Talk:Back Orifice 2000

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Back Orifice 2000 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Back Orifice 2000 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Violation of GPL

The bo2k project is currently in violation of the GPL as the source code for the core and its plugins is not being published, Should this be mentioned in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.49.178 (talk • contribs) 03:06, June 24, 2006 (UTC)

Note that the developer team may have full rights to do whatever they like with the software. The fact that they give GPL-rights to others does not affect them selves. Which parts of the software is missing sources anyway? I tried downloading Core BO2K Distribution 1.1.3 and it seemed to had sources included. --Easyas12c 12:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible to remotely access certain web cam ports when accessible which, if used correctly, can really mess with someones head. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.104.206.45 (talk) 07:30:58, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Tone

Hmm. This article currently gives the impression that BO2K is just another remote admin tool like any other. I think we should point out that while it can be used for remote admin, it is primarily (or at least widely believed to be primarily) used as a rootkit/backdoor. Otherwise people who have only read this article will get rather surprised when their network admin busts them for using malware, or their antivirus scanner regards it as a trojan and disables it. -- Securiger 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard of a single case where Back Orifice 2000 would have been used as rootkit/backdoor by an attacker. --Easyas12c 09:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I find that ... surprising. But anyway, you're right, we should cite our sources so I've added some references. Just a couple. -- Securiger 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had only heard about back orifice being used for illegal purposes. I was worried that BO2K would inherit bad reputation of BO. Thanks for adding the references. Now I'm still worried aboutpeople getting unnecessarily bad picture about BO2K, but I guess this is a problem for many other information security related tools too. I honestly think BO2K is a very usefull tool. I've used it myself to control my local Windows 98 system, as it seemed more powerfull than the tools provided by the operating system. --Easyas12c 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with giving the impression that BO2K is just another remote admin tool.

The only argument I had with BO2K's statement of lejitimacy was their claim that tools like this can be installed silently. If that were true, then antvirus software wouldn't trip on it. Then again, I could actively install a corrupt version without knowing it. I wonder if installing BO2K would protect me from weak rewrites.

What bothers me about BO2K is that it disparajez using Windows-native encryption (SSL), which a lot of people trust their credit transactions to, and the source code for Windows was released (albeit without approval), so, if holes are in M$ implementation of SSL, then we should know about them by now. So, really, what BO2K should be about is not security, but functionality.

Like, if someone's operating my machine with it, would I be able to watch them edit my Wikipedia submission right down to the keystroke? Or does that power only come with these Black-Box plug-ins?

So, jenerally, I think someone can avoid NPOV issues by simply telling people their experience with it. Details of low-level protocol? It's in the source code, exactly.

Brewhaha@edmc.net 08:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Trojan

BO2k is an administrative tool and was not created to be a backdoor. Also, you can't get busted for having back office, you can only get busted for using it to hack other servers/computers. Trojan Horse should be taken off the description, as it gives people a bad idea of what it was ACTUALLY meant to be for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Warrush (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fixed. --Easyas12c 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

often prohibited at corporate sites?

The article was missing sources for claim At the present time, however, use of BO2K is often prohibited at corporate sites. So I moved it here. Feel free to move it back into the article, if you find reliable sources. --Easyas12c 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BOXP

I think we should mention Back Orifice XP (a rewrite of BO2K) --grawity (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed Tool

The tool referred to in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the section titled Controversy was in fact named "Silk Rope" and not "Silk Road". The error was added 26 August 2019‎. I have no source other than personal experience. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.129.103 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]