If you’re a regular reader here, then you’re probably familiar with the outrage computer users express when commenting on cyber crime, and cyber criminals.
Comments range from simple outrage, to implementing the death penalty (no, I’m not kidding), for those convicted of cyber crime. I must admit; in my darker moments, I sometimes feel the tools used by the Inquisition might be too good for this scum.
The more polite comments though, run along these lines:
Where are the cops when we need them?
Why doesn’t an International task force exist to deal with this issue?
Why are the “big name” technology companies sitting back and watching the Internet being destroyed by criminals.
The good news is; to some extent, this is type of policing is beginning to happen.
In March of this year, we explained how Panda Security had played a major role in taking down Mariposa, a Spanish botnet, which according to a report we obtained at that time, was considered to be, “one of the world’s biggest networks of virus-infected computers, responsible for compromising 13 Million unique IP addresses and 50 percent of Fortune 1000 companies around the world”.
Panda Security’s continuing efforts in fighting cyber crime, at this level, has paid off once again. As part of a joint effort which included Panda, Canada’s Defence Intelligence, and the FBI, the mastermind behind the Butterfly Botnet kit, has been arrested in Maribor, Slovenia.
The Butterfly Botnet kit, which was sold online for $650 – $2,000 USD, is responsible for almost 10,000 unique pieces of malicious software, and over 700 botnets. Hundreds of financial institutions and government departments, as well as millions of private corporations and individuals worldwide, have fallen victim to this scumbag’s software.
This cyber criminal takedown is good news for Internet consumers; most particular, the level of cooperation exhibited between the various factions involved in the take down.
I’m cautiously optimistic, that a joint effort like this, may be the beginning of a more concentrated effort to root out those who threaten the viability of the Internet.
Juan Santana, CEO, Panda Security seemed to indicate we may see more of these collaborative efforts when he stated recently “we strongly believe that the fight against Internet crime requires an international collaborative effort from the computer security industry, and public institutions.” We say, “Yes!”
A word of caution: What’s really needed here, is a redoubling of these efforts; the formation of additional strategic alliances; and a systematic strategy designed to finish off these parasites.
About Defence Intelligence:
Defence Intelligence is a privately held information security firm specializing in compromise protection. Based in Ottawa, Canada, the founders of Defence Intelligence are globally recognized industry experts. They have headed information security for Fortune 50 companies, consulted with hundreds of private enterprises and government agencies, and have assisted in the capture and prosecution of international computer criminals.
For more information, go here.
About Panda Security:
Founded in 1990, Panda Security is the world’s leading provider of cloud-based security solutions, with products available in more than 23 languages and millions of users located in 195 countries around the World.
This innovative security model can automatically analyze and classify thousands of new malware samples every day, guaranteeing corporate customers, and home users, the most effective protection against Internet threats with minimum impact on system performance.
Panda Security has 56 offices throughout the globe, with US headquarters in Florida, and European headquarters in Spain.
For more information, go here.
Note: You can read our article on the highly recommended free Panda Cloud Antivirus, here.
If you found this article useful, why not subscribe to this Blog via RSS, or email? It’s easy; just click on this link and you’ll never miss another Tech Thoughts article.
Bill Mullins' Weblog - Tech Thoughts 
Pingback: Cyber Challenge
Thanks for the article, Bill. It seems to me that the priorities are all manifestly wrong. We squander trillions of dollars globally on abhorrent and unjust wars, the international arms trade, etc, each year. Yet governments are not making anywhere near similar levels of investment in the fight against cyber crime. And yet the potential ramifications of cyber crime – both financially and in human terms – are truly frightening to contemplate. I remember watching a documentary on what would happen if cyber terrorists (and you’re right, Bill – that’s precisely what they are) hacked into the national electricity systems. Everything would immediately come to a halt. Everything. Immediately. The results would make 9/11 look small in comparison. We have at our disposal the ability to tackle this head-on. Why is it that the will to do so is not there? At least, not in any concerted, systematic way.
Hi Siam,
This whole issue reminds me of the old “guns versus butter” question, from Economics 101. The allocation of resources will always be in favor of “profit centers”, and not towards what are perceived to be “cost centers”. Unfortunately, fighting cyber crime is seen as a cost center, with little, or no consideration, given to the massive financial losses borne directly by the victims of cyber crime.
As well, a hidden cyber security infrastructure is just not “sexy”, while a visible security infrastructure is – bombs, guns, fighter aircraft, aircraft carriers, etc., all have huge visual appeal. Bits and bytes, don’t.
You’re right “the potential ramifications of cyber crime – both financially and in human terms – are truly frightening to contemplate”. But, if you and I are waiting for politicians to address these ramifications, I’m afraid we’re in for a very long wait.
We’ll just keep on fighting the good fight, in the meantime.
Best,
Bill
Hi Bill!
As the UK government and, I presume, the US and Canadian governments are investing so much in online access to national and local government department web sites, you’d think they’d give as much (or more) priority to cracking down on web crime as they do to usability. Their aim to get everyone online is bound to be thwarted due to the fact that many people are scared off using the Interweb because of the Wild West nature of it – and I don’t blame them, really. I have enough problems telling my silver surfers to not click on this or that. Trying to describe what is legit and what isn’t is damn near impossible.
Regards,
Dave K
Hi Dave,
“Trying to describe what is legit and what isn’t is damn near impossible”. I couldn’t agree more.
I don’t envy your job of trying to keep your silver surfers safe. It’s harder to do with each passing day.
Best,
Bill
The root of the problem of botnets are very insecure Windows that are running on no-technical computers that are downloading a lot of crap-ware software from net.
If there would really be an interest of solving this problem it should be in the direction of making Windows to become better software. But is this really in the interest of security companies that have a millions of $ profit with bad security OS?
Thank you for commenting Soi.
Bill