First Ethical Research Paper: Viruses and Good Worms
Introduction
Throughout my participation in CPSC321 I have learned an abundance of new information. The class topics have brought volumes of innovative technology to my attention. Much of this technology has been in the field for years, but as a student I was never taught to deal with it ethically; I simply learned the basics of it. Through the class discussions, I gained amazing perspectives on all different kinds of ethical works. These ethical works include Kant’s Theories, Rule Utilitarian Theories, and Social Contract Theories; all of these are fantastic, but unfortunately for a paper of this magnitude they do not cover the full ethical spectrum I wish to tackle (Quinn 300). To better round out my ethical spectrum I am adding Nietzsche’s Master/Slave Theories to my repertoire of ethics. (This part is for those not familiar with Nietzsche’s ethical theories) Nietzsche, who called himself an “immoralist”, posed vital theories to how the human mind works and nature in general. Nietzsche did not differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ but rather between ‘life affirming’ and ‘life denying’; thus creating an ethical outline for the most primitive line of thought: survival. Nietzsche called these moral survival tactics Master ethics, Nietzsche believed the alpha dog would rise to the top, no matter the circumstance, by executing his/her own version of Master ethics (“Friedrich Nietzsche”). As a result of Master ethics, Nietzsche saw Slave ethics naturally develop, where the mass majority of oppressed people developed systems where they were all equals, such as Communism or Kantianism. Because Slave ethics are better summed up using stronger theories such as Kantianism, (Nietzsche considered these to be weak and even went as far to call them a social illness) I shall only deal with Nietzsche’s Master theories (“Friedrich Nietzsche”). These four ethical guidelines shall be the crux of my evaluation of viruses and even deeper topics.
Ethics for the Information Age thoroughly educated me on viruses and worms, both their history and use today. After reading the recent chapter on spam, I got interested in spam viruses (commonly called Botnets), and how terminals get hacked to send spam (Quinn 300). My curious nature led me down a twisted path of viruses and botnets; things that can slip into a computer and use it to send spam continually. In my search, I learned of an extremely dangerous botnet named The Kraken Botnet. This specific botnet attacked large systems of companies affiliated with the fortune 500, and used their massive servers and computing power to generate millions of spam e-mails a day. The Kraken Botnet was sly, and avoided most all types of virus and adware detection; it became a huge processing problem, and a satanic breeder of spam ads (Fisher). Eventually smart and dedicated programmers from TippingPoint DVL (Digital Vaccine Laboratories) learned how to find and eradicate The Kraken Botnet. The only problem now was tracking it down. As The Kraken leaped from network to network, an idea surfaced that they should simply create a virus (that infected systems exactly like the Kraken did) to hunt down The Kraken Botnet, and remove it instead of taking malicious actions (Sterling). This idea sparked a huge ethical debate over creating a virus to hunt down another virus, called a ‘good worm’. TippingPoint’s final decision was to not release the good worm, as they deemed it morally wrong, but rather give extensive source code about both The Kraken Botnet and their good worm (Amini). This code makes both the virus and the good worm easily repeatable and essentially takes the power out of the hands of TippingPoint DVL, and gives it to the online community (Pierce). The concepts of viruses and good worms will be intensely ethically scrutinized in my following dissertation.
Ethical Analysis of Viruses
In the vast world of the internet, there are thousands of different kinds of viruses. Computer viruses work by slipping into your system and exploiting bugs in the operating system. The average virus is small and is triggered only by certain events, such as the date or running a certain program (Quinn 300). Other viruses, such as trojans or botnets, completely hi-jack the system; their intent is extremely malicious, and their processes tend to deal with key logging, password theft, or sending massive amounts of spam. Purposely The Kraken Botnet targeted extremely large networks, and spread from computer to computer searching for the command and control server. Once found, it moved the command and control function to another address so that it is tough to retake control. Then, The Kraken Botnet would use the entire network as an enormous spam factory (Fisher). Fortune 500 companies tend to have extremely extensive e-mailing lists along with massive servers, so they became the perfect target for The Kraken Botnet. To build to a later point, are viruses, specifically the Kraken, moral to create?
To properly analyze the creation of viruses with Kant’s Theories, one must look at the intent behind them. First of all, viruses can have endless uses or even purposes but the ideology behind them is using another person’s machine. The intent may not be malicious, but for the simple fact that creating a program that takes the control out of the user’s hand, breaks Kant’s second formulation by using people as a means to an end. To go even farther into the analysis, and discuss The Kraken Botnet, we see an absolute loss of control, not over just one machine but over an entire network. If this were to be universalized and put on every computer no one would have control over any network they owned; the internet would dissolve into useless robots sending each other spam. This breaks Kant’s first formulation, by proposing that globally everyone could create botnets and the system would stay intact. Through following Kantianism one can see how viruses are immoral, and ‘do not do the right thing’.
If one were to look at the creation of viruses through a Rule Utilitarian view, one must universalize the concept and then calculate the net happiness. If everyone were to create their own viruses, it would bring that individual immense joy. Unfortunately, as each individual sent out their virus their system would most likely be hit by everyone else’s viruses. So let’s do the math; for every virus you make, you get +1 happiness, while at the same time your machine gets hit with 6.7 billion other viruses, that is -6.7 billion happiness points. Adding up everyone’s net happiness, -6.7 billion points for you, added to everyone else’s -6.7 billion and we get a global -44.89 billion happiness points. These viruses are small, but with such a large number, I highly doubt any computer would even work. I don’t even have to upgrade this theory to The Kraken Botnet; a Rule Utilitarian can clearly see the creation of viruses is immoral.
If one would use Social Contract Theories to analyze the creation of viruses, we must see how the culture has reacted, and what has been accepted for their mutual benefit. Usually a virus is created by a resentful individual or a corporation attempting to subversively get their way. These viruses affect thousands and harm many, and as a result people have created networks of the hurt and those constantly fighting viruses. Sometimes these groups get so large they decide to become actual organizations and turn profit off helping others, while several others stay free purely to help people keep their computers virus free. It would seem that a close knit society has sprung up around virus removal and computer cleaning. I am sure that these societies would condemn virus creators. On a side note, I sometimes wonder if it may be these profiting anti-virus organizations creating the viruses themselves, to keep their line of work active. They would be considered the organized crime of internet world. I am quite certain though that the majority of the internet society denounces the creation of viruses. If one would ask this internet society what they think of botnets, I am also certain the response would be unanimous. These people work hard to get normal viruses off their computers and the greater the challenge the more it brings them together. Some understand that they are fighting an uphill battle and instead take a different approach with the spam mail. Trend Micro goes as far as creating a black list of spam mailers, effectively helping the rest of the internet society from receiving spam mail (Quinn 300). According to Social Contract Theories and the precedent set by the online communities, one would have to conclude that the creation of viruses is immoral, especially the creation of botnets, which do even more harm.
If one were to analyze the creation of viruses, specifically The Kraken Botnet, using Nietzsche’s Master Ethics one must ask, “Is it essential to the survival of the creator?” If we were to look at viruses in general, most are made with little to no purpose and just thrown out at the general public. The average virus is merely an annoyance, and does nothing productive. Following Nietzsche’s Theories these have nothing to do with survival and are merely a plague on the internet. Now if one were to apply Nietzsche’s Theory to The Kraken Botnet the insights are astounding. In America, the CAN SPAM act of 2003 effectively made mass spam mail illegal. So if your business was to send out spam ads, and earn your living that way, you could now be tried in a court of law by doing this from a traceable computer. The majority of spammers simply pay others to have them send the spam for them, and also have them take the legal heat (Quinn 300). Botnets on the other hand use viruses to take control of other people’s computers without paying them. This allows the spammer to continue making money, and place the negative consequences on a weaker individual, something that Nietzsche would certainly agree with. Now if one applies that notion to The Kraken Botnet, we can see the alpha dog truly emerge from the pack. Here is a botnet that not only hides among and manipulates a massive amount of corporate computers, but also uses their extensive e-mail lists to capitalize on their pre-setup mailing record. If the CAN SPAM act tried to eradicate mass spamming, this botnet not only survived but made a fortune doing so. From the vantage point of Nietzsche’s Master Ethics the Kraken Botnet is the righteous ruler of the spam world, and has morally done what it must to survive.
After ethically analyzing viruses from several different perspectives, it should be clear that creating a virus is an immoral activity. Viruses tend to be out of control, and can cause irreparable damage, even if that was not the intent when it was created. Most viruses are immoral because of their subversive techniques that they use to spread from computer to computer. They trick the user into downloading them, and then often run processes when the CPU is idle or the user is away (Quinn 300). Botnets are even more immoral, as they exploit weaker peoples into generating money for their creator. Not only do botnets steal all control from their host, but they also bug thousands of others with annoying spam mail. Unfortunately viruses are here to stay, thus is the sacrifice for having such an open, amazing system. When people are given full control, some take it away from others, which according to Nietzsche is the natural way of things. A virus can be a powerful weapon, giving the creator the ability to destroy and tamper with someone else system. Not all viruses are necessarily immoral, as there are always exceptions to everything. A subjective relativist could likely find a moral use for even the most immorally based object. Viruses should be made with extreme care, and certainly ethically analyzed before released!
Ethical Analysis of Good Worms
When The Kraken Botnet first arrived on the scene, it dominated the corporate world using innovative techniques to locate and seize the command and control process of the server. It has been reported that a single infected computer could output up to 500,000 spam messages a day. It was tough to locate and some companies could not even tell they had been infected (Fisher). In early 2008, two members from TippingPoint DVL successfully reverse engineered The Kraken Botnet, and set up a proxy server so that millions of infected computers started coming to them looking for instructions on what to spam (Amini). They successfully knew how to disable The Kraken Botnet, and had a great lead on where to start as well. About 25,000 computers started reporting to their server, and they held the window wide open staring into a room of infected computers (Sterling). Their master plan was to release a virus they had created into that room of infected computers; that virus would destroy all The Krakens Botnets while following their paths and taking them to other infected servers. TippingPoint’s virus would be a virus that sought out other viruses and fixed machines rather than harm them. This revolutionary concept of a good worm sparked a huge ethical debate within TippingPoint DVL (Sterling). Eventually, TippingPoint’s boss Dave Endler decided not to have this burden on his company’s shoulders, and gave the order to not release the good worm. TippingPoint opened the topic to their peers and readers in an online blog, and allowed others to contribute their input on the subject. After much heated debate, they decided it was not a corporation’s job to create a good worm, as they could be held just as legally accountable as if they had created a virus (Amini). Instead they posted a good majority of the source code for both the Kraken Botnet and their own specially crafted good worm on their blog. The blog offers all the key concepts in assembler on how to either disable The Kraken, or create something exactly like it; the only catch being that only good programmers could use this knowledge. Their intent was to have anonymous programmers create their own good worms and cleanse the internet scene using the same tactics as virus creators (Pierce). The hotly debated question still remains unanswered though, are good worms moral to create?
To analyze this question from a Kantian perspective, one must determine the intent behind a good worm. A good worm’s sole purpose for existing is to eradicate the virus it is seeking out, but it has also has hidden motives. For a good worm to find the virus it is seeking, it must infect computers as unrelentingly as a normal virus. This creates thousands of mid-way computers that are used as bridges for this good worm to find its target virus. While a good worm has good intent and plans on helping all those infected computers that it reaches, it takes up space and control away from all of those bridge computers. One could argue that a good worm’s heart is in the right place, but that it uses too many computers as means to an end along the way. Kant would most likely argue that any kind of virus or worm, regardless of the intent, is immoral due to the subversive tactics that it uses to travel.
If one decided to analyze the creation of a good worm via Rule Utilitarian Theories, then one must generalize their creation and weigh the net benefit they could produce. Imagine if good worms were as popular as viruses. The internet would be full of nasty bugs and viruses but also with good worms to counterbalance them. The system would much more closely represent the human body. You could easily catch a disease and get very ill, but after awhile you would most likely get better when a good worm fought off your virus. This dreamy concept would likely bring the virus front to a competitive standstill. Why invent new viruses if someone will just invent a new good worm for it? A major benefit to this system is that you would be even harder to re-infect if that good worm stayed in your system, it would be like an immunity to any virus you have caught before. Therefore if I were to weigh the overall net happiness of this proposal, I think the initial effect would cancel out most viruses’ growth rate, and an extremely positive side effect would be a type of virus immunization. I think that with a Rule Utilitarian approach good worms are defiantly moral to produce.
When analyzing the creation of good worms with Social Contract Theories one must look to the current state of the internet and search for precedent. When analyzing normal viruses using Social Contract Theories I previously determined their creation immoral. Still, that doesn’t stop viruses from being created, nor does it stop botnets from hi-jacking people’s mail servers. I have always liked the saying, “To catch a criminal, you must be able to think like one”. This is a motto commonly used by police forces, and practiced in the form of sting operations, where a police officer pretends to buy drugs to someone who they know is selling them (Moran). If the use and spread of viruses has been unstoppable up to now, then why not create good worms to hunt them down? They will use the same tactics as the viruses that have been circulating for years, but without the same malicious intent. The good worms will likely use your computer as a bridge to find viruses, if you are clean, but that small storage space is well worth the sacrifice if it means collectively helping the rest of the online society. From a Social Contract perspective, programmers seem to have accepted viruses long ago, I think it is morally acceptable to create good worms as a counterbalance to viruses.
To properly analyze the creation of good worms with Nietzsche’s Master Theories, one must pose the question,”are they necessary for survival?” If you were to take the question at face value, the answer would be simple. No, good worms are not necessary; people have been keeping their computer’s safe for years. Good worms will only float around the web and take up personal space and computing power. It could easily cause a user who has never been compromised by a virus to be taken advantage of by these roaming programs. They simply drag down the masses of people who have been doing a very good job at keeping their computers clean. From a basic Nietzsche perspective, they are immoral and compromise an individual’s rights for those that he has no affiliation to. But if one were to look at the specific example of the Kraken Botnet, I think the answer may become less clear cut. A gigantic corporation that has had it’s server compromised can do very little against The Kraken Botnet. While they can follow the steps in TippingPoint’s blog, it will be extremely difficult to regain control of their command process and be able to flush the virus from every infected computer before it takes over their command process again. This costs time and money, and could be disastrous to both the company and their employees. If the company simply infected itself with it’s own good worm, it would be like administering a vaccine and could save the company lots of time and money. When dealing with a beast as big as The Kraken Botnet, giving yourself a good worm could be your best solution. It will also cause problems too, such as then having to remove the good worm from every company computer, but it may be the quickest way to get The Kraken out of your system. Examining good worms from a Nietzsche’s Master perspective tends to unclear, but the bottom line is this: If it will save your system, then do it fast! Otherwise stop wasting your time, and figure out a way to save your system!
After ethically analyzing good worms, it should be clear that they have more moral credentials than typical viruses. Good worms still use underhanded tactics in their method of spreading, and also steal control from the user. These key factors leave good worms in the same category as a virus. The good worm will never be completely morally justifiable because it was based off of a virus model, and undercuts the user’s knowledge of his system internals. But if the intent of a good worm is truly righteous than they have a likely-hood of doing more good than harm. Good worms have great potential for eradicating viruses, and could help keep the internet a safer place, but they require sacrifice. Good worms could be the average computer user’s saving grace in the future, as they could one day out populate the viruses on the web. I strongly believe that popularizing the idea of good worms and creating them with just means in mind, will result in greater net happiness among internet spectators. The creation of a good worm is the most important part! It must be critically and ethically analyzed repeatedly, for a bug in a good worm can quickly turn it into a virus. This is a vastly interesting and groundbreaking field for exploration, but be sure to bring ethical theories with you, as the basis of this work is cemented in viruses. Overall, I think good worms would be moral programs if they just let their users know what was going on.
Fin
As for my personal opinion, I strongly believe knowledge is power. To know how a virus works gives you the ability to either create it, or end it; that moral decision is left up to you.
Works Cited
Publisher Reviewed Works:
Quinn, Michael. Ethics for the Information Age. 3rd. Seattle: Pearson Education, 2009
(Quinn 300)
Sterling, Bruce. “They Pwned an Evil Botnet. Now What?” Wired 30/04/2008 19 Feb 2009
http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2008/04/they-pwned-an-e.html
(Sterling)
Peer Reviewed Works:
Fisher, Dennis. “Kraken botnet gathers 100,000 new members.” Search Security 08/04/2008 Feb 2009
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com.au/articles/24069--Kraken-botnet-gathers-1-new-members.
(Fisher)
Amini, Pedram. “Kraken Botnet Infiltration.” TippingPoint DVLabs 28/04/2008 19 Feb 2009
http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2008/04/28/kraken-botnet-infiltration.
(Amini)
Pierce, Cody. “Owning Kraken Zombies, a Detailed Dissection.” TippingPoint DVLabs 28/04/2008 Feb09
http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2008/04/28/owning-kraken-zombies.
(Pierce)
Other Works:
“Friedrich Nietzsche.” Wikipedia 19 Feb 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nierzsche.
(“Friedrich Nietzsche”)
Moran, John. “Criminal Justice Information Systems.” CJ 225 Breyer State University. 19 Feb 2009
http://www.breyerstate.com/cj225.html
(Moran)
Throughout my participation in CPSC321 I have learned an abundance of new information. The class topics have brought volumes of innovative technology to my attention. Much of this technology has been in the field for years, but as a student I was never taught to deal with it ethically; I simply learned the basics of it. Through the class discussions, I gained amazing perspectives on all different kinds of ethical works. These ethical works include Kant’s Theories, Rule Utilitarian Theories, and Social Contract Theories; all of these are fantastic, but unfortunately for a paper of this magnitude they do not cover the full ethical spectrum I wish to tackle (Quinn 300). To better round out my ethical spectrum I am adding Nietzsche’s Master/Slave Theories to my repertoire of ethics. (This part is for those not familiar with Nietzsche’s ethical theories) Nietzsche, who called himself an “immoralist”, posed vital theories to how the human mind works and nature in general. Nietzsche did not differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ but rather between ‘life affirming’ and ‘life denying’; thus creating an ethical outline for the most primitive line of thought: survival. Nietzsche called these moral survival tactics Master ethics, Nietzsche believed the alpha dog would rise to the top, no matter the circumstance, by executing his/her own version of Master ethics (“Friedrich Nietzsche”). As a result of Master ethics, Nietzsche saw Slave ethics naturally develop, where the mass majority of oppressed people developed systems where they were all equals, such as Communism or Kantianism. Because Slave ethics are better summed up using stronger theories such as Kantianism, (Nietzsche considered these to be weak and even went as far to call them a social illness) I shall only deal with Nietzsche’s Master theories (“Friedrich Nietzsche”). These four ethical guidelines shall be the crux of my evaluation of viruses and even deeper topics.
Ethics for the Information Age thoroughly educated me on viruses and worms, both their history and use today. After reading the recent chapter on spam, I got interested in spam viruses (commonly called Botnets), and how terminals get hacked to send spam (Quinn 300). My curious nature led me down a twisted path of viruses and botnets; things that can slip into a computer and use it to send spam continually. In my search, I learned of an extremely dangerous botnet named The Kraken Botnet. This specific botnet attacked large systems of companies affiliated with the fortune 500, and used their massive servers and computing power to generate millions of spam e-mails a day. The Kraken Botnet was sly, and avoided most all types of virus and adware detection; it became a huge processing problem, and a satanic breeder of spam ads (Fisher). Eventually smart and dedicated programmers from TippingPoint DVL (Digital Vaccine Laboratories) learned how to find and eradicate The Kraken Botnet. The only problem now was tracking it down. As The Kraken leaped from network to network, an idea surfaced that they should simply create a virus (that infected systems exactly like the Kraken did) to hunt down The Kraken Botnet, and remove it instead of taking malicious actions (Sterling). This idea sparked a huge ethical debate over creating a virus to hunt down another virus, called a ‘good worm’. TippingPoint’s final decision was to not release the good worm, as they deemed it morally wrong, but rather give extensive source code about both The Kraken Botnet and their good worm (Amini). This code makes both the virus and the good worm easily repeatable and essentially takes the power out of the hands of TippingPoint DVL, and gives it to the online community (Pierce). The concepts of viruses and good worms will be intensely ethically scrutinized in my following dissertation.
Ethical Analysis of Viruses
In the vast world of the internet, there are thousands of different kinds of viruses. Computer viruses work by slipping into your system and exploiting bugs in the operating system. The average virus is small and is triggered only by certain events, such as the date or running a certain program (Quinn 300). Other viruses, such as trojans or botnets, completely hi-jack the system; their intent is extremely malicious, and their processes tend to deal with key logging, password theft, or sending massive amounts of spam. Purposely The Kraken Botnet targeted extremely large networks, and spread from computer to computer searching for the command and control server. Once found, it moved the command and control function to another address so that it is tough to retake control. Then, The Kraken Botnet would use the entire network as an enormous spam factory (Fisher). Fortune 500 companies tend to have extremely extensive e-mailing lists along with massive servers, so they became the perfect target for The Kraken Botnet. To build to a later point, are viruses, specifically the Kraken, moral to create?
To properly analyze the creation of viruses with Kant’s Theories, one must look at the intent behind them. First of all, viruses can have endless uses or even purposes but the ideology behind them is using another person’s machine. The intent may not be malicious, but for the simple fact that creating a program that takes the control out of the user’s hand, breaks Kant’s second formulation by using people as a means to an end. To go even farther into the analysis, and discuss The Kraken Botnet, we see an absolute loss of control, not over just one machine but over an entire network. If this were to be universalized and put on every computer no one would have control over any network they owned; the internet would dissolve into useless robots sending each other spam. This breaks Kant’s first formulation, by proposing that globally everyone could create botnets and the system would stay intact. Through following Kantianism one can see how viruses are immoral, and ‘do not do the right thing’.
If one were to look at the creation of viruses through a Rule Utilitarian view, one must universalize the concept and then calculate the net happiness. If everyone were to create their own viruses, it would bring that individual immense joy. Unfortunately, as each individual sent out their virus their system would most likely be hit by everyone else’s viruses. So let’s do the math; for every virus you make, you get +1 happiness, while at the same time your machine gets hit with 6.7 billion other viruses, that is -6.7 billion happiness points. Adding up everyone’s net happiness, -6.7 billion points for you, added to everyone else’s -6.7 billion and we get a global -44.89 billion happiness points. These viruses are small, but with such a large number, I highly doubt any computer would even work. I don’t even have to upgrade this theory to The Kraken Botnet; a Rule Utilitarian can clearly see the creation of viruses is immoral.
If one would use Social Contract Theories to analyze the creation of viruses, we must see how the culture has reacted, and what has been accepted for their mutual benefit. Usually a virus is created by a resentful individual or a corporation attempting to subversively get their way. These viruses affect thousands and harm many, and as a result people have created networks of the hurt and those constantly fighting viruses. Sometimes these groups get so large they decide to become actual organizations and turn profit off helping others, while several others stay free purely to help people keep their computers virus free. It would seem that a close knit society has sprung up around virus removal and computer cleaning. I am sure that these societies would condemn virus creators. On a side note, I sometimes wonder if it may be these profiting anti-virus organizations creating the viruses themselves, to keep their line of work active. They would be considered the organized crime of internet world. I am quite certain though that the majority of the internet society denounces the creation of viruses. If one would ask this internet society what they think of botnets, I am also certain the response would be unanimous. These people work hard to get normal viruses off their computers and the greater the challenge the more it brings them together. Some understand that they are fighting an uphill battle and instead take a different approach with the spam mail. Trend Micro goes as far as creating a black list of spam mailers, effectively helping the rest of the internet society from receiving spam mail (Quinn 300). According to Social Contract Theories and the precedent set by the online communities, one would have to conclude that the creation of viruses is immoral, especially the creation of botnets, which do even more harm.
If one were to analyze the creation of viruses, specifically The Kraken Botnet, using Nietzsche’s Master Ethics one must ask, “Is it essential to the survival of the creator?” If we were to look at viruses in general, most are made with little to no purpose and just thrown out at the general public. The average virus is merely an annoyance, and does nothing productive. Following Nietzsche’s Theories these have nothing to do with survival and are merely a plague on the internet. Now if one were to apply Nietzsche’s Theory to The Kraken Botnet the insights are astounding. In America, the CAN SPAM act of 2003 effectively made mass spam mail illegal. So if your business was to send out spam ads, and earn your living that way, you could now be tried in a court of law by doing this from a traceable computer. The majority of spammers simply pay others to have them send the spam for them, and also have them take the legal heat (Quinn 300). Botnets on the other hand use viruses to take control of other people’s computers without paying them. This allows the spammer to continue making money, and place the negative consequences on a weaker individual, something that Nietzsche would certainly agree with. Now if one applies that notion to The Kraken Botnet, we can see the alpha dog truly emerge from the pack. Here is a botnet that not only hides among and manipulates a massive amount of corporate computers, but also uses their extensive e-mail lists to capitalize on their pre-setup mailing record. If the CAN SPAM act tried to eradicate mass spamming, this botnet not only survived but made a fortune doing so. From the vantage point of Nietzsche’s Master Ethics the Kraken Botnet is the righteous ruler of the spam world, and has morally done what it must to survive.
After ethically analyzing viruses from several different perspectives, it should be clear that creating a virus is an immoral activity. Viruses tend to be out of control, and can cause irreparable damage, even if that was not the intent when it was created. Most viruses are immoral because of their subversive techniques that they use to spread from computer to computer. They trick the user into downloading them, and then often run processes when the CPU is idle or the user is away (Quinn 300). Botnets are even more immoral, as they exploit weaker peoples into generating money for their creator. Not only do botnets steal all control from their host, but they also bug thousands of others with annoying spam mail. Unfortunately viruses are here to stay, thus is the sacrifice for having such an open, amazing system. When people are given full control, some take it away from others, which according to Nietzsche is the natural way of things. A virus can be a powerful weapon, giving the creator the ability to destroy and tamper with someone else system. Not all viruses are necessarily immoral, as there are always exceptions to everything. A subjective relativist could likely find a moral use for even the most immorally based object. Viruses should be made with extreme care, and certainly ethically analyzed before released!
Ethical Analysis of Good Worms
When The Kraken Botnet first arrived on the scene, it dominated the corporate world using innovative techniques to locate and seize the command and control process of the server. It has been reported that a single infected computer could output up to 500,000 spam messages a day. It was tough to locate and some companies could not even tell they had been infected (Fisher). In early 2008, two members from TippingPoint DVL successfully reverse engineered The Kraken Botnet, and set up a proxy server so that millions of infected computers started coming to them looking for instructions on what to spam (Amini). They successfully knew how to disable The Kraken Botnet, and had a great lead on where to start as well. About 25,000 computers started reporting to their server, and they held the window wide open staring into a room of infected computers (Sterling). Their master plan was to release a virus they had created into that room of infected computers; that virus would destroy all The Krakens Botnets while following their paths and taking them to other infected servers. TippingPoint’s virus would be a virus that sought out other viruses and fixed machines rather than harm them. This revolutionary concept of a good worm sparked a huge ethical debate within TippingPoint DVL (Sterling). Eventually, TippingPoint’s boss Dave Endler decided not to have this burden on his company’s shoulders, and gave the order to not release the good worm. TippingPoint opened the topic to their peers and readers in an online blog, and allowed others to contribute their input on the subject. After much heated debate, they decided it was not a corporation’s job to create a good worm, as they could be held just as legally accountable as if they had created a virus (Amini). Instead they posted a good majority of the source code for both the Kraken Botnet and their own specially crafted good worm on their blog. The blog offers all the key concepts in assembler on how to either disable The Kraken, or create something exactly like it; the only catch being that only good programmers could use this knowledge. Their intent was to have anonymous programmers create their own good worms and cleanse the internet scene using the same tactics as virus creators (Pierce). The hotly debated question still remains unanswered though, are good worms moral to create?
To analyze this question from a Kantian perspective, one must determine the intent behind a good worm. A good worm’s sole purpose for existing is to eradicate the virus it is seeking out, but it has also has hidden motives. For a good worm to find the virus it is seeking, it must infect computers as unrelentingly as a normal virus. This creates thousands of mid-way computers that are used as bridges for this good worm to find its target virus. While a good worm has good intent and plans on helping all those infected computers that it reaches, it takes up space and control away from all of those bridge computers. One could argue that a good worm’s heart is in the right place, but that it uses too many computers as means to an end along the way. Kant would most likely argue that any kind of virus or worm, regardless of the intent, is immoral due to the subversive tactics that it uses to travel.
If one decided to analyze the creation of a good worm via Rule Utilitarian Theories, then one must generalize their creation and weigh the net benefit they could produce. Imagine if good worms were as popular as viruses. The internet would be full of nasty bugs and viruses but also with good worms to counterbalance them. The system would much more closely represent the human body. You could easily catch a disease and get very ill, but after awhile you would most likely get better when a good worm fought off your virus. This dreamy concept would likely bring the virus front to a competitive standstill. Why invent new viruses if someone will just invent a new good worm for it? A major benefit to this system is that you would be even harder to re-infect if that good worm stayed in your system, it would be like an immunity to any virus you have caught before. Therefore if I were to weigh the overall net happiness of this proposal, I think the initial effect would cancel out most viruses’ growth rate, and an extremely positive side effect would be a type of virus immunization. I think that with a Rule Utilitarian approach good worms are defiantly moral to produce.
When analyzing the creation of good worms with Social Contract Theories one must look to the current state of the internet and search for precedent. When analyzing normal viruses using Social Contract Theories I previously determined their creation immoral. Still, that doesn’t stop viruses from being created, nor does it stop botnets from hi-jacking people’s mail servers. I have always liked the saying, “To catch a criminal, you must be able to think like one”. This is a motto commonly used by police forces, and practiced in the form of sting operations, where a police officer pretends to buy drugs to someone who they know is selling them (Moran). If the use and spread of viruses has been unstoppable up to now, then why not create good worms to hunt them down? They will use the same tactics as the viruses that have been circulating for years, but without the same malicious intent. The good worms will likely use your computer as a bridge to find viruses, if you are clean, but that small storage space is well worth the sacrifice if it means collectively helping the rest of the online society. From a Social Contract perspective, programmers seem to have accepted viruses long ago, I think it is morally acceptable to create good worms as a counterbalance to viruses.
To properly analyze the creation of good worms with Nietzsche’s Master Theories, one must pose the question,”are they necessary for survival?” If you were to take the question at face value, the answer would be simple. No, good worms are not necessary; people have been keeping their computer’s safe for years. Good worms will only float around the web and take up personal space and computing power. It could easily cause a user who has never been compromised by a virus to be taken advantage of by these roaming programs. They simply drag down the masses of people who have been doing a very good job at keeping their computers clean. From a basic Nietzsche perspective, they are immoral and compromise an individual’s rights for those that he has no affiliation to. But if one were to look at the specific example of the Kraken Botnet, I think the answer may become less clear cut. A gigantic corporation that has had it’s server compromised can do very little against The Kraken Botnet. While they can follow the steps in TippingPoint’s blog, it will be extremely difficult to regain control of their command process and be able to flush the virus from every infected computer before it takes over their command process again. This costs time and money, and could be disastrous to both the company and their employees. If the company simply infected itself with it’s own good worm, it would be like administering a vaccine and could save the company lots of time and money. When dealing with a beast as big as The Kraken Botnet, giving yourself a good worm could be your best solution. It will also cause problems too, such as then having to remove the good worm from every company computer, but it may be the quickest way to get The Kraken out of your system. Examining good worms from a Nietzsche’s Master perspective tends to unclear, but the bottom line is this: If it will save your system, then do it fast! Otherwise stop wasting your time, and figure out a way to save your system!
After ethically analyzing good worms, it should be clear that they have more moral credentials than typical viruses. Good worms still use underhanded tactics in their method of spreading, and also steal control from the user. These key factors leave good worms in the same category as a virus. The good worm will never be completely morally justifiable because it was based off of a virus model, and undercuts the user’s knowledge of his system internals. But if the intent of a good worm is truly righteous than they have a likely-hood of doing more good than harm. Good worms have great potential for eradicating viruses, and could help keep the internet a safer place, but they require sacrifice. Good worms could be the average computer user’s saving grace in the future, as they could one day out populate the viruses on the web. I strongly believe that popularizing the idea of good worms and creating them with just means in mind, will result in greater net happiness among internet spectators. The creation of a good worm is the most important part! It must be critically and ethically analyzed repeatedly, for a bug in a good worm can quickly turn it into a virus. This is a vastly interesting and groundbreaking field for exploration, but be sure to bring ethical theories with you, as the basis of this work is cemented in viruses. Overall, I think good worms would be moral programs if they just let their users know what was going on.
Fin
As for my personal opinion, I strongly believe knowledge is power. To know how a virus works gives you the ability to either create it, or end it; that moral decision is left up to you.
Works Cited
Publisher Reviewed Works:
Quinn, Michael. Ethics for the Information Age. 3rd. Seattle: Pearson Education, 2009
(Quinn 300)
Sterling, Bruce. “They Pwned an Evil Botnet. Now What?” Wired 30/04/2008 19 Feb 2009
http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2008/04/they-pwned-an-e.html
(Sterling)
Peer Reviewed Works:
Fisher, Dennis. “Kraken botnet gathers 100,000 new members.” Search Security 08/04/2008 Feb 2009
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com.au/articles/24069--Kraken-botnet-gathers-1-new-members.
(Fisher)
Amini, Pedram. “Kraken Botnet Infiltration.” TippingPoint DVLabs 28/04/2008 19 Feb 2009
http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2008/04/28/kraken-botnet-infiltration.
(Amini)
Pierce, Cody. “Owning Kraken Zombies, a Detailed Dissection.” TippingPoint DVLabs 28/04/2008 Feb09
http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2008/04/28/owning-kraken-zombies.
(Pierce)
Other Works:
“Friedrich Nietzsche.” Wikipedia 19 Feb 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nierzsche.
(“Friedrich Nietzsche”)
Moran, John. “Criminal Justice Information Systems.” CJ 225 Breyer State University. 19 Feb 2009
http://www.breyerstate.com/cj225.html
(Moran)