Microsoft Leads Disruption of Largest Infected Global PC Network

[Left Coast2020]

Source: MSNBC/Reuters

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp said on Thursday it had disrupted the largest network of compromised personal computers, involving some 2 million machines around the world, since it stepped up its battle against organized online criminals three years ago.

The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant filed a lawsuit in Texas and won a judge's order directing Internet service providers to block all traffic to 18 Internet addresses that were used to direct fraudulent activity to the infected machines.

Law enforcement in many European countries served warrants at the same time, seizing servers expected to contain more evidence about the leaders of the ZeroAccess crime ring, which was devoted to "click fraud."

Such rings use networks of captive machines, known as botnets, in complicated schemes that force them to click on ads without the computer owners' knowledge. The schemes cheat advertisers on search engines including Microsoft's Bing by making them pay for interactions that have no chance of leading to a sale. Microsoft said the botnet had been costing advertisers on Bing, Google Inc and Yahoo Inc an estimated $2.7 million monthly



Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/microsoft-leads-disruption-largest-infected-global-pc-network-2D11702827

---

I'm thinking of a group that sends out fake job offerings involving re-packing merchendice on stolen credit cards--which is in Russia--but this was software related stuff. Someone I know fell for it. Oh well, live and learn.

[Demeter]

1. Computer geeks, heal thyselves

It is a start. Maybe there will be a soul of a new machine operator, to go with that new machine.

[silverweb]

2. Somebody please explain this to me.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Why would a criminal network be interested in making people's computer bots click on ads?

Yes, it's costing advertisers millions, but what's in it for the perpetrators? It doesn't make any sense to me.

[MADem]

3. I would guess it makes the advertisers believe that real people are clicking on an ad

at the PERPETRATORs' websites? Then the advertisers would pay the site owners based on those fake clicks...?

DU makes money from hosting ads--I'm guessing that's the hook.

[silverweb]

5. Okay.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]A pretty risky proposition, considering that it's bound to come back to the site owners. Not real bright, in fact.

[cosmicone]

7. It is quite brilliant and would not have been detected

in an honor system that click-counting was if not abused.

Eventually, as the data was sorted by IP addresses, they found some IPs were responsible for 10,000+ clicks a month which an average user will never do. When they got hold of one of those machines, it was easy to a) find the infection, b) locate other machines with the same infection and c) the perpetrators whose websites were getting the revenue from all the clicks.

[Plucketeer]

4. I believe the clicks are credited

to the perpetrators, so they get paid for "clicks" they effected on the millions of machines (computers) they'd infiltrated.

[silverweb]

6. Okay, I see.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Not terribly foolproof, though, is it? lol