Microsoft v. Waledac

This is a site that all lawyers working in the area of computer security should be aware of and visit. It's a page which contains all the pleadings from Microsoft's current case against John Does 1-27 (aka the "Waledac" botnet). This page is important for two reasons. First, Microsoft's efforts against the botnet are on the cutting edge of legal efforts to shut down hacking operations, and so should be seen as examples of legal theories that can be used in that area. Second, it has some interesting (and probably useful) examples of rhetoric and explanations which can be used to sway a (presumably) technologically unsavvy judge to your side. For example, on pages 3-9 of the PDF of Microsoft's motion for a temporary restraining order against the botnet, there is a non-technical tutorial on what a botnet is, and how issuing the TRO would shut it down, complete with pictures. Similarly, in making the arguments in support of the TRO, Microsoft repeatedly seeks to establish the harm the botnet is causing by explaining how it harms Microsoft's customers. E.g.:

Once customers' computers are infected and become part of the botnet, they are unaware of that fact and may not have the technical resources to solve the problem, allowing their computers to be misused indefinitely. Thus, extrajudicial, technical attempts to remedy the problem alone are insufficient and the injury caused to customers continues.

While this might not be the most relevant argument legally (after all, one is generally not allowed to bring suit based on injuries to third parties) from an emotional standpoint, it almost certainly made the judge more likely to grant Microsoft's requested relief.*

In any case, there's too much there to succinctly summarize here. Further, there's no reason to want to read a summary. The information is valuable enough to be worth the time to read in the original.

*Yes, I am aware that harm to third parties can be used to establish that issuing an injunction is in the public interest. However, Microsoft invoked its customers' interests essentially everywhere, not only when arguing that the public interest would be served by granting a TRO.

Microsoft Disaster Response

Was I the only person who saw the headline A view from Microsoft's disaster central and immediately thought that the following article would be about Microsoft's efforts to contain the damage from the explorer weakness that was exploited in the Google hack?

Probably. I guess it's an occupational hazard that comes from being a lawyer who focuses on computer software.

And speaking of software, I wanted to mention that, in my hiatus from Ephemerallaw, I started up a new blog, Developer Diary, which is devoted to my ongoing programming efforts. I also set up a page, By Hand Games where you can download some of the games I've written.

Of course, the above has nothing to do with information security or data privacy. Then again, I'm not exclusively devoted to information security and data privacy, and I see no particular reason why Ephemerallaw should be either.

Will Microsoft be sued for the vulnerability used in the Google hack?

Quick answer: I don't know, but it's less likely than it might initially appear.

Earlier this month several sources, including Wired, reported that over 30 large companies, including Google and Adobe, had been victims of a sophisticated hack, which Microsoft admits was made possible by a weakness in Internet Explorer 6. Microsoft also admits that it learned of the flaw in September, and that it was holding back a patch so that it could be released in a cumulative update that was due out next month. Given the above, and the notoriously litigious nature of the American public, it would seem that Microsoft is almost guaranteed to be hit by a lawsuit seeking damages based on the failure to release the patch earlier. Certainly, when I read that Microsoft had learned about the flaw and withheld the patch, my first thought was that this was something that would keep their lawyers busy in court for months (if not years) to come.

However, the more I think about the situation, the less I think Microsoft is guaranteed to go to court. If this had happened 3-4 years ago, I'd expect Microsoft would already have been hit by a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of consumers who used IE6. However, since that time, courts have been pretty uniformly unreceptive to claims that consumers are damaged by increased risks caused by unauthorized access to data by third parties (e.g., here). A consumer wanting to sue Microsoft for vulnerabilities in IE6 would be even less likely to succeed, since (unlike the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the security breach cases) the hypothetical consumer suing Microsoft wouldn't even be able to show that an unauthorized third party had accessed their system, only that they were at an increased risk of such access due to using IE6. Looking at that history, the chances of a consumer class action against Microsoft seem pretty slim.*

So, consumers aren't likely to sue Microsoft, what about the businesses who were victimized because of the flaw? While they'd have an easier time proving damages (after all, it is known that they were hacked, and at least some of what the hackers did), there are also forces which could prevent them from going to court. For one thing, most businesses try and work things out before involving the judiciary. In this case, I assume that Google, Adobe, et al have contacted Microsoft about helping them clean up the damage. Microsoft has a significant interested in trying to make sure those out of court efforts are successful, since a drawn out court battle could only hurt Microsoft's brand in the already competitive browser market. Similarly, the companies that have been hacked would probably like to avoid going to court as well, since any lawsuit would invariably have the effect of calling their own security into question, even if they could convince the public that the reason their systems weren't secure is because they were using unsafe products, rather than that their own internal practices were deficient.

Of course, strong incentives to avoid a court battle don't necessarily mean there won't be one. If the damage caused by the hackers is too expensive, Microsoft might be willing to fight not to pay it, and the injured company might be willing to fight to get paid. At this point it's impossible to say how likely that is to play out. However, I think, given the incentives on all sides to avoid it, the likelihood of a lawsuit against Microsoft on this is much lower than it would initially appear.

*Obviously, the chances aren't zero. If there was going to be a suit against Microsoft, I would expect it in a state which has allowed suits for increased risk of health problems as a result of a chemical spill. The analogy isn't perfect, but it does make it somewhat easier to prove damages.

A view from the dark side

Via Bruce Schneier, we have a fascinating interview with an adware author. From a technical perspective, it's fascinating - he gives a programmer's eye view of the various mechanisms he used to make sure his adware couldn't be uninstalled or stopped. From a privacy standpoint it's disturbing. When asked the question of whether people had any security or privacy at all, his answer was (essentially) no, but it doesn't matter because most people aren't criminals so you're probably ok.

From a legal standpoint, it had two interesting takeaways. First: End User License Agreements are trouble. The interviewee's opinion was that people don't read EULAs, so you can put anything in them, including agreements by the user that the adware company can install whatever software they want on the user's computer. In the coming years, I would expect to see some limits placed on this (e.g., by the FTC under its authority to police unfair or deceptive trade practices). Second, the legal system can work to curb bad practices, but only once the bad practices are known. The company the interviewee worked for, Direct Revenue, was sued by Elliot Spitzer. The problem is, the suit only happened after the company made the poor business decision to start branding their adware. If they hadn't done that, it's anyone's guess as to whether they even would have shown up on the (now disgraced) attorney general's radar screen.

Also, one final takeaway from the interview: if you want to reduce your susceptibility to adware (or various forms of viruses or other malware) switch off Microsoft products. The interviewee was openly contemptuous of Microsoft products. The money quote: "If you’re using IE [Internet Explorer], then either you don’t care or you don’t know about all the vulnerabilities that IE has." I'm not sure I agree with him, but it's interesting to see how an insider views the world at large.