4 ms·

Let's consider both the DDOS botnet (most would consider "bad") and a program that contributes CPU cycles to Folding@Home (most would consider "good"). If it wa

by lowboy 14y ago

Let's consider both the DDOS botnet (most would consider "bad") and a program that contributes CPU cycles to Folding@Home (most would consider "good"). If it was buried in the TOU and we don't have a reasonable expectation that the user was aware of it, then it's malware, in both cases, plain and simple. What's absent from this is the intended target because it doesn't matter - a program was duplicitous and installed programs that the user wasn't aware of.

jbigelow76 14y ago
I'm trying to take duplicity out of it. I'm more interested in the "willingly" part, which I probably articulated a little more clearly when I edited my initial response to kevinpet with a similar question. Your example about unwittingly installing Folding@Home is an interesting counter point and figures into where I was going. By willingly I was implying an unscrupulous person installed a program which they knew to be detrimental to a 3rd party in order to utilize some functionality would still be considered "malware"; despite others having the view that if a user, with complete knowledge of all aspects of the software, installs it it cannot be "malware". You state that the intended target doesn't matter, which I disagree with. Which seems to leave us at agreeing to disagree. Everybody has their opinion on advertising and its boundaries (or lack thereof) and value (or lack thereof), like I said in one of my first replies, I've never seen anybody change sides on this ;)
- lowboy 14y ago
  If an unscrupulous person were to install and knowing use a malicious program for personal gain, that might make the program malicious or unethical, but it doesn't make it malware by (what I believe to be) the common definition of malware. Take the example of a script kiddie who wants to hack his neighbour's wifi and downloads a program that does that but also prominently notes that your computer will become part of a spam botnet to support development of the utility. Is it malicious and unethical? You bet. But not everything malicious is malware. I think most people are arguing with you about your terminology. You decry Mega's plan as immoral, and you can say that it uses similar techniques as other malware programs, but that doesn't mean that it is malware. On the deeper ethical issues, we'll leave that at agree to disagree.

by lowboy 14y ago

jbigelow76 14y ago

I'm trying to take duplicity out of it. I'm more interested in the "willingly" part, which I probably articulated a little more clearly when I edited my initial response to kevinpet with a similar question. Your example about unwittingly installing Folding@Home is an interesting counter point and figures into where I was going. By willingly I was implying an unscrupulous person installed a program which they knew to be detrimental to a 3rd party in order to utilize some functionality would still be considered "malware"; despite others having the view that if a user, with complete knowledge of all aspects of the software, installs it it cannot be "malware". You state that the intended target doesn't matter, which I disagree with. Which seems to leave us at agreeing to disagree. Everybody has their opinion on advertising and its boundaries (or lack thereof) and value (or lack thereof), like I said in one of my first replies, I've never seen anybody change sides on this ;)

lowboy 14y ago
If an unscrupulous person were to install and knowing use a malicious program for personal gain, that might make the program malicious or unethical, but it doesn't make it malware by (what I believe to be) the common definition of malware. Take the example of a script kiddie who wants to hack his neighbour's wifi and downloads a program that does that but also prominently notes that your computer will become part of a spam botnet to support development of the utility. Is it malicious and unethical? You bet. But not everything malicious is malware. I think most people are arguing with you about your terminology. You decry Mega's plan as immoral, and you can say that it uses similar techniques as other malware programs, but that doesn't mean that it is malware. On the deeper ethical issues, we'll leave that at agree to disagree.