Case Study - Rogue Hosting Services

Initial Post

This case study highlights Rogue Services, an internet service provider that marketed its web hosting with a “no matter what” uptime guarantee. While some clients were legitimate retailers, many were involved in distributing malware and spam. Despite repeated requests from major ISPs and international organizations, Rogue refused to intervene with these services, citing their “no matter what” pledge to their customers, which resulted in a coordinated effort by security vendors and government agencies to disable Rogue’s infrastructure, leading to a significant decrease in spam and ransomware infections (Acm.org, 2024).

According to the British Computer Society (BCS), Rogue’s actions violated several principles by allowing this sort of hosting on their platform:

  • Public Interest (Principle 1): The BCS Code of Conduct mandates that members “have due regard for public health, privacy, security and wellbeing of others and the environment” (BCS, 2022). By providing a platform for harmful software, Rogue Services enabled actions that negatively impacted public welfare, thus breaching this principle.
  • Professional Competence and Integrity (Principle 2.8): Members are required to “act with integrity in your relationships with all members of the public” (BCS, 2022). Rogue Services’ intentional hosting of unapproved malicious code violates this requirement.
  • Duty to the Profession (Principle 3.1): The code emphasizes the need to “uphold the reputation of the profession and seek to improve professional standards through participation in their development, use and enforcement” (BCS, 2022). Rogue Services’ behaviors compromised the reputation of the profession, violating this obligation.

The development of a specific worm to dismantle Rogue Services brings up ethical dilemmas. Although the goal was to reduce damage, the approach included unauthorized access and data destruction, contradicting the principle of “do no harm.” (ACM, 2018). A more ethically responsible strategy would have involved implementing measures to avoid unintended harm to innocent clients and guarantee that actions complied with legal standards. This case underscores the necessity for computing professionals to adhere strictly to ethical codes, as well as taking into consideration cross-jurisdictional challenges which may occur.

References:

British Computer Society (n.d.). BCS Code of Conduct BCS. [online] www.bcs.org. Available from: https://www.bcs.org/membership-and-registrations/become-a-member/bcs-code-of-conduct. [Accessed 4 February 2025].

Acm.org. (2024). Case Study: Malware Disruption. [online] Available from: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics/case-studies/malware-disruption. [Accessed 4 February 2025].

BCS (2022). CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BCS MEMBERS. [online] Available from: https://www.bcs.org/media/2211/bcs-code-of-conduct.pdf. [Accessed 4 February 2025].

Association for Computing Machinery (2018). ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. [online] Association for Computing Machinery. Available from: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics. [Accessed 4 February 2025].