Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Security News

FTC Files Spyware Case Against Sanford Wallace 170

Posted by michael from the straight-and-narrow dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Legendary reformed spammer Sanford Wallace is apparently back in business, under suspicion by the Feds for advertising a trojan spyware removal tool. Wallace 'admit[s] no wrongdoing', but in the next breath says 'The FTC is trying to enforce a law that hasn't even passed', referring to the proposed anti-spyware legislation currently in Congress."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTC Files Spyware Case Against Sanford Wallace More

FTC Files Spyware Case Against Sanford Wallace

Comments Filter:

  • oh please... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 )
    That's like being pulled over by a cop for speeding, claiming you weren't, then pointing out that the cop wasn't even supposed to be there, since he was off duty...

    • Re:oh please... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      no .. more like being pulled over by a cop for doing 60 in a 60 zone when the speed limit is going to change to 40 tomorrow ...

      • Re:oh please... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cob666 ( 656740 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:18AM (#10469852)
        no .. more like being pulled over by a cop for doing 60 in a 60 zone when the speed limit is going to change to 40 tomorrow ...

        Not entirely correct. There is NOTHING wrong with going 60 in a 60 zone, regardless of when the speed limit is going to change. However, EVERYBODY knows that there is something wrong with installing software that interferes with the way your browser functions without telling the user what is being installed. And THEN, getting them to pay $30 to uninstall the software.

      • Re:oh please... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        No. It is like being stopped for reckless driving when there is no speed limit sign posted.

        It would seem that Wallace is guilty of fraud when his spyware removal tool is itself spyware.
      • No, because fraud is fraud if there is a law specifically mentioning the scheme or not. Just because I have not made your rope-a-dop illigal, doesn't make you legal.
      • No, it's more like going the wrong way down a one way street while doing 60 in a 60 zone when the speed limit is going to change to 40 tomorrow.

        Just because you weren't speeding doesn't mean that you weren't breaking the law.

    • Re:oh please... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nos. ( 179609 ) <andrew@nOSPAm.thekerrs.ca> on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:08AM (#10469730) Homepage
      Huh? Advertising a program that is supposed to protect/remove spyware but acts as spyware or a trojan does not at all compare to being pulled over by a cop.
      This guy is guilty of fraud.

      • Re:oh please... (Score:2, Informative)

        by legirons ( 809082 )
        "Huh? Advertising a program that is supposed to protect/remove spyware but acts as spyware or a trojan does not at all compare to being pulled over by a cop."

        It's hopeless. They'll always moderate-up daft analogies. It's part of the culture.

    • Re:oh please... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pbranes ( 565105 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:09AM (#10469750)
      This guy apparently did some real, physical harm to someone. I know this shouldn't be funny, but it is. Nevertheless, the guy should have his computer act the same way he makes other people's computers act. This quote is from one of the pages linked in the story.

      "J" (who in his anger may have been under the mistaken impression that I'm associated with Spy Wiper) intends to sue Spy Wiper. He says that when Spy Wiper opened his CD-ROM drive, it popped his infant in the eye. The infant had to be taken to the emergency room.

      • I've had some non-technical friends of mine get real freaked out when they had this advertisement (or a similar one that does the same thing) open their CD-ROM. They were not happy about it. It is real disturbing to the non-geek population when someone appears to have owned their comp. My personal recomendation is to take this guy out in back of the court house and give him two in the heart and one in the head.

    • No, its not the same (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nurb432 ( 527695 )
      If he is correct that the law has not been passed, its more like the cop that stopped you for speeding has not taken his finals yet and is still in training..

      It may be sleazy, but he is correct that if its not against the law yet.. there is little grounds to harass him on that factor..

      Now, on day one of the law being passed, they should pounce..
      • There are general consumer laws of deceptive and unfair practices. What he did is like a protection racket -- a few guys walk into a restraunt and ask for protection money to keep people like them from breaking up their restraunt.

        Under California law, Penal Code 502 prevents his from installing unauthorized software.

        Remember the guy in Georgia who installed SETI or some other software like that on the University Systems getting charged for doing that since he had no authorization?

        The FTC has the power t

      • Re:No, its not the same (Score:4, Informative)

        by Armchair Dissident ( 557503 ) * on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:48AM (#10470181)
        According to the Yahoo article, he's not actually being sued under the anti-spyware law. It looks like he's being sued under computer misuse legislation:

        The FTC alleges the defendants have unfairly: changed consumers' Web browsers, installed advertising and other software programs, and compelled purchase of anti-spyware software.

        It looks like its the compulsion he's placed on his customers to buy his products because of his own tampering with their machines that's getting him landed in trouble. (IANAL, etc etc).
      • It may be sleazy, but he is correct that if its not against the law yet.. there is little grounds to harass him on that factor.. Spamford claims that he didn't do anything illegal, and based on his sterling reputation, you take him at his word? Pay attention - he's a sleazebag, and sleazebags aren't known for telling the truth.

        According to the complaint "Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" is where he is afoul of t

    • That's like being pulled over by a cop for speeding, claiming you weren't, then pointing out that the cop wasn't even supposed to be there, since he was off duty...

      Actually, no, if the law hasn't been passed yet then it's not like being stopped by a cop who's off duty. It's more like a city council trying to get the speed limit on the main road lowered from 45 to 35, and having a cop give you a ticket for going 45 even before the proposal goes through.

      Certainly we can debate about the morality of what h

      • Re:oh please... (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        No no no, it's more like speeding at 100 in a 70 mph zone, and getting pulled over by a really big policeman who ties you up in red tape and then spanks you with a really big paddle held by lawyers. Then you say, I don't really mind, because I like to get spanked. However, not by lawyers, but by old ladys. With white hair.

        Please, stop with the rediculous analogies.
    • That's like being pulled over by a cop for speeding, claiming you weren't,

      No, it's more like driving dangerously, running over someone's dog, and then complaining that you were doing 55 in a 60 zone that you know is getting a 'School Zone' designation tomorrow.

      The charge is dangerous driving, not speeding -- and if you do The same thing tomorrow the cops will have a choice of which law to charge you under.

      • That's like being pulled over by a cop for speeding, claiming you weren't, then pointing out that the cop wasn't even supposed to be there, since he was off duty...

      No, you should RTFA, it's more like being pulled over for doing 60mph in a 30mph zone, while smoking a joint and drinking booze, getting nailed for speeding, drug posession, DUI and thrown in jail but then claiming the speed limit was going to change in 2006 to 60mph when they finished the new four lane highway so you shouldn't have been pul

  • Wallace 'admit[s] no wrongdoing', but in the next breath says 'The FTC is trying to enforce a law that hasn't even passed'

    If you're selling spyware as anti-spyware, that's fraud, genius.

    Maybe he's hoping that the public will stand up for poor little him.

    • Re:We have perfectly good laws to prosecute him un (Score:5, Funny)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:13AM (#10469793)
      It's more like the mafia. You need protection from what we just did to you. Pay up *and* continue to suffer all at the same time.
    • The Internet Spyware Prevention Act would give the Justice Department $10 million to crack down on companies and others that secretly install spyware and those who attempt to dupe victims into releasing personal details and financial information in e-mail scams.

      What would you do with $10 Million. Could it be better used for education as these rulings wont cover EULAs nor the 600 North Korea Hackers [slashdot.org].

      In America, we would like to think all the world encompass the borders of the US, whereby we can extend
      • What would you do with $10 Million. Could it be better used for education as these rulings wont cover EULAs nor the 600 North Korea Hackers [slashdot.org].

        I'm always seeing these kind of suggestions. "Why are we spending money to do X when it could be spent on Y". Often the cost of X is a tiny fraction of the cost of Y.

        The federal education budget [whitehouse.gov] was $59.5 billion in 2003. Maybe $10 million fighting spyware (which imposes costs on the economy through crime and lost productivity) isn't such a bad deal.

    • Uh... Mr. Genius, he's not:

      "selling spyware as anti-spyware"

      What he's doing is installing basic run of the mill spyware that has ads for spyware removal software:

      The FTC said the companies secretly installed the software on computers, causing systems to be overwhelmed by pop-up advertisements, and then sending them alarming messages saying they needed to buy "Spy Wiper" or "Spy Deleter" for $30.
    • What about wire fraud? That has been used to close down a lot of scams that otherwise were not covered by specific Federal laws or juristiction. Is there anything that exempts the Internet from this law?

      I ask this as a serious question - I don't know whether or not the wire fraud law applies to the Internet.

    • If you're selling spyware as anti-spyware, that's fraud, genius.

      I don't think you understand what he's doing. He's infecting people with spyware that advertises his anti-spyware package. In other words, if you pay him, he'll fix the problem he created.

      Reminds me of a story in the Chicago Tribune about 10 years back detailing the arrest of some men who were caught walking around in an industrial area shooting out windows with slingshots. They worked for a glass company.

      Anyway, Wallace is always go

    • I have seen ads these past 2 weeks with "Your pc is infected with adaware by lavasoft" would you like to remove it, dialog boxes.

      I wonder if this guy is in charge of that. Good god.

  • Another article with more (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:06AM (#10469714)
    The Union Leader has more information [theunionleader.com]. The part about the bankruptcy tells much about Wallace's character.

  • Carpe diem (Score:5, Funny)

    by RangerRick98 ( 817838 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:07AM (#10469728) Journal
    Wallace 'admit[s] no wrongdoing', but in the next breath says 'The FTC is trying to enforce a law that hasn't even passed'
    Wallace then added, "I figured I'd better get this stuff out there while I had the chance."
  • Why hasn't someone Soprano'd this loser yet? You know these guys are never "reformed." I never bought it and this proves my skepticism. Spamford, I hope you die, you piece of waste.
    • It's kind of surprising that he hasn't at least been bitchslapped in public -- if not because of what he's done, simply for the publicity related to who he is.

      Killing may be going to far, but he's certainly a candidate for a blanket party or having his fingers double-jointed.

      [Obligatory disclaimer: I do not advocate doing harm to anyone. All comments are purely a matter of philosophical discussion and enlightenment.]

    • Re:Knock him off (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @11:09AM (#10470513)
      I'd favour the "Casino" approach to spammers. They can choose walk away without the money; or keep the money and have their fingers pounded into bloody mess.

  • What about... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    False Adverising... Fraud... there's surely something else he can be chared with.

  • Eek! (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Queen ( 56621 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:13AM (#10469790) Homepage
    This is so creepy - I dreamed last night (in between the alien invasion and the date with Bon Jovi) that I had let a friend of a friend check her email on my computer, and when I came back to it there were spyware, pr0n, and other assorted nasties covering the screen. Every time I deleted one, two more popped up in it's place. I had just dealt with this on my laptop in real life and this bitch fubar'd my new machine!

    Now this story shows up on /.

    Coincidence?

    FRY THE BASTARD!
    • I dreamed last night (in between the alien invasion and the date with Bon Jovi)

      What a nightmare! That part about the alien invasion sounds kinda scary too...
  • maybe those in the general public who have been apathetic to spammers and their activities will see that these just are people without ethics.

    spammers are criminals who will stop at nothing to try to make a buck.

    they prey upon the ignorance of the general public who gets a pc for home use, joke emails, and maybe for some simple pc games and companionship.

    this behavior must be punished more severely or else it will continue to grow.
      • spammers are criminals who will stop at nothing to try to make a buck.

      I think the links between spammers and viruses that are now pretty clear-cut have proven this beyond any shadow of a doubt for us already. Spamford's case just proves they're stupid too.

      • they prey upon the ignorance of the general public who gets a pc for home use, joke emails, and maybe for some simple pc games and companionship.

      Actually they do some of of that (social engineering) but you have to have trouble feeling sorry f

  • Anyone have Mr Wallace's address? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'd like to send him a 'few' letters expressing my opinion of his business model.

  • Another reason to use FireFox (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Emperor Shaddam IV ( 199709 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:20AM (#10469875) Journal
    Most spammers and spyware will go after the easy targets. PC's running IE as a browser, which is what most people, especially non-technical people will be using. So this is just another reason to use FireFox. FireFox will be safer until it becomes much more well used. Note that using Outlook is also dangerous.
    • Yeah, because FireFox has never been vulnerable to same stuff as IE like those jpg vulnerabilities.... What's that you say? It was? How about the Shell Exploit then? Also vulnerable? Well I guess any software requires careful use then.
      • There are a lot more security problems with IE than FireFox. IE has been out much longer and has a much more widely installed base. These guys have been writing stuff to exploit IE for years. FireFox will have its problems and exploits against FireFox will increase, as the Spyware/Script Kiddies start targeting it. But at this moment in the timeline, my friend, it pretty obvious that IE is much more dangerous to run in FireFox.

      • Re:Mod Parent Down, Re:Another reason to use FireF (Score:5, Informative)

        by psbrogna ( 611644 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:35AM (#10470037)
        Visit a reputable vulnerabilities website, www.cert.org for example, and compare the number of Mozilla vulnerabilities (2) to that of Internet Explorer (179). I'm sorry, you don't have a reply to that? I thought as much.

        Is there anything else the entire industry has accepted that you want to suggest is wrong?

        • Sure I do (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @11:13AM (#10470543)
          How popular is/was Internet Explorer? The largest resaon so much was found in IE was so much attention was given to IE since it is the largest browser by far, and was even larger in the past. Now, as Firefox is growing, it's being targeted. I've started seeing sties that try to send you a mozilla installer package if you are using Firefox, an ActiveX control if oyu are using IE.

          If you seriously think Firefox is bug free, well you are sticking your head in the sand. The question isn't if Friefox has exploitable bugs, it does, everything does, the question is when one is found, what happens? The OSS community argues that this is where the strength is, it'll be fixed in a big hurry, so consumers don't have to worry.

          Well the thing is, receant events are calling that in to doubt. Salshdot has reported on the two big security bugs in the last couple of months that sat unfixed for YEARS, basically until a big public stink was made about it. So it may be that in reality Firefox is LESS safe.

          I use it, since I like it better, but if you think that it has some magic OSS shield that protects you, think again.

          Also, the vast majority of spyware, including the spyware in the article, gets on through user stupidity, not exploits. This particular software is the popup/banner nature. It tells you to download it. Users do that, and then it's got them. Others provide some feature people want, like comet cursor, that then also spys on people. Still more just piggy back on top of other software, like the loads of shit that comes with Kazaa.

          • How popular is/was Internet Explorer? The largest resaon so much was found in IE was so much attention was given to IE since it is the largest browser by far, and was even larger in the past. Now, as Firefox is growing, it's being targeted. I've started seeing sties that try to send you a mozilla installer package if you are using Firefox, an ActiveX control if oyu are using IE.

            No, the largest reason is that, rather than fix their bugs, they rewrote the renderer and encrusted the browser with features.

          • They were theoretical bugs for years. Once someone actually developed a proof of concept exploit they were fixed.

            Another point is that the shell: exploit was only a bug in MS Windows. The short term response was to disable the shell: protocol (which they were able to do because of changes made in response to the original bug report; update pushed out the day after the proof of concept was published). The longer term response was to turn off OS passing by default. Previously, if a protocol was unknown t

          • Re:Sure I do (Score:3, Insightful)

            by schon ( 31600 )
            The largest resaon so much was found in IE was so much attention was given to IE since it is the largest browser by far

            Bullshit. If the number of exploits scaled by popularity, why are there more bugs for IIS than for Apache?

            Try again.
            • If you seriously think Firefox is bug free, well you are sticking your head in the sand. The question isn't if Friefox has exploitable bugs, it does, everything does, the question is when one is found, what happens? The OSS community argues that this is where the strength is, it'll be fixed in a big hurry, so consumers don't have to worry.

            This would be a good place to point out that the responses on /. are consistently "Firefox/Mozilla solves all your problems, switch now!" when a new IE exploit is ann

        • Umm I just looked at cert, the 2 bugs are for netscape and filed in 1997. They don't list mozilla project exploits.

          The CERT Coordination Center has received reports of a vulnerability in implementations of the Java Applet Security Manager. This vulnerability is present in the Netscape Navigator 2.0 Java implementation and in Release 1.0 of the Java Developer's Kit from Sun Microsystems, Inc. These implementations do not correctly implement the policy that an applet may connect only to the host from which

    • Most anti spyware remove applets are in ads from doubleclick.

      I have seen at least 2 the past week informing me that my computer was infected with adaware.

      I believe this guy is probably the author of the applet and YES ITS FRAUD!

      I hope lavasoft sues his ass too.

    • I just did a web survey form for the company I work for and part of the survey information it gather was the user agent string of the browser.

      I was quite suprised to see that various "helper" applications (that some classify as spyware) actually modify the user agent string to indicate to websites that they are installed.

      Choice favorites were:

      1. Alexa toolbar
      2. Hotbar
      3. Fun Web Products

  • I'm not on his side, but (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bsdbigot ( 186157 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:21AM (#10469883) Journal
    Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Really, I'm appalled when stories like this come up and the great majority of /. posters cry foul.

    The reality of the situation is, under the alleged crime(s) he committed, he has yet to be convicted. As such, he is entitled to be treated justly and without contempt, at least WRT the current situation.

    As for his claim that there's no wrong-doing on his part, while then saying that the law hasn't yet passed - this is not a contradiction, at all, as the /. submitter implies. Until those things are made illegal, they are still legal and thus not "wrong," in the eyes of the law. That does of course fall to the ground in situations where the "wrong-doing," was initiated/perpetuated through fraud or other illicit activities, but the action in question would still not be wrong because it is not proscribed.

    • Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

      Innocent until proven guilty is an ideal and a legal technicality, but its much less than that in reality. Although you are legally "innocent", if you do not post bail or bond or the judge determines that your crime does not warrent bail or bond, you stay in jail until you are proven guilty. Yes, that means that an innocent person is expected to stay in jail right beside the guilty and convicted people.

      Another thing that kills me is when the press say

    • Re:I'm not on his side, but (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tenebrious1 ( 530949 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:30AM (#10469978) Homepage
      Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Really, I'm appalled when stories like this come up and the great majority of /. posters cry foul.

      That's only in a court of law, and /. ain't no stinkin' court o' law.

      The reality of the situation is, under the alleged crime(s) he committed, he has yet to be convicted. As such, he is entitled to be treated justly and without contempt, at least WRT the current situation.

      In an enlightened world, perhaps. But in that enlightened world, we wouldn't have spammers and scumware writers in the first place. Just because the law presumes his innocence, does not mean that we the public can't have our own opinions.

      He's a witch, burn him!

    • He's entitled to a fair trial in a court of law, and I hope he gets that. However, my personal contempt for this person opperates independently of the US Legal system. Otherwise, it would be like saying, well, OJ was found innocent of murdering his wife, so you shouln't be worried if he's dating your daughter.
    • If i read it he says: Yes i did it. This is not illegal because the law still has to be passed.

      the ftc ask:
      -stop selling that.
      -stop the bloody script.
      -tell us how much you sold.

      Well i had this "buy spyware blocker" popup here in the neighbourhood. It seemed to be installad just by browsing. It gave popup when startin internet exploring.

      it installed
      {18FE630C-B441-5CC2-8356-63557BD77A19} WINNT\system32\bijntuvm.dll

      i also noted an other popup for http://www.jarservices.com/
      but it also showed popup that are
    • Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?
      Ummm... track record of criminal acts? Wallace still owes me over $600, unpaid invoices from his spamming days 10 years ago. Why should I think he's changed anything but his tactics?
    • Four points:

      1) This isn't a court of law, it's slashdot. We have no such requirements or protections.
      2) He's been found guilty of so many related crimes in the past that (outside of a court) he's pretty much already guilty of this one.
      3) He's admitted committing the act (although not admitted any wrongdoing).
      4) "Innocent until proven guilty" isn't an absolute, even in the US Supreme court. Take a look at your drug laws, which put the onus on the defendent to prove himself innocent.
      • Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Really, I'm appalled when stories like this come up and the great majority of /. posters cry foul.

      Simple, most people decide one way or the other well ahead of time anyway. How many people do you know that still think OJ's guilty even though he was found innocent by the court?

      Secondly this is Spamford Wallace we're talking about. Most of the people here have been around long enough to remember him, and he's not the type of person to get the benef

  • Extortion? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fractal Law ( 122229 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:27AM (#10469945)
    This seems a bit more like extortion to me as he's doing something obnoxious to somebody and then asking for money to stop.

    This may be the tactic that the FTC goes with in prosecuting.

  • Vigilante Justice (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Don Tobin ( 320926 )
    I for one will start cheering on these FTC Vigilantes if they start nailing spyware producers. Could care less if they don't get to people in Asia or outside the US Borders I just want to have someone hung under the presumption of guilt and spyware.

    Maybe I should see someone about that . . .
  • Spyblot blocked Avenue A,Inc and Doubleclick installs when viewing this article.

  • I'm not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:55AM (#10470304)
    There's a good article about fatass, er Wallace over on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

    In short:

    - Wallace use to junkfax until the junk fax law went into place.
    - Wallace formerly ran Cyber Promotions, the biggest spammer on the planet at the time, and specialized in things like relay repaying, false return addresses, and outright lying about his lists being "opt-in". It took a permanent injuction to get him to stop.
    - Now he's doing spyware and demanding money from people with infected computers.

    It's been said before and it's worth repeating again: Wallace has repeatedly shown little respect for other peoples' property and resources. He has no place in society. As far as I'm concerned, he should be locked up for the rest of his natural life.

    If I sound bitter, it's because I had to deal with Cyberpromo junk (and that from their rogue ISP, AGIS, if anyone remembers them!) back in the 90's and know exactly how incorrigible he is.

    And, be sure to fact-check ANYTHING that comes out of his mouth. I mean it.

    • Re:I'm not surprised (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @01:10PM (#10472251) Homepage
      You wouldn't by any chance happen to have any way of contacting Wallace would you? I'm sure many of us here at Slashdot would love the chance to call him or email him to find out about his "amazing" products, or just annoy the hell out of him, take your pick.

        • You wouldn't by any chance happen to have any way of contacting Wallace would you? I'm sure many of us here at Slashdot would love the chance to call him or email him to find out about his "amazing" products, or just annoy the hell out of him, take your pick.
        Personally I have about 10 years worth of AOL floppies/CDs/DVDs I'd really love to send him, I know how much he values a great deal.
      • You wouldn't by any chance happen to have any way of contacting Wallace would you?

        Fax 603-994-0153. I picked it up at one of Wallace's website. (His site has a funny "I'm just an innocent businessman!" rant on it right now.) http://www.passthison.com/ [passthison.com]

    • I most certainly remember Cyberpromo, Agis, and the rest of the early ilk. At the time I was rather inexperienced with the intricacies of email and thought I was being clever to create a filter to forward Cyberpromo's crap back to any email addresses I could find. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) it created a mail loop. The company I worked for had a T-1 line. It ended up filling up the T-1 line redirecting email back to Cyberpromo and knocked them off the net for a bit. They called my employer, th

  • $0.16 Cure for This: (Score:3, Informative)

    by rts008 ( 812749 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:56AM (#10470326) Journal
    TThat's what it costs me to reload .45ACP ammo, I'd be HAPPY to donate $0.48 for justice! ("Two in the chest, one to the head, and even the Jolly Green Giant will fall down dead" remebered THAT little ditty from boot camp...THANKS for the wisdom, Uncle Sam!)

  • Wallace's "former" partner is into spyware, too (Score:5, Informative)

    by BMcWilliams ( 621149 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @11:20AM (#10470652) Homepage
    The FTC lawsuit is against Seismic Productions, which used to be registered to Walt Rines, Wallace's old spamming partner. Rines currently distributes a Trojan horse program called Kazanon [kazanon.com] that (falsely) claims to make users of the Kazaa file-sharing program invisible to the authorities. When asked about the legality of Kazanon, Rines said [nhpr.org] "If there's a grey area, I'm all for taking the opportunity, from a marketing standpoint."
    • Gotta love this Kazanon...

      Here is a quote from the site.

      KAZANON makes you TOTALLY ANONYMOUS and INVISIBLE - NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW YOUR REAL IDENTITY, LOCATION, or IP ADDRESS.

      Now let's take a look at the EULA

      III -The user understands and agrees that the application may or may not render them anonymous, untraceable or invisible at any given time, and acknowledge and agree that Odysseus Marketing shall in no way be liable or responsible for any actions of the user, and agree to hold harmless Odysseus Ma

  • Proof? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08, 2004 @11:23AM (#10470698)

    First, let me stress that this should not be done in IE, or even on Windows. You have been warned.

    Second, check out http://www.freevegasclubs.com/. Specifically view source and look for the mp3 link that's hidden in comments. Download and hear Sanford's name. Note the irony when you read "Don't worry, we don't sell names to spammers!"

    Third, check out this link (again! don't do this on IE): http://www.freevegasclubs.com/serve.cgi?1 This was obtained by going to a hidden link that redirected to this. Don't ask me what the original URL was -- I don't have a record of it right now. I discovered it earlier this week when my Snort detector went off with a WSH exploit and I noticed some of my internal minions being trojaned.

    So what does that serve up? That would be his trojan code. A IE WSH exploit. It downloads and installs some files over FTP. If you go to the FTP site that's listed in the code, you can download all his stuff. Here's a breakdown:

    ./sanford/06wu29rd.exe: Trojan.Dropper.Small-8 FOUND
    ./sanford/449166.exe: OK
    ./sanford/CS4P028.exe: Trojan.Ruledor.E FOUND
    ./sanford/ClrSchP028.exe: Trojan.Ruledor.C FOUND
    ./sanford/IF01.exe: OK
    ./sanford/PlayBingoOnline.exe: OK
    ./sanford/SuiteInstall.exe: OK
    ./sanford/TVM_B5.EXE: OK
    ./sanford/WebSearchBU1.exe: OK
    ./sanford/ashlt.exe: OK
    ./sanford/biggie.exe: Trojan.Spy.WWWBar-1 FOUND
    ./sanford/bs5-nt15v.exe: OK
    ./sanford/calsdr.exe: Trojan.Downloader.Small.FF FOUND
    ./sanford/clickhype.exe: Trojan.Spy.WWWBar-1 FOUND
    ./sanford/dgi.exe: Trojan.Sectho-1 FOUND
    ./sanford/dp807615.exe: Trojan.Lalus.A FOUND
    ./sanford/istinstall_154074.exe: Trojan.Istbar-28 FOUND
    ./sanford/julie.exe: OK
    ./sanford/newdevin.exe: OK
    ./sanford/sd.exe: OK

    ----------- SCAN SUMMARY -----------
    Known viruses: 24229
    Scanned directories: 1
    Scanned files: 20
    Infected files: 9
    Data scanned: 1.98 MB
    I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes
    Time: 2.065 sec (0 m 2 s)

    I'm pretty sure the stuff that ClamAV doesn't catch are trojans and/or spyware. Just haven't had the chance to analyze and submit yet...

    Have fun, and don't get caught without proper protection.

  • ...that pigfucker should be burned at the stake:

    'Wallace dismisses consumers' anger over incessant pop-ups that gum up their computers. "Pop-ups have been around a long time. Just because they're an annoyance you shouldn't have to pay damages," he said.'

    A mere "annoyance"? Motherfucker, I've seen computers that were UNUSABLE because of popups. As far as I'm concerned, if you turn a $1,000 computer into an unusable paperweight, you very much *should* pay damages.

    Fuck. You.

  • Text of complaint (Score:4, Informative)

    by FienX ( 463880 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @12:33PM (#10471703)

    Just incase anyone cares:

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
    Plaintiff,

    v.

    SEISMIC ENTERTAINMENT
    PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
    SMARTBOT.NET, INC., and
    SANFORD WALLACE,
    Defendants.

    Civil No.

    COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION
    AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

    Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission"), for its Complaint alleges as follows:

    1. The Commission brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. 53(b), to obtain preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement and other equitable relief against the Defendants for their unfair acts or practices in connection with their marketing and their distribution of software programs to consumers in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a).

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 45(a), 52, and 53(b); and 28 U.S.C. 1331,1337(a) and 1345.

    3. Venue in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire is proper under 15 U.S.C. 53(b), as amended by the FTC Act Amendments of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-312, 108 Stat. 1691, and 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c).

    PLAINTIFF

    4. Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission, is an independent agency of the United States government created by statute. 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. The Commission enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The Commission is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings by its own attorneys to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and to secure such equitable relief as may be appropriate in each case, including restitution for injured consumers, consumer redress, and disgorgement. 15 U.S.C. 53(b).

    DEFENDANTS

    5. Defendant Seismic Entertainment Productions, Inc. ("Seismic") is a New Hampshire corporation with its principal place of business located at 11 Farmington Road, Rochester, New Hampshire 03867. Since at least December 2003, and continuing thereafter, Seismic has marketed various products, including purported "anti-spyware" software called "Spy Wiper" and "Spy Deleter," on behalf of others. Seismic advertises these products through "pop-up" advertisements displayed to consumers using various Internet web sites that it controls, including the web sites at www.default-homepage-network.com and downloads.default-homepage-network.com. Seismic also downloads to and installs on consumers' computers various advertising and other software programs, including Favoriteman, TrojanDownloader and Clearsearch. Seismic transacts or has transacted business in the District of New Hampshire.

    6. Defendant SmartBot.Net, Inc. ("SmartBot") is a Pennsylvania corporation with its corporate address at 3 Cobblestone Court, Richboro, Pennsylvania 18954, and its principal place of business at 495 Route 9, Barrington, New Hampshire 03825. Since at least December 2003, and continuing thereafter, SmartBot has marketed various products, including purported "anti-spyware" software called "Spy Wiper" and "Spy Deleter," on behalf of others. SmartBot advertises these products through popup advertisements displayed to consumers using various Internet web sites that it controls, including the web sites at www.passthison.com, object.passthison.com, and www.smartbotpro.net. In addition, the pop-up advertisements served by SmartBot also are displayed when a computer user visits various Internet web sites controlled by Seismic, including, but not limited to, www.default-homepage-network.com. SmartBot transacts or has transacted business in the District of New Hampshire.

    7. Defendant Sanford Wallace ("Wallace") is or has been President and owner of Defendants Se

  • Dangerous precedent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by starling ( 26204 ) <strayling20@gmail.com> on Friday October 08, 2004 @01:37PM (#10472594)
    The complaint against Wallace says he and his companies' practices "cause or have caused consumers' computers to malfunction, slow down, crash, or cease working properly, and cause or have caused consumers to lose data stored on their computers."

    Wouldn't just about every software vendor in the world be guilty of these charges?

    I'm not saying Wallace shouldn't be prosecuted, but they need to come up with something a bit more specific.

  • First junk faxing, then spamming (Score:3, Funny)

    by jhylkema ( 545853 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @02:27PM (#10473281)
    And now spyware.

    I can't be the only one who thinks the world would be a better place if "Spamford" Wallace's mommy knew about Roe v. Wade [tourolaw.edu].
  • ...but as I always do when spam stories come around, please let me pimp two of my favorite anti-spam projects. First is Unsolicited Commando [astrobastards.net]. It's a happy little Java app that spends its days filling out information forms on spamvertised sites with legitimate looking (yet completely bogus) personal information. Run it on your system and help make mortgage spams more useless and expensive! Secondly, let me point you towards a spam vampire [hillscapital.com] page. It's IE only for now, but the source is available and hopefully
  • No, really, he's addicted to this crap. It's like he enjoys getting people upset at him. Makes me wonder what the cause was though.
  • I wanted to see if the FTC charges were fair or not so I tried downloading his software to test it myself. I couldn't get very far because every time I ran his trojan spyware removal tool the first thing it did was remove itself.

    -
  • Rob Martinson is the owner of Mailwiper - software which claims to get rid of spam in your email box. He advertises it by sending spam. He also owns Spywiper, which is more the subject of this article. I'm surprised that he isn't mentioned in it. He had a lawyer send me, my webhost, and his upstream a "Cease and Desist" letter because I put up a web page when he refused to stop spamming me. The page is still up - I won't meakly comply with scum who don't want the truth told.

    Also not mentioned in the

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Close