Company Exec Charged in DOS Hack Attack on Korean Rating Board
Company Exec Charged in DOS Hack Attack on Korean Rating Board
July 9, 2009
There is a bizarre report from Korea today about a man who authorities say launched a denial of service attack on the nation's game content ratings board.
According to JoongAng Daily, the man, identified only as Choi, age 39, is the CEO of a company that helps game developers with the content rating process. Choi reportedly accepted an advance payment from an unnamed game developer who then complained when the rating process did not progress quickly enough.
Police say that, in order to generate an excuse for the rating delay, Choi purchased a hacking program and launched attacks on the game rating board:
[Choi] made postings on Internet bulletins... saying “MP3 files can be downloaded for free” with a link to a separate Web site. If people clicked on the site, they were directed to a pornographic video. While watching the video, the hacking program Choi had bought from China infected the watchers’ computers with a virus. These so-called zombies computers were then used for a distributed denial-of-service attack...
Choi managed to freeze the Game Rating Board 10 times between March 4 and 22, mobilizing some 7,400 hijacked computers...
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Choi, age 39, is the CEO of a company that helps game developers with the content rating process
[Choi] made postings on Internet bulletins... saying “MP3 files can be downloaded for free” with a link to a separate Web site. If people clicked on the site, they were directed to a pornographic video. While watching the video, the hacking program Choi had bought from China infected the watchers’ computers with a virus.
Priceless. The CEO of a company that assists with content ratings directs children and adults alike to a porn video. You just can't make this crap up.
I'm interested in the legality of it all. What laws exactly did he break? Clearly the fact that he infected other people's computers with viruses is one problem, and potential fraud for wanting to delay the rating process, but is it illegal there to DOS your own website? Many questions like that abound.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
It wasn't his own website, he works (or worked) for a company seperate from the rating sbody.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Oh. In that case he's screwed, lol
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
I don't understand why he would go to these lengths. How would website downtime be an adequate excuse for a lengthy review time?
Unless the ratings board was horribly tied to it's website, which is possible but unlikely.
More alarming is the fact that 7400 people actually clicked a link like that.
The weakest link in any computer's security is the user.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
No, it's the user's parents.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
How dare he How dare he use porn to spread a virus; thats just wrong. I dont think I will be able to watch porn again without worrying about getting infected I feel so dirty. =P
I am so very amused by this, not only in that many people actually clicked those links, but because it all happened under the disguise of porn...
Rule number one online: Don't click links advertising any free software. Rule number two: don't complain if you fail to follow rule number one.
Although, I don't get why he'd put in so much effort to cover for why he was delayed... Why not just state that the servers were going through maintenance at that time, or something else just as possible? Why not just tell that unnamed developer that more time was required for ratings, or something else along those lines?
This is a signature. Isn't it pretty?