromTheRafters" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> | "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> | news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>> 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".
>
>
> FTR wins the prize.
>
> I figured you would understand as you had mentioned the SET@Home
> project.


This site and Wikipedia both mention in passing that most times the term
'botnet' refers to the malicious ones.

http://www.topbits.com/botnet.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet

> Compare D-Computing vs. Botnet and what constraints are there on the
> C2 mechanism ?


Will do, but not just now.

Just as a disk copying program (xcopy?) was a virus, Pluto was a planet.
Through no fault of their own, no change on their part, they just lose
status when the entire class gets redefined. D


 
Reply With Quote
 
gtownfunk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2010
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/
 
Reply With Quote
 
David H. Lipman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2010
From: "gtownfunk" <(E-Mail Removed)>

< 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
♥Ari ♥
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2010
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 !
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dustin Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2010
"FromTheRafters" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:hmsalm$gce$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dustin Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2010
"Ant" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) o.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

 
Reply With Quote
 
FromTheRafters
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2010
"Dustin Cook" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9D3933CB0D724HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247.. .
> "FromTheRafters" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:hmsalm$gce$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> 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.


***
Are you saying they (viruses) are considered malicious because they tend
to be buggy?
***

> Obviously this applies to viruses, and not this fellows botnet for
> sale...


***
I was just trying to show that the definition (Turing machine
computational model) of "virus" is less like "malware" and more like
"neutral" as in more like an automated copy/paste operation performed on
itself. Sure, if a contemporary virus infects programs that the user
doesn't want infected, it is malware (makes unwanted modifications). The
term "virus" does not mean "malware" while the term "botnet" apparently
does - else they would be called "distributed computing networks". So
botnet will always have a negative connotation, by definition (just as
Pluto will never again be a planet, by definition).
***


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Symposium Experimental and Computational Bio-Imaging and Visualization within ICEM15 Announce & Call for Papers tavares@fe.up.pt Python 0 09-08-2011 07:29 PM
TimingAnalyzer beta version 0.90 -- beta testers wanted timinganalyzer VHDL 3 10-29-2008 06:46 AM
Call for beta testers (Picasa Web Albums and iPhoto 08) ubermind beta team Digital Photography 1 05-16-2008 05:44 PM
The BotBrigade Proposal, Botnet Versus Botnet Gregory Computer Security 2 11-12-2007 12:18 AM
OT: ATTN: MCNGP: Beta testers requested /* Microcephalic S. Bob [MCSBNGP+++ #7.13.86.42.1138.2600] */ MCSE 12 08-20-2005 03:12 AM



Advertisments