“Vigilante” Malware Protects Routers Against Security Threats

It turns out that not all malware is bad. Do we need a new term for something like this?

“Wifatch’s code does not ship any payloads used for malicious activities, such as carrying out DDoS attacks, in fact all the hardcoded routines seem to have been implemented in order to harden compromised devices. We’ve been monitoring Wifatch’s peer-to-peer network for a number of months and have yet to observe any malicious actions being carried out through it.”

“It should also be pointed out that Wifatch contains a number of general-purpose back doors that can be used by the author to carry out potentially malicious actions. However, cryptographic signatures are verified upon the use of the back doors to verify that commands are indeed coming from the malware creator. This would reduce the risk of the peer-to-peer network being taken over by others.”

No, we don't need a new term for "vigilante" at all. All the same considerations apply. You don't want vigilante justice because gun nuts everywhere fantasize about being able to shoot everyone they view as bad guys. You don't want vigilante software because the writers will install backdoors everywhere to make sure they can fix things when (not if) the bad guys hack their vigilante code.

not really a new thing.

beck when the blaster worm was creating a havoc. another worm came right after it using the same exploit and once it infected a computer it would download the MS update to close the hole.

Not a bad idea technically but ethically there is some questions.

forgot to add this:

Even back in the DOS days they where certain viruses that would remove other some or more specific viruses from the system. But the removing virus had a bad payload so not really a god guy thing.

As I said in a previous thread, this reminds me of bacteriophage therapy (using a virus embedded in bacteria to treat a pathogenic bacterial infection), and I propose that instead of calling this malware, it be referred to as benware, as the opposite of malicious is benevolent.

Deadly Ramon said:

As I said in a previous thread, this reminds me of bacteriophage therapy (using a virus embedded in bacteria to treat a pathogenic bacterial infection), and I propose that instead of calling this malware, it be referred to as benware, as the opposite of malicious is benevolent.

Click to expand...

I propose instead "goodintentionsware".

evilsofa said:

I propose instead "goodintentionsware".

Click to expand...

Since mal can also allude to malignant, and a common antonym of malignant is benign, then the proposed term benware would still apply.

If it leaves a backdoor it's malignant. Having a backdoor that's strictly limited to the attacker is no better than having any other backdoor. You're still compromised.

B00nie said:

If it leaves a backdoor it's malignant. Having a backdoor that's strictly limited to the attacker is no better than having any other backdoor. You're still compromised.

Click to expand...

It is only an "attack" because it infects routers without the consent of their users, but it also improves their security and announces itself via messages to the users to strengthen their passwords and update their hardware's firmware. The article says people can rid their devices of Wifatch by simply resetting them. It seems to me more like a preventative inoculation against identity theft and data loss than a malignant code.