Some thoughts about maliciousness of joke malware, educational malware and other "gray" areas. (thread)
Malware is any program that does harm to a system or user.
Harm or damage is not limited to things you can count as monetary loss. It can also be sleepless nights, feeling anxious or frightented, having personal data leaked that might or might not be used to harm you later.
Harm or damage is not limited to things you can count as monetary loss. It can also be sleepless nights, feeling anxious or frightented, having personal data leaked that might or might not be used to harm you later.
Threats harm users. Empty threats also harm users, people don't know whether it is empty.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…
Just because someone is not as capable as you to distinguish between real and empty threats, it doesn't suddenly make it ok to hurt them. Non-tech savvyy people have to be thought of. Children have to be thought of.
helpnetsecurity.com/2015/01/26/pol…
helpnetsecurity.com/2015/01/26/pol…
The mere fact that a program has funny pictures, memes and jokes, doesn't make it clean. Nor does improper writing.
There are gray areas, e.g., a remote access tool can be malware or clean depending on how it operates, e.g., whether it has functions to hide from a user, to make abuse more difficult, or to circumvent AV software. Generally you weigh up benefits and drawbacks for the user.
Good example: FlawedAmmyy vs Ammyy Admin
Same code, mostly, but one is malware and one is clean. proofpoint.com/us/threat-insi…
Same code, mostly, but one is malware and one is clean. proofpoint.com/us/threat-insi…
A prank program that has no other use than annoying people, has nothing on the benefit side for the receiving end. That makes the decision easy.
The intent of the author doesn't count when deciding whether a sample is malware or not.
1. We simply don't know the intent in most cases.
2. Your "good intent" still doesn't free you from your responsibility to not harm anyone.
1. We simply don't know the intent in most cases.
2. Your "good intent" still doesn't free you from your responsibility to not harm anyone.
Best example is Morris' worm which was written to "gauge the size of the Internet" and became harmful by mistake. Morris was convicted.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_wo…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_wo…
On the same note: A disclaimer that "proves" your good intentions and tells users not to abuse your code/tool doesn't make your malware suddenly less harmful.
gdatasoftware.com/blog/2016/11/2…
gdatasoftware.com/blog/2016/11/2…
A badly written malware isn't suddenly clean because you can repair the damage easily or circumvent it.
E.g., a screenlocker you can kill via task manager is still malware.
Non tech savyy users aren't able to do that.
E.g., a screenlocker you can kill via task manager is still malware.
Non tech savyy users aren't able to do that.
