Maximum PC illegal RSS Feed

Computer Security Company Takes Out Enormous Botnet

Ryan Whitwam — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:30:15 -0600

Security firm FireEye has reportedly struck a massive blow against spam. The so called “Mega-D” or “Ozdok” spam botnet was effectively dismantled by these intrepid security researchers. After studying the beast, FireEye launched an attack by notifying ISPs, having command and control (CnC) domains removed, and then registering unused CnC domains.

Almost immediately, the spam ceased. No small feat, considering Ozdok was probably responsible for one third of the world’s spam. This takes the load off ISPs which were forced to filter the spam from this botnet. Individual users probably won’t notice much difference.

FireEye found that over 246,000 zombie machines were reporting to the CnC domains in their possession after the takedown. The security firm plans to work with ISPs to indentify the owners of the PCs so they may remove the malicious software.

Illegal Music Downloader's Spend "The Most on Music"

Justin Kerr — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:56:45 -0600

Measuring the impact of illegal downloading on the music industry is a nearly impossible task that only seems to make the lawyers rich, but a new UK based study has concluded that illegal downloader's not only don't hurt music sales, they help. According to the survey which looked at the buying habits of about 1,000 16 to 50 year-old computer users, those that regularly downloaded music illegally also spent nearly 43% more per year through official channels than their legitimate counterparts. According to the UK Secretary of State for Business Peter Mandelson, this proves the shortsightedness of the new "Digital Economy Bill" set to become law next April which aims to boot any user off the Internet accused of downloading copyrighted material three times or more.

Peter Bradwell, from the think-tank Demos who commissioned the Ipsos Mori study agrees and claims, "The latest approach from the Government will not help prop up an ailing music industry. Politicians and music companies need to recognize that the nature of music consumption has changed, and consumers are demanding lower prices and easier access." The UK music industry however remains unconvinced, and insisted that the figures cited in the study show a skewed picture. It turns out in fact, that nearly 61% of all illegal downloader's surveyed claim they would stop downloading illegitimate tracks if they were threatened with losing internet service for a month.

So will illegal downloader’s spend even more money on digital tracks if they get cut off from Bit Torrent's? Or does it help to create fans who would have otherwise spent less on music using traditional discovery methods. It’s an interesting debate, where do you fall on the issue?

(Image Credit: Methodshop.com)

YouTube Fans, Watch Your Wallets!

Mark Edward Soper — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:27:26 -0500

If you thought that YouTube was mostly a way to discover lame-o fan trailers, not-so-sophisticated movie spoofs, or the latest viral video sensation, think again. As ArsTechnica reports, pyramid scheme recruitment videos are now flourishing on YouTube. Although these so-called "cash gifting" or "cash leveraging" schemes are often referred to as Ponzi schemes, they're different. As an ArsTechnica commenter pointed out, in a true Ponzi scheme, early joiners are "paid back" by money from later "investors" by the people controlling the alleged investment, but in a pyramid scheme, you make your money only when you can con others into giving you money.

Regardless of how boring your Friday afternoons might be and how desperate you might be to make more money, watch out for videos like these. Our advice? Save your cash for better investments, like more RAM.

Company Demands Restitution from UK Residents Accused of Illegally Downloading Porn

Paul Lilly — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:18:16 -0600

To date, the RIAA has sued more than 20,000 individuals over alleged copyright infringement, and one could argue that the RIAA has turned its suing spree into a business model. If that's the case, consider what DigiProtect is doing to be nothing more than modern day business economics 101.

The German company has been sending out thousands of letters to UK residents accusing them of using file-sharing networks to download and distribute dozens of porn flicks. The 20-page letters lay out all the embarrassing details, including the name of the film(s) and what date and time the alleged download took place. Similar to what the RIAA has been doing, DigiProtect offers to settle out of court, usually to the tune of £500 (about $740USD).

Not surprisingly, many of the recipients deny ever having downloaded or copied the films in question, and hundreds of individuals have already sought legal counsel.

"It's the embarrassment factor," said Michael Coyle, a lawyer at Lawdit Solicitors. "One lady told us she fainted when she opened her letter. Teenagers right up to old-age pensioners have been accused of downloading hardcore porn. The overriding feeling is one of outrage."

According to Newbeat, the letters indicate that DigitProtect is acting on behalf of U.S. based Evil Angel. Newsbeat contacted the owner, John Stagliano, who said he was shocked to learn the exact amount DigiProtect is demanding from alleged file sharers.

"It's not my understanding that they ask for anything near that. I think the amount was $50 (£34) or €50 (£43)," he said. "I would be very surprised and I wouldn't be happy because it would mean it was completely misrepresented to me."

Image Credit: Flickr nicholasbittencour t

Comcast Closes in on Bandwidth Limits and Overage Charges

<a href="/david_murphy">David Murphy<br /></a> — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:17:32 -0500

I thought I had seen the last of Comcast's traffic-shaping practices, but the Emperor of ISPs has been off concocting a new plan--a concrete, measurable method that will give the provider unprecedented control over its bandwidth. But this won't be like it's been in times prior, when Comcast would simply block or otherwise inhibits your access to the file transfer protocols of your choosing (ok, Bittorrent). Comcast is leaving your Internet habits up to you: fill the pipe as much as you want, but if your downloads burst the tube, you're going to pay big.

DSLReports.com quotes an anonymous Comcast representative for the full details of the alleged plan. All Internet subscribers will be allotted 250GB per month in download capacity. Go over, and you're fine... once. After your single freebie, Comcast will bill you $15 for every 10GB you exceed. There's no word whether you'll still get booted off the network for exceeding an undisclosed, theoretical maximum, but you'll likely be booted out of your parents' basement once that monthly bill hits.

That said, 250GB worth of downloading is a stupid-large amount of bandwidth. The Silicon Valley Insider has done an awesome job detailing just what it would take to get hit with the $15 overage charges based on a typical computer user's workload. But I've brainstormed a few additional examples that also apply. You'd have to:

Purchase 35 to 60 of Steam's largest titles each month (or download Portal 253 times)
Download one 1080p-quality movie per day
Browse the flickr pages of 243,809 users. Or you could just check out one user's page... and download all 85,528 of his 10.1 megapixel pictures.
Be your own Team Fortress 2 team. Playing 24 hours a day for each day in the month, by yourself, would only cost you 62 GB of bandwidth. But hey, that's why you need to multibox as a Soldier, a Medic, a Heavy...

I could go on, but you get the point. Unless you're trying to win the popularity award at The Pirate Bay, you're going to have a hard time filling that 250GB reservoir with your legitimate normal use, even if you consider yourself a heavy user. For once, I applaud Comcast for setting a reasonable bandwidth limit before it swings the hammer. And more so than that, I think it's great that Comcast is finally telling its users exactly what standards they'll be measured by -- and even going so far as to allude to a utility that you might be able to download that could match up your usage approximation with Comcast's.

How Comcast Gives Your Bank Account the Business

This company isn't getting any more praise out of me, because there are still two overwhelming flaws with Comcast's plan. Should you happen to go over the limit--without first being killed by your neighbors who are sharing the same cable hub--you're going to be paying an absurd amount of money for your transgression. Not to sound like Abe Simpson, but it's highway robbery. Consider the math:

Comcast charges $43 per month (minus taxes, fees, and only if you have pre-existing cable service) for its lowest tier of Internet service.
If Comcast gives you 250GB of "free" use per month, you're getting 5.81 gigabytes for every dollar you spend.
Comcast charges $15 for every 10GB of overage.
Thus, you pay 0.66 gigabytes for every dollar you spend in overage fees.

So what does the Internet cost? Should we go by Comcast's normal pricing structure -- 5.81 gigabytes per dollar -- or its overage pricing structure which incidentally, would cost you $375 dollars per month for 250GB of service. If the overage fee is designed to penalize subscribers, this represents 8.7 times that of Comcast's normal fee for comparable service. That's an unacceptable and illogical exploitation, and completely out of line from the market value of the service.

In A Perfect World...

Comcast should sell users additional bandwidth based on the original rates, or worth, of the service. If Joe Downloader uses 500GB of bandwidth, then he should be billed the same as if he just doubled his water intake for the month: a rate based on his actual use, not a punishment for going above an imaginary threshold. According to Comcast, its new suspected policies will affect 0.1 percent of its 14.1 million users. So let these 14,000 or so customers pay a fair extra for their bandwidth. If anything, Comcast's the winner in the deal: subscribers that underuse the service would still be charged at a flat rate of $43 per month (overvaluing their share of the bandwidth), and the chunk of the tube they don't use can go to others for a normal market value.

The situation gets stickier when you consider the fact that Comcast touts speedier service as an upgradable addition to its flat Internet subscription. For $67 a month, you can have downloads up to 4 Mbps faster than what you'd get on its bottom-rung Internet services. So why, then, are these subscribers -- who might very well download more as a result of their package -- not being given a similar, tiered structure for their monthly download limit? If they're receiving a 33 percent increase to their download speeds, there's no reason why they shouldn't be upgraded to a monthly download rate of 330GB.

But not all is fair or reasonable in the world of internet service. And while bits of Comcast's proposed plan seem fair considering the alternative--Time Warner's mulling limits of 5 to 40GB per month with a $1 per gigabyte overage fee--consumers shouldn't let the bull in the china shop just because it's wearing a pretty hat. At the end of the day, Comcast is a business. It's a big business. And just as it used to tout unlimited service while limiting your Bittorrents, so it is equally happy to protect the integrity of its bandwidth by unfairly pummeling your bank account into submission.