Slashdot Mirror
First Worm with a EULA?
ErikRed1488 writes "There is a new virtual postcard from Friend Greetings, owned by Permissioned Media that prompts you to install their software to view the card. You are then presented with a EULA granting them permission to e-mail all the Contacts in your Outlook Address Book. Those people are presented with an e-mail from you telling them they have a greeting card to pick up. So, this thing spreads like a worm, but includes a EULA that 95% of users won't take the time to read. Symantec isn't detecting this as a virus, but does have information about it on their site. In addition to the worm-like way it spreads, it also installs spyware designed to deliver ads to your computer. You also give them permission to install further software any time they want. In my opinion this is completely nasty, but it's all clearly in the EULA that you must agree to before it installs the software."
Need I say more?
Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
Just beautiful. The more insane EULAs get, the more people will start taking a harder look at all of the ones they currently sign their souls over to.
This can only be good for Open Source.
This may be a cynical thing to say, but I think it was only a matter of time before some shady software like this was made.
I would remark "How could the makers of such a thing sleep at night?" - but I already know the answer: they sleep just fine. People like that don't believe that they're doing anything wrong.
Experts agree: everything is fine.
to help force the govt to evaluate the merits of EULAs. While it can be argued..."you shouldve read the license before you agreed"
I would rather say "There shouldn't exist any such licensing format. And we as the people should not allow it to ever exist."
The company is called permissionedmedia! Well, they did ask for permission first...
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
I think this should actually shield the virus-writer from any sort of prosecution, shouldn't it? I suppose you could do all sorts of nasty stuff and be completely protected so long as you could prove the user clicked "ok" to the license.
Maybe this will be the tool which turns the tide on the EULA.
RIP: Senator Paul Wellstone.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
This points out the absolute absurdity of click-through EULAs. Hopefully, a case against them could be used as a legal defense against other badly-licensed software.
John
I am workin on a EULA that gives me power of attorney over for the user.
for kicks, we (and by "we", I mean somebody else) need to have an EULA that contains and absurd clause (firstborn child upon installation), then try to collect. It'd be like challenging the concept of EULAs, but from the other side. Try real hard to get sued.
--
fight global cooling
I got in trouble for saying the following to one of our users (after he installed it, agreeing to all of the nasty terms):
Apparently that's not a valid response, at least according to my boss.
Eulas like these should be regulated by the government. It is pretty common in contract law that unreasonable provisions are not enforceable and illegal. Like for example a credit card agreement cannot mention it deep in the fineprint that if you default they own your house or are allowed to enter your home and steal your pants. This kind of EULAs are a consumer protection issue.
Literacy is important, no it seems we cannot afford to skip reading the EULAs. I have seen some funny stuff thrown in EULAS including:
- the right to borrow your car at any time -
- the right to sleep with your spouse at our discretion -
- the right to submit and enforce decorating standards in your home -
- the right to reduce you and your pets to a dissarrayed, sub-atomic goo-
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
but includes a EULA that 95% of users won't take the time to read
;-)
Didn't you know that 48% of all statistics are completely made up?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
This to me is a primary example of the sometimes dichtomous nature between was is legal and what is ethical.
Is what these business professionals done legal? Probably.
Is it ethical? Absolutely not. Otherwise, why hide the email's worm nature in the EULA?
I know there are those that are going to say, "Hey, you had the opportunity to read the EULA, you didn't, and you clicked it anyway."
But caveat emptor, though a fact of life, does not exempt the screwer from his reponsibility of what he did to the screwee.
May be legal. But in my mind, definitely not ethical.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
So what happens when two different EULA's claim 100% control of your machine?
RTFEULA
I've been just waiting for this very thing to happen! My edge-of-the-chair suspense is finally climaxed with a barrage of laughter. Great stuff. :P
I thought of doing this quite a few times myself, but have always lacked the resources. This is pure genius, really. You get people to propigate the virus willingly, all the while having them agree to transmit it without their knowledge - despite the fact that they agreed.
This brings forth some fairly serious implications and issues involving EULAs. I'm not exactly sure what they are, but I'm sure they're there, and have probably already have been discussed in this or that post concerning MS's dastardly EULA garbage.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Some may scream that the law should enforce morality, but then you must wonder "Who's Morality?".
I read a very interesting book recently, called Human Action, by a lovely looking grey haired man called Ludwig von Mises. It was left by my old boyfriend in the bathroom, and I picked it up and smelled it unhappily one evening, but before long found myself readin Mises' interesting take on the fundamental sovereignty of man.
Mises would warn us all against enforcing a common morality, for that is a sure way to tyranny, in the end. This company should not be legislated against. We should instead encourage people to read EULAs and to take responsibility over themselves, over their own bodies, over their computers. Anything else is slavery to government.
I thought I had left slavery to the state behind in my native Scotland. As a Catholic girl, I understand only too well the attractions of worshipping an idol like the state. But we are better to resist laws that seem fair and moral, and instead trust in common deceny and responsibility.
Thanks,
Margot. XXX
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
How many of you have read the Slashdot EULA?
I haven't found anything on Symantec's site on this, but I did find McAfee's page Here
;) )
p x? <extra contentremoved>
And the removal instructions
Google has a newsgroup post on the sucker
And here are some sample infection URLS for those who wish to catch the sucker or download the files for analysis:
Infect Me 1
Infect Me 2
A similar worm is described by Symantec here
It works in IE, but not Phoenix (Mozilla based browser)
You have to download the installer and the MSI file, which takes a while.
I went so far as to download the files, but didn't go past the first EULA to see the really bad one that's supposed to come during the second install, so I didn't see the text in a live install myself, just in the McAfee
writeup.
So I downloaded the Microsoft Installer SDK and decided to crack open the MSI install file. Accroding to Servant Salamander, the word "Outlook" was in "Friend Greetings.msi."
Then I decided, "To hell with it, it's in there as clear text anyway" and opened the install File with VIM. Here is the offending text:
1. Consent to E-Mail Your Contacts. As part of the installation process,
Permissioned Media will access your MicroSoft Outlook(r) Contacts list and
send an e-mail to persons on your Contacts list inviting them to download
FriendGreetings or related products. By downloading, installing,accessing
or using the FriendGreetings, you authorize Permissioned Media to access
your MicroSoft(r) Outlook(r) Contacts list and to send a personalized e-mail
message to persons on your Contact list. IF YOU DO NOT WANT US TO ACCESS
YOUR CONTACT LIST AND SEND AN E-MAIL MESSAGE TO PERSONS ON THAT LIST, DO
NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, ACCESS OR USE FRIENDGREETINGS.
If anyone is interested, I'll e-mail out both EULAs. There's some rude stuff in there. (You agree to receive pop-up and pop-under ads and HTML e-mail for example)
Below is the original e-mail from Cheryl, for the sake of reference and forwarding:
--- Forwarded Message Follows-----
FYI...
It's not so much a virus as it is a potential worm. And it's an interesting one at that because it's a "permissive" worm. It banks on the fact that people install products without reading their EULAs. If you read the EULA they include, it specifically says that by accepting the EULA, you are giving them permission to send email to everyone in your MS Outlook Contact list!!!!! (I included the pics they sent us, but I'm not sure how many of you will actually see them).
Pretty fascinating, actually. And smart. Because people don't read EULAs! (Er, for Dad: EULA is "End User License Agreement" - and I'm guessing you and Steve read them because you are lawyers...
Ilene
-----Original Message-----
From: Kronos Norton AntiVirus
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:51 AM
To: All Kronos Employees
Subject: Please read about a potential virus....
Importance: High
Potential virus as a Greeting Card ~ Please be aware of this
potential threat via a web link.
Friendgreetings
iscovered on: October 24, 2002
Last Updated on: October 24, 2002 03:20:23 PM PDT
Symantec Security Response is aware of a widespread E-card which appears to have the characteristics of a worm. Security Response does not classify this as a malicious threat and as such will not detect any files associated with the E-card. The installation of software associated with the E-card requires the user's permission in order to perform it's mass-mailing capabilities. By cancelling the installation of the software, no worm-like activities will be performed. The recipient would recieve an email with the following characteristics:
Subject: %recipient% you have an E-Card from %sender%.
Message:
Greetings!
%sender% has sent you an E-Card -- a virtual postcard from FriendGreetings.com. You
can pickup your E-Card at the FriendGreetings.com by clicking on the link below.
http://www.friendgreetings.com/pickup/pickup.as
Message:
%recipient%
I sent you a greeting card. Please pick it up.
%sender%
When the link is followed, the recipient is asked to download some software in order to view the E-card.
The installer package will require the user to accept 2 End User License Agreements in order to complete the installation. The second EULA (see below) explicitly states that by accepting the agreement the end user is authorizing the software to send an email to all contacts in the Microsoft Outlook Contacts List. The email is formatted as displayed above.
If this agreement is not accepted, the installation is not complete and the software will not send a link to the www.friendgreetings.com website via email.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
This just describes what the program does, and by placing it in the license, they hope that you don't read it. Kinda like saying something in 4pt-font fine print: ("note: Happy Fun Toy will explode into sharp shards, killing your child"). Shady practice, but not directly related to the real problems with EULAs ("you may not use this program unless...").
Just nitpicking.. But it's true, you should always read your EULAs (prounounced EWWWWWWW-lahz).
i got an email a while ago (during the .com bubble) telling me that i got that email because somebody was romantically interested in me (i don't use dating services of any sort, online or not).
...literally.
... but the notable thing is that i started getting TONS of spam at that address (>20emails/day)
basically, here's the scheme:
a person likes another, but is too shy to ask him/her. this site allows a way to anonymously email that person. the message essentially says "guess who"
i was expected to guess the admirer by giving the site every email i could think of that might be the admirer. if there's a match, each party is informed. for all those non-hits, an email identical to the first was sent out; spam.
i happen to use unique email addresses and handed this address to only four people, two of whom were female, so i knew it was one of them or a friend
this type of ponzi-style scheme with unforseen problems seems to be getting popular now; EULAs often take complete advantage: people blindly give permission to have third-party software downloaded and installed, to become the source of spamming and/or propogation, or to allow use of spyware.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Have you seen This?
speaking of lawyers... are eula's treated like contracts, legally speaking? if so (and i'm pulling from a business law class from several years ago), illegal or unethical points of a contract are null and unenforcable by default, regardless of what you sign. i.e. - if you sign a contract to mow my lawn, and it states that if you cut down my roses, i get to kill your firstborn in a satanic ritual - well, that's just not enforcable.
too bad online legislation moves so slowly... i think i'm going to register for every spam list i can with my representatives' email addresses, and see if that gets things moving along... umm.. just kidding, secret service guy reading this over my shoulder.
a
And if you don't get sued, hey, free kids!
The GPL is *not* an EULA. EULAs take away what rights you have to use a program. The GPL adds them.
Additionally, last time I read the GPL, I don't recall it saying anything about e-mailing itself to everyone in my ~/.mailrc.
It's unfortunate that it has to be this way, but unless people get burned by EULAs they're not going to take EULA's seriously. Discovering that they've agreed to let this software spam their boss, coworkers, and business contacts will hopefully encourage people to seriously read EULAs in the future. I expect that when people start seriously reading EULAs, they'll discover they don't actually agree with many of the terms. (Or at least they'll discover that they can't make heads or tails over the thing.) A little backlash would be help restore balance to EULAs and make the work a more fair place.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
-
Under US law, storing personally identifiable information about children is [largely] illegal.
-
The EULA, as far as I can tell, makes NO mention about this product not being allowed for under 13s.
-
With its infection (uh, I mean, transmission) mechanism, it makes no attempt to discover the age of the user before beginning to log their personal information.
So, as soon as you discover your child has installed this program, sue them for failing to make any attempt to avoid violating their rights. Their EULA get out clauses don't work either as, being a child, they couldn't legally agree to the EULA anyway.Hopefully it'll spread better than they ever hoped. A class action lawsuit for every child in America would probably make a fairly clear point to anyone else trying this.
Who knew reading /. could be a public service?
No! The GPL is not an EULA.
The GPL has nothing to say about how you can use the software. It places _no_ restrictions on your right to use the software or how you plan on using the software.
The GPL _does_ have something to say on how you might redistribute the software. That is it. It is a copyright notice which _grants_ you the right to redistribute after meeting a few requirements. Once again, it does not restrict what you can _do_ with the software.
Yes, I know about Adaware, but average Sally or Joe computer user does not. They think that the copy of Norton bundled with their Gateway or Dell will protect them from everything bad and that it's okay to click on "Yes" when prompted "Do you want to install and run X by Spyware Inc.?"
This worm is no worse than the sites that have javascript to prompt you to install Cometcursor, Gator, Download accelerator, Bonzi Buddy and other spyware apps. I've already seen quite a few shockwave greeting card sites (with a Gator or other spyware install attempt) that ask you to "Send this card to a friend" and I've been sent links to these by my less computer-savvy friends. What's worse, you end up on more spam lists too...
Sooner or later, EVERYONE online ends up being prompted to install some kind of spyware. The companies that produce antivirus software need to include features to actively scan and disable spyware (with a default setting enabling scanning for spyware/adware, but an option to disable it if for some reason you want to). I've personally become sick of explaining to people that NO, their Norton or McAfee isn't going to catch the program that's been giving them all these popups and that they need some free program they've never heard of before (AdAware) to get rid of them.
While AdAware is great for power users, for the average population of PC users, automatic background protection like virus scanners provide for viruses is what is required. When a worm like this or a web page tries to install some new spyware, the user won't even be prompted - the antivirus software just says NO.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
This is the EULA that pops up when you start a DAMN-keygen. Quite entertaining :)
DAMN
Electronic End-User Software License Agreement
THIS PROGRAM IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. BREAKING THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT WILL RESULT IN SEVERE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE UNDER LAW.
THIS AGREEMENT IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT. READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE SOFTWARE. IT PROVIDES A LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE. BY CLICKING ON THE "YES" BUTTON AND USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE CONFIRMING ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND AGREEING TO BECOME BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO DO SO, DO NOT RUN THE SOFTWARE AND PRESS "NO" BUTTON.
1. Definitions
"Software" means the programs supplied by DAMN herewith.
2. License Restrictions
You MAY NOT use this Software AT ALL. Using the Software will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under law. You also may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network. You may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form. You may not rent, lease or sublicense the Software. You may not modify the Software or create derivative works based upon the Software.
3. Ownership
This license gives you NO rights to use the Software. Although you own the media on which the Software is recorded, you do not become the owner of, and DAMN retains title to the Software. All rights including Federal and International Copyrights, are reserved by DAMN.
4. Limitations of Damages
DAMN SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF DAMN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND EVEN IF A REMEDY SET FORTH HEREIN IS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
The GPL is not an EULA!
The GPL does not require an end user to agree to a license before using the software. It is a copyright license. That is it. It _grants_ the abillity to copy and redistribute once certain criteria are met. The two are fundamentally different.
The EULA is a matter of contract law.
The GPL is a matter of copyright law.
Understand?
As of yesterday afternoon, Trend was classifying this as a virus, and will catch it.
I knew there was a reason I migrated us from Symantec to Trend at the office here.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Ok, like I have stated in other places,
...
The EULA is a matter of contract law.
while
The GPL is a matter of copyright law
The two are fundamentally different. The EULA places _restrictions_ on what you can _do_ with the software.
The GPL _grants_ you the right to redistribute (which would normally not be there, because of copyright law) once certain criteria are met. The GPL does not impose any restrictions on what you can _do_ with the software.
In the absence of the EULA you would be allowed to do anything you saw fit with the software (short of illegal acts and within the copyright clause).
EULAs try to be contracts -- but think back to your business law class, and look at the requirements for that contract:
:)
- The parties must give the appearance that they're serious about signing a contract (one party can't be obviously joking).
- The parties must be competant (old enough, sane enough, sober enough).
- There must be consideration (both parties must gain something or force some new obligation on the other party).
- The purpose of the contract must be legal.
The third element doesn't matter if one doesn't get past the second: In your average software purchase, what does the EULA give you that you wouldn't otherwise have, or restrict the other party from doing that they otherwise could?
Now, if it's a free download, and you're only offered the download if you click through the EULA, that's an entirely different matter: there's clear consideration in that you're being allowed the download at all. On the other hand, if you purchase the software without the EULA being a condition of the purchase, unless the EULA offers some further consideration it may not be binding at all.
Another question raised: What if you aren't competant to agree to the EULA for a piece of software (due to being drunk, or insane, or a minor, etc)? Well, if the situation is such that you really have no right to use the software without agreeing to the EULA (which is likely the case with a free download conditional on clicking through the EULA, but unlikely to be the case if you purchased the software from a 3rd-party vendor who didn't make you agree to the EULA before the purchase), then you're using it illegally. If, on the other hand, you had the right to use the software even without agreeing to the EULA (say, because you purchased it from a 3rd-party vendor who didn't force you to agree to the EULA beforehand) then the EULA is invalid in any case because of the lack of consideration (unless, of course, the EULA gives you some other rights you didn't have before agreeing to it, or some obligations to the vendor which they didn't have beforehand) and you can still use the software even if you don't agree to the EULA -- and even if the EULA is legally binding (say because it obligates the software manufacturer to provide phone support which they wouldn't otherwise be obligated to provide), if you have the right to use the software without agreeing you can legally skip the EULA (say, by tricking the installer) and go your merry way -- but don't try to pretend you agreed to the EULA when calling for that phone support! That's the theory, anyhow. Before relying on it working that way in practice, talk to a real IP lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction, and hope you get a reeeal friendly judge.
Coming back to this particular case: Is sending email to everyone in your address book illegal? Probably not (though of course this may vary on your jurisdiction). Hence, is this EULA invalid due to the illegal-purpose clause? Once again, probably not.
The one that I loathe is the "hotbar" IE/outlook menu customiser (http://www.hotbar.com) which allows someone that has hotbar to send a card to a friend... but what the card does is download the hotbar and install it on the unknowning friends system...
It also contains some social engineering.. "Upgrade outlook - add COLOR to your Emails" link...
bah..
just had to remove these from about a gazillion corp machines... and the virus scanners dont see it as a virus...
even though it KILLS the systems efficency....
--
Time is on my side
It's the oldest piece of scumware like that that I'm aware of (perhaps Bonzi buddy is similar age).
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
I forgot to say...
End users should have the leisure of clicking through software liscense agreements without reading them. These agreements were designed to protect the software companies from legal action by end users.
If this intent is to remain intact, end users need to be able to click through EULAs with the mental summary of, "Yeah, Yeah, whatever, I promise not to abuse your software or sue you frivolously", instead of "I wonder if I just allowed a software company to use my computer and my data any way they see fit".
...okay, so no one will read this at this late point, but for any and all software developers who are hunting for a useful product to build, why not create an EULA-distiller? Let it run in the background, and watch for installations. When it sees an EULA appear, it can display 2 or 3 bullet points that succinctly explain what the hell all the legal text means.
To get really tricky, you could create a Web site that allows users to upload the text of each EULA, and a distilled summary. Perhaps other people could even vote on the most accurate, most understandable summaries. Then your app could be constantly up-to-date. Perhaps by doing this, people who blindly click through these things will be made aware of what the real consequences will be.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
It seems like a lot of you guys are really down on Symantec and McAfee for not filtering this with their AntiVirus software, but consider this.
By clicking "I agree" on the EULA you are telling your computer "I want to do X". If you tell your computer you want to do X and Symantec's software tells your computer "he can't" how is that any different from all the DRM crap like Paladium?
I know the intention in this case would be to protect the user, but then again isn't that the tack that Microsoft is taking as well?
Of course, if the contract is null and void, you are still bound to the standard law regarding copyrighted material with respect to a GPL work. In other words, you can look at it, but you don't have any right to redistribute, modify, etc. etc. etc., all the nice rights that the GPL grants you THROUGH your acceptance of a contract, IN EXCHANGE FOR consideration. So it is clearly only possible as a result of BOTH copyright law and contract law that the GPL can exist. An EULA generally refers to a consumer good (a piece of binary software), that is also admittedly under copyright protection, and there is generally no "contract" that I think should be legally acceptable, because, as you point out, it restricts what you can do and offers you no consideration in return (though click-through licenses apparently offer you the consideration of being able to use software you already paid for - ROFL).
Summary: GPL depends on a combination of contract law and copyright law. Shrinkwrap EULAs depend on a serious misinterpretation of contract law to restrict rights that you have as a result of common law and copyright law (i.e. first sale doctrine, etc.). Clearly we can all agree that EULAs restrict freedoms, and most Free/Open Source Licenses, GPL included, grant rights you wouldn't otherwise have.
To invalidate all of those pesky EULA's through points 1 and 2 (be serious and sober) get together with friends and thoroughly wasted before installing the worst offenders. If the software actually makes it onto the computer it's a nice bonus, otherwise it's the typical plus of a keg party.
Problem solved, you were boisterously drunk at the time of install.
Any spoon would be too big.