The Real Meaning Behind "I Love You"

The "lovebug" illustrates some of the dangerous backdoors which exist in popular software applications

By the end of last week, western analysts, pundits, and users were reeling from the latest "attack" to hit the Internet. Almost immediately, assessment for the damage caused by the "lovebug" was calculated in the area of billions of dollars. The real damage, however, was an attack on the truth caused by an ill-informed corporate, global media. Additionally, the subsequent measures to avoid another like incident will surely curtail some of the freedoms users can still enjoy on the Internet.

Without doubt, this latest incident laid bare for the world to see the incompetence of the mainstream media when dealing with the Internet. Most media outlets were clearly out of touch with reality. Without going into the fine details, the "lovebug" was immediately dubbed a virus when, in fact, it was a worm. Viruses, worms, trojan horses, etc, while they all may appear to share common characteristics, are in fact not. By understanding the differences between them - which is not technically overwhelming --then it makes that much easier to understand what happens and how to defend oneself. By levelling differences to abstract nonsense, as was done in the case of the "lovebug", the situation is then wrapped in mystery and rumor.

And what rumors there were! Some of the best could be had from the UK, which was hard hit by the "lovebug". According to Channel 5 television, for instance, it was claimed that the "virus" could "steal your bank details". Meanwhile, BBC News Online warned that it affected Macintoshes. The Times came out with a little reassurance that users of the "Lycos operating system" had nothing to worry about.

While mainstream media reported that the "lovebug" was transmitted via email, it failed to mention that the worm could be spread by other ways as well, explaining in part its rapid spread. Again, this has to do with the mystification of the "lovebug" as a simple virus. Being a worm, the "lovebug" could infect other machines not only via an email attachment, but also through other means of computer networking, such as Internet Relay Chat, executing files on shared file systems, and even reading Usenet News. In essence, understanding the worm requires a basic understanding of what the Internet really is and how it works.

Along these lines, it becomes clear that the problem actually has not that much to do with the Internet itself, but with a glaring weakness in the security provision of Microsoft's Outlook and Windows Scripting. What is more, this vulnerability is not a new one but well known; Microsoft simply failed to deal with the problem. As one observer succinctly noted, "Microsoft's stance toward this situation has been disgraceful. Most of their sound bites have been sophistry designed to dissociate the company from any responsibility for the problem."

Not only were the technical basics lacking from the mainstream media's reporting of the "lovebug", but image of swift law enforcement to catch those responsible were likewise obfuscated. In essence, the picture that was painted tried to make it look like the police were more quick and effective this time round. Almost immediately it was claimed that the worm originated in Manila and that they knew who was behind it. Yet, for anyone who happened to read the script themselves, this was already quite obvious: the first line contained the handle and location of the author.

Nevertheless, the supposedly rapid reaction of law enforcement was still trumpeted by the media as the result of quick and efficient detective work. Apparently, this was to counter growing fears (especially within the business community) of how easy it is for hackers to remain anonymous, following the distributed denial of service attacks earlier this year. However, the alleged hacker in that case, a teenager who called himself Mafiaboy, was only caught because he boasted on a chat channel that he had done the deed; thus, there was little detective work involved. As with the "lovebug", the ability of the police to catch these hackers is based on the naivete of the hackers themselves and not the skill of law enforcement officers.

Apart from mainstream media's inability to properly understand the problem, as they made numerous detours through the realms of virtual reality, there was little mention of the worm's true impact. For one thing, the "lovebug" clearly illustrates some of the dangerous backdoors which exist in popular software applications. These backdoors can be utilised and exploited by both law enforcement and commercial interests, to infringe upon our privacy without us even knowing about it. Unfortunately, instead of learning the practical lessons that the "lovebug" -- and other similar incidents -- teaches (which, in turn, lies at the heart of hacker ethics), negative measures in the form of restricting certain freedoms on the Internet is likely to follow.

There is, in the end, an ironic twist to the whole affair. That is, taking into consideration that many of the computer systems affected were those of serious, stone-faced professionals guarding the well-being of the new world order, what were all these people in places like the Pentagon and the London Stock Exchange doing expecting (and trying to read) love letters at work? Also, it seems those hardest hit by the "lovebug" were industrialised nations, namely English-speaking countries. In Hungary, for example, the worm caused minimal damage. I actually never received the compromising email in question. Perhaps the words "I Love You" don't translate that well into some languages.