Gambling Federation Malware

[jetset]

Everyone seems to think the "time frame" is recent - that G-Fed only did this recently.

The whole trouble with this premise is that I have already proven beyond a doubt, on MY computer, with a screenshot provided to GPWA, that G-Fed was modifying the hosts file as far back as November 2003. And at the time, Royal Dutch was NOT one of those being blocked.

To put it bluntly, you are only hearing what G-Fed wants you to hear.

Whoa! Now that's really interesting - this mess gets messier by the day.

[spearmaster]

There are a total of three entries in the hosts file that were made by G-Fed software. Two of them, not including Royal Dutch, were done more than a year ago - and G-Fed has said zero about this.

To claim that this is action taken to protect players against spammers was:

1. False
2. Beyond the realm of possibility since modifying a hosts file will not block emails

To claim that this action was in response to an alleged theft of the database was:

1. False, since they have obviously done this to two other casinos at least one year ago.
2. Stupid, because anyone who hadn't installed a G-Fed casino for a year could probably have proven this.

All this goes to show that the CEO knew exactly what he was doing. Knew that he was doing this BEFORE he joined IGC and IGGBA. Knowingly signed agreements that bound him to serve in the best interests of the industry.

In short, the truth was not told in any of these instances.

[mary]

aaaargh! I just cleaned out my office! I had some old iCrystal disks, I could have installed that software and checked it!

[bonustreak]

Spear you are exactly right, he knew what was happening the entire time, hell he maybe came up with the idea!

On top of all of this has it stopped thier practice of sending spam emails? Nope, I just deleted 3 from them today! I would think if they were truly remorseful they would do as Greedygirl said.....

Email all players and explain they have compromised the player
send a detailed discription of the malware and how to remove it from the computer
and last I say close all of the casinos(we know that will not happen)

I bet they are busy working on the next "marketing ploy" and trying to ensure ways to NOT GET CAUGHT!

[Casinomeister]

The iGGBA has just announced their revocation of Gambling Federation's membership:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...8583#post58583

[amandajm]

IGGBA are so cool, calm and collected. An example to us all no doubt.

[falderal]

I've read through the entire tome of this thread and I am left with great concerns.

The organizations that reviewed this case gave no indication of evidence backing the following G-Fed claims:

1) There was, indeed, a theft of customer info.
2) There were ANY complaints about spam.
3) The spam occurred prior to the malware.
4) The malware was indeed specifically written for the stated purpose.

1) Since names are not named, and authorities apparently not contacted for a SERIOUS crime involving UNSPECIFIED victims, there is only the word of an admitted malware distributor, and we all know we can trust them.

2) Again, the organizations appear to be taking his word for this. At this point - over a month of prominent threads about this - not a single angry victim of the alleged spam has come forward. On this Easter Sunday, I ask: Where is the passion of which G-Fed has been playing on?

3) Since we lack the thief, the spam and the spam victim, we lack the timing of the alleged theft and subsequent spam, and its correlation to the malware.

4) PLEASE!! A malware author sophisticated enough to write the code to control systems settings would most certainly know that the malware would be entirely useless at preventing spam. They would, however, know that it would cut off traffic to these COMPETING sites.

And so I offer that Fogli was wrongfully taken for his word that G-Fed was a victim, which led to the acknowledgement:

In a letter to Fogli after the IGC Board of Directors met on March 9, Mark Stone, the IGC’s chair, thanked Fogli for his “openness and candor” at the board’s meeting. Stone told Fogli that, “the Board understands your outrage at the conduct of your competitor. The theft and conversion of property, be it software or email lists, is reprehensible and should not be practiced or condoned by any reputable business. But there are also appropriate means by which to deal with such actions. It is felt that the action by Gambling Federation in this case is not one of those appropriate means.”

This is strikingly compassionate - that is, until one realizes that the IGC's board of directors reads like a who's-who of casino interests and their lawyers. Such groups act as buffer zones from government and legal intervention, under the guise of being "self disciplinary" or "self regulatory". The proof of this claim is simple: the organizations knew of SEVERAL TRUST CRIMES commited in Canada, and, from any material presented by them, did not report these to the authorities.

The IGC is situated in Canada, and is therefore also bound by Canadian law.

IGC Corporate Listing on the Government of Canada Website

Who will police the police? Dismissals??!! $5,000 fines for imprisonable offenses??!! Hardly suitable punishment. It is obvious to me that these organizations need representation from us, the players, without whose grievous losses and nearly blind trust there would be no gaming industry.

After reading this thread, I would like to nominate CasinoMeister for position of Player Advocate.

[caruso]

Since the organizations in question ended up taking as hard a line as possible by ousting Gambling Federation, the "acceptance" of the obviously spurious claim of property theft has been relatively glossed over. Anything less, and if the spurious claim had been used as justification for NOT ousting them, then you can be sure the matter would have been discussed to the point that it would have been clear and unquestionable that the "theft" claim was complete hearsay at best, bullshit at worst, and IGC and iGGBA would have been hard-pushed to not acknowledge the fact.

However, your point of the principle of the thing, that the "regulators" look out for the industry first and the players second, is very valid. The reason that this "regulation" we have here, in the form of the high-profile forums populated by players, casinos and portals alike, is so good is that we're here to represent ourselves, and as such we get fast, fair justice. It's lean and it's mean - and it works. The moment Bryan and people like him hand over to the "regulators" we are done for, because we'll be fighting TWO enemies. Bryan takes flack as being "casino-friendly", and I have some disagreements myself with him in some regards, but he is undoubtedly a friend to the players. So are many of the other lower-profile affiliates. The "regulators", financed by back-handers or up-front payment from the casinos, will not be our friends because we won't be able to police them and as such they'll have no reason to be. There'll be no channels. There'll be none of the "mutual policing" of each other - players, portals and casinos - that there is now that is so beneficial to everyone.

Personally, I'm optimistic: although we are doomed to suffer "regulation" at some point (it's already started to rear its nasty head in recent years), I doubt Bryan and his like will ever hand over the reins. In fact, as long as this "lean and mean" setup of ours remains in force, I think it'll actually "regulate" the regulators - as it has already done in the past, remember the Lake Palace incident? - and those relatively few of us who know the scene will not lose our extraordinarily efficient tool of justice.

[jetset]

QUOTE I think it'll actually "regulate" the regulators - as it has already done in the past, remember the Lake Palace incident? - and those relatively few of us who know the scene will not lose our extraordinarily efficient tool of justice.UNQUOTE

Incorrect. In the Lake Palace incident eCOGRA reacted to a formal complaint submitted by poster Stanhope here direct to the CEO, who then immediately reviewed the case and overturned the ruling by the FGA, ruling in favour of the player. Since then, as an additional measure, all FGA rulings are reviewed by the CEO who has discretion to refer to the independent directors or external experts if he has any doubts.

[caruso]

Exactly. That's what happened internally. I'm referring to the EXternal events that caused it to happen.

Bryan caused it to happen; the poster (who wasn't any "Stanhope", who I've never heard of??) caused it to happen; myself and all the rest of us who commented on the crime caused it to happen; you caused it to happen; ALL of us caused it to happen.

As long as we continue to collectively regulate the "regulators", they can regulate as much as they want as far as I'm concerned. When we stop regulating them, or are caused to stop, I'll start worrying.