وبلاگ

This accusation seems strange to me. As I understand it, the government is saying that the sale of the malware — its distribution to third parties — was to cause damage to a computer. In fact, the government treats the sale of malware as a use of the malware to damage a computer. It is said that Hutchins and X conspired (made an agreement) to ship the program (distribute it to the buyer) with the intent to cause harm (possibly, albeit indirectly, when the buyer then used it to cause damage). Are you creating malware? Guilty within the meaning of the charge. I do this occasionally on behalf of my clients who want to know if their security is as strict as they think. It is, of course, a very specific software written with rigid limitations regarding the distribution and machines that the “malware” can affect in the first place, to ensure that no one is affected outside of it and of course without a malicious payload, but all the criteria for malware are met. Installation without user consent (but of course, the Mach for someone who claims to care about legal details such as jurisdiction, you seem exceptionally to ignore these details. This also happens in copyright law: DropBox is legal, Mega wasn`t. What`s the difference since both tools can be used to spread piracy? The argument is that mens rea was different. The indictment alleges that Hutchins created the malware and that an anonymous co-conspirator took over the sale. The indictment covers a number of different crimes: (1) conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; (2) three counts of violating 18 U.S.C.

2512, which prohibits the sale and advertising of listening devices; (3) wiretap costs; and (4) a charge of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act through complicit liability – essentially for aiding and abetting a crime of hacking. There`s also nothing wrong with selling poisoned candy to the strange neighbor on Halloween eve. Section 2512 is a rarely used law that criminalizes the manufacture, sale or advertising of illegal listening devices. However, it seems a bit strange to me that this thin line can be so narrow that simply copying a file can mean the difference between legally fine, What about openssl? OpenSSL can be used to encrypt command and control communications for malware. Criminals have found more and more ways to make money illegally with botnets. Law enforcement officials now often find that botnet creators and operators not only use botnets for their own illegal purposes, but sell or even rent access to infected computers to other criminals. Criminals who access botnets then use infected computers for a variety of crimes, including stealing personal or financial information, spreading spam, acting as proxies to conceal other crimes, or distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks on computers or networks. Think about it: your computer can be hacked by a criminal, and that criminal can stealthily rent access to your computer to another criminal. Americans suffer from widespread and pervasive intrusions into privacy and financial losses caused by these hackers.

Second, the government must prove that the agreement was intended to result from the damage to a computer. In an ordinary case of 1030(a)(5)(a), causality is simple. The person sends the malware and the malware damages the computer. Here, however, the government`s theory adds a mediator: the theory appears to be that Hutchins and X conspired, and the purpose of their collective activity was to cause harm, even if the actual act of damaging a computer (if that happened) was caused directly by the buyer using the malware, not by Hutchins and X. Yes, Everything can be used for evil. Encryption has legitimate uses. What about things that can *only* be used for evil? Is it a crime to create them? If not, is it a crime to distribute them to someone else for profit? If not, is it a crime to sell them? If not, is it a crime to use them? Selling these tools to someone else (such as an antivirus company) is also legal. The law states that you can`t hack a system without permission, not that you can`t own hacking tools. Or even Windows itself. Between Windows and Visual Studio, you have everything you need to write, distribute, and run malware. Second, how can we track those who sell stolen credit cards abroad? This count poses the same challenges as the first count.

The theory seems to be that selling a copy of malware is similar to using malware to damage a computer. But to achieve this, the government must demonstrate that Hutchins and X intended to compromise the availability or integrity of information on a computer, not just the intent to distribute the malware to a paying customer. The government must also prove that its act of spreading the malware was the proximate cause of the resulting damage, although it required the deliberate act of a third party to send the malware. unless you sell it to the Five Eyes, because the hypocrisy of our governments knows no bounds. Even the distribution could be verified, but for the sake of money, I think almost everyone would consider it illegal. Creating malware is not illegal. It is intact software. It would be like writing (in a notepad) how the malware works.

This is protected by freedom of expression. We can make demo software, we can make examples and hack our own systems. All of this is completely legal. Counts two, three, and four allege violations of 18 U.S.C. 2512. Section 2512 is a rarely used law that criminalizes the manufacture, sale or advertising of illegal listening devices. The basic idea is to prevent eavesdropping by interfering with the eavesdropping equipment market. If you can`t legally advertise, make, or sell listening devices, people who want to engage in illegal listening devices won`t have an easy way to find the illegal devices and won`t be as inclined to engage in listening. This raises an interesting legal question: is it a crime to create and sell malware? “manufactures, assembles, possesses or sells any electronic, mechanical or other device knowing or having reason to believe that the design of such equipment renders it primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of wireline, oral or electronic communications and that such equipment or any part thereof has been or will be sent by mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or “I don`t think there`s such a thing as `a tool that has only illegal uses,` unless you`re talking about something that`s illegal to own. A person may want malware: is he guilty if the locksmith he sells like a moonlight thief? If you do something that is usually legal, but you do it to help someone commit a crime, you are complicit.

For example, driving is legal. Driving a getaway car during a theft is not legal. Pointing to your driver`s license doesn`t help. If you sell software without notifying the customer that the software contains malware or an encrypter, you may be sued for product liability, invasion of privacy, fraud and misrepresentation, damage costs and possibly criminal liability. The assumption that the manufacturer knows the customer`s mind has no place in a legal environment. Count one charges Hutchins and the anonymous co-conspirator (whom I will call X) with conspiracy to rape 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)(A). Section 1030(a)(5)(a) is the Computer Damage Act. It penalizes sending a command or program that intentionally damages a computer without permission.

Notably, the indictment states that the conspiracy took place between Hutchins and X. Do the charges hold water? Just after an initial review of the case, I have the impression that the government`s theory on the case is quite aggressive. This will lead to significant legal challenges. It is difficult to say how these challenges will evolve. The charge is quite simple, and we do not have all the facts, or even what the government believes to be the facts. So while we cannot say that this accusation is clearly exaggerated, we can say that, in a way, the government is pushing the envelope and may not have the facts it needs to make its case. As always, we need to stay tuned. This is where things get complicated. If he builds the safe cracking device and sells it exclusively to licensed locksmiths, is he guilty if one of his devices is stolen and used to rob someone? If you have the skills to create malware, you have the skills to work as a Red Team/Blue Team security analyst and make a lot of money. However, this does not help in a Section 2512 case, at least when the government alone charges for creating, selling, and promoting computer code. And there is at least some authority that a computer program cannot itself be a “device” in a Section 2512 case. Bukh Law Firm, PLLC.

has represented clients in many high-profile computer crime cases and we can help you explore your options and strategically respond to allegations of computer crimes. Call today to get the legal help you need if you`ve been accused of spreading malware. Knife companies can claim that they sold the knife for legitimate legal purposes. Unfortunately, you don`t have that luxury. While incredibly tempting, I would sell something, knowing it`s likely to be used on innocent victims, not to mention the fact that my school just suffered an attack – I can`t imagine it would be too great if it appeared that I sold ransomware a few weeks later. First, the government must prove that Hutchins and X intended to damage a computer. That is, the purpose of their conspiracy was to compromise the availability or integrity of a program or data.