Symantec gave the malware name OSX.Loosemaque to Lose/Lose.

I went ahead and added that to the Schmuck Bait page, too.

I have to wonder if this is Symantec epically failing.

[edit: and I just realized I misspelled Schmuck Bait. oh, well. *shrug*]

edited 4th Nov '09 4:04:21 PM by kitsunezeta

How is that a fail? It is a destructive piece of software, is it not? Though I guess it'd be like if the Trojan Horse had a big sign on the side saying "Warning: Contains Greeks", and the dudes still brought the horse inside their walls. It'd still be a horse full of Greeks though.

EDIT: Got my groups mixed up.

edited 4th Nov '09 5:36:04 PM by Errick

I think that what that article is trying to say is that this "game" has a warning given by the designer.

More malicious people might make an even more sophisticated game to do this without warning.

doesn't change the fact that they designated a piece of software that does exactly what it advertises malware because it does exactly what it advertises.

The thing that makes this really enter Wallbanger territory is that every news site I've seen that references OSX.Loosemaque treat it as something created with deliberate intent to unknowingly destroy numerous people's files. Which is complete and udder bullshit.

GAH! I CAN'T SPELL!

edited 4th Nov '09 6:22:24 PM by kitsunezeta

The reason Symantec is worried about this is that someone could easily steal the idea and make one that doesn't advertise itself as such, and it'd mess people up bad. In fact, they seem to be expecting that someone will crack this game's code and just edit all the warnings out.

musings from a "Linux Elitist":

<GerbilSoft> "KILLING ALIENS IN LOSE/LOSE WILL DELETE FILES ON YOUR HARDDRIVE PERMANANTLY"

<GerbilSoft> ...

<GerbilSoft> this isn't a trojan.

<GerbilSoft> it's intentional, and clearly stated.

edited 4th Nov '09 6:44:17 PM by kitsunezeta

I think you're kinda missing the point they're making.

It's not necessarily the game itself, it's other nastier people doing things with it. From what I can understand, they might not even have to modify it - if the warning's on the website and not in the game itself, someone could take the game as-is and spread it around without posting the warnings.

I wonder if an LP would even be possible.

Well, I guess one could use a camcorder to record the screen, instead of a program like Cam Studio.

As far as classifying it as malware, I was unaware that the definition of "malware" included "without the computer owner's knowledge". I was under the impression that "malware" is "a program that was deliberately designed to do stuff to your computer that is bad stuff." If the warning is only on the website, I have to wonder how many people actually see it.

edited 4th Nov '09 7:13:57 PM by Madrugada

Why would somebody make this game in the first place?

Why make it? Because they could.

Right, right...

As for the OP, take a look at the first line of the summary: "OSX.Loosemaque is a Trojan that appears to be a video game, but deletes files from the home folder when a user plays it." Anything wrong with that? No, it's perfectly true.

Why was the game made? To make an artistic exploration into the use of violence to succeed, and the consequences of success or failure, in video games. To quote the author:

"Lose/Lose is a video-game with real life consequences. Each alien in the game is created based on a random file on the players computer. If the player kills the alien, the file it is based on is deleted. If the players ship is destroyed, the application itself is deleted.

Although touching aliens will cause the player to lose the game, and killing aliens awards points, the aliens will never actually fire at the player. This calls into question the player's mission, which is never explicitly stated, only hinted at through classic game mechanics. Is the player supposed to be an aggressor? Or merely an observer, traversing through a dangerous land?

Why do we assume that because we are given a weapon an awarded for using it, that doing so is right?"

A bit pretentious for my taste, but there you have it. The above link goes to the game's download page, where, immediately before the actual download link, the author clarifies — in bright red, bold, all uppercase print, no less — the dangers inherent to the game. This information is also repeated when the game starts up.

Because the game makes attempt to hide the risks it poses, it is, by definition, not a trojan. You could make an argument that it is Smchuck Bait malware, but regardless, the current definition is incorrect.

There is the argument that the program could be modified and redistributed in such a way as to remove the signs that it is a dangerous program, but this strikes me as a weak position for a two main reasons.

First of all, the concept of modifying the game in this way seems akin to melting down a knife in order to make parts for a pistol, when you already own a fully loaded and constructed assault rifle. Yes, you could strip the warning labels off the game, but why stop there? Why not just make it so the program fries the target's computer right when it's started up? There are already hordes of malware capable of melting down a victims computer, and most of those require no prompt on the user's part in order to do so.

Secondly, if the concern is over modified forms of the game, then why list the original program as malware? I may well be off about this, but it seems to me that if the program would be modified to be more dangerous, that it would be wise to alter the kinds of traces that the program would leave, in order to make it harder to detect. In other words, Symantec's programs would be set up to detect the (relatively) benign original game, rather then any more harmful derivatives.

More generally, the concept of banning something on the grounds that it ''could' be dangerous — or modified to be dangerous — is an unpleasant and foolish one. It's like saying that knives can harm people, so they should be removed kitchens.

How much would the game have to be altered to strip off the warning? (Not a programmer, here, so that's a sincere question.) How different would the code be for the game with the warning and without?

edited 4th Nov '09 9:06:30 PM by Madrugada

Well, you could probably just open the executable as text and find/replace the warning... so I'm guessing easy. Really easy.

And fuck, that is pretentious. Reminds me of biennale.py. Great, you're making a statement about how anything can be art, and infection is dangerous bla bla bla. But you wrote a shitty virus that has no ingenuity, stuck some What Do You Mean Its Not Symbolic words in the code, and covered your ass with legal disclaimers and apologies and shit. Fuck you.

...er... I guess I feel strongly about this.

As for "Why not start over?" The kind of idiots who spread viruses don't know how to write them. They just copy them from the more intelligent and let them loose out of some nihilistic desire.

edited 4th Nov '09 9:17:54 PM by Tzetze

I can't wait until every "thought provoking" art game is classified as a trojan virus.

Then Avast can start deleting every copy of Braid ever installed along with their fans.

^ So, if this was tweaked and released as a fer-real piece of malware with intent to damage computers without the owners' consent, the code for the malware would look just like the code for the game with warning, except for a couple lines? If that's the case, I can see why Symantec labeled it malware.

That's not what's important, I think. What's important is that no matter how many warnings you put, some people really are just dumb enough to download and run the thing anyway. They'll rationalize it as Suspension Of Disbelief. I mean, I've had games threaten to kill me before (Eversion), it's not as if I took them seriously. I forget which game it is but I think that there's one that pretends to delete your save file.

Hulk Hogan: Somebody who knows what they're doing can disable the block. (I've done this myself a few times.) And really, how many people are actually going to play this game as it's meant? Leave their files where they are and get them deleted? The fact that the game even exists is a statement in itself, I think. I don't think that you need to play it. But you can if you want to.

That video in Registered's link scared the fucking crap out of me, because when I unthinkingly clicked on what looked like a trailer what ensued looked, for the first several seconds, like the actual game, somehow playing in my browser. I could not close that tab fast enough. I then carefully reopened it and reinspected to discover that it was just a video.

I don't think this is "pretentious" or really worthy of criticism. I like the guy's statement and I think the fact that he executed it in such a unique way is a good thing. What's that trope called where it's near impossible to really make a work to move the audience against war/violence because the work will have to contain it as a central feature? Well, this guy's shattered that barrier pretty damn hard. This isn't a videogame, it's modern art, the good type, the type that does something controversial and new and thought-provoking, even if it means taking a risk. He made what he wanted to make.

I also think Symantec is justified in being scared of it, even before someone mentioned the "suspension of disbelief" point.

Side note, I'm suddenly being reminded of the article I saw earlier today when you posted that Schmuck Bait link, the one about the "Rape tunnel" and the "Punch you in the face" tunnel. You want pretentious? You want asshole? You want someone who's more concerned with shock value than making a statement? Yell at that lunatic. The guy who made this, he's an artist.

edit: Someone=Tze Tze. Also, Brickman=lzay.

edited 4th Nov '09 11:16:42 PM by Brickman

Wait a minute. Just to make sure I have it straight. Are we arguing about Symantec's semantics?

I guess classifying the game as malware allows them to put signature pieces of its code in their virus database, and thus detect programs containing a variation thereof.

Truffaut Was Right.

I'm not surprised this guy can be considered an artist since the standards of art took a nose dive around the time people started dumping crucifixes into jars of piss, covering thing with shit, hanging urinals on the wall, etc.

An artist these days seems to be a synonym for attention whore and shock jock.

Saint's Row 2 is the only game that can be described as art, and since playing games mighr eventually brick your console you've got to make some hard decisions here (just like Lose/Lose), do you continue playing the game despite the fact your 360 could red ring, or do you not play it, allowing your console to live a full life gathering dust in your attic?

Whichever choice you pick, the consequences are real.

I'm in a horror movie, how long do you think it is before the masked killer gets me?*

• I love porn so that's a strike against me but I also watch horror movies and despite my harshness I really do care for those around me. I also got an animal side kick.

Eternal Darkness is the one you're thinking of. And many games have a "hardcore" mode that deletes your save if you die. And in 1997, there was a game called Virus: the Game that used your hard drive as the battlefield.

In my opinion, Symantec is right: the game is malicious, because it deletes files that are neither part of itself or created by the program. You wouldn't want Word to delete Photoshop or Photoshop to delete parts of your OS, so why would you think it's OK for a game to delete anything and everything on your hard drive?

Are you kidding? That's quality trolling, right there.