Slashdot Mirror
NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network
twitter writes "This NYT story describes how thousands of PCs have been used as porn spambots and reverse proxy servers, and mentions that they could be used for kiddie porn. Finally, though Microsoft is not mentioned, people might start to understand what a monoculture of poor quality software enables."
Finally, though Microsoft is not mentioned, people might start to understand what a monoculture of poor quality software enables."
Umm, no they won't. First of all, very few people would notice the article in the first place. Second, people who did notice wouldn't know what to do to protect themselves (not supporting MS isn't an option for 90% of the computer users in the world). Third, was the comment necessary?
That's gotta be one of the most FUDaliscious articles I have ever wasted my time on.
"Some random guy says grillions of computers are infected with an undetectable virus and is going to distribute kiddie porn!!"
Please.
P.S. I'm not saying it's not possible, but for fuck's sake, get a few details before bothering to blather on about it for pages at a time.
"...though Microsoft is not mentioned, people might start to understand what a monoculture of poor quality software enables."
Shouldnt that read:
"... though Microsoft is not mentioned, we thought we might use this as an excuse to attack them anyway."
I mean I understand MS doesnt exactly have a large fanbase here but that is frankly ridiculous.
<fnord>OBEY</fnord>
Having worked the abuse@ email address for a DSL provider, I've been seeing this for a couple of years. It's interesting that the mainstream news is finally giving lip service to the problem, though. I heard a commentator on the ABC radio network mention open relays on mail servers the other day during morning rush hour.
Someone (by someone, I mean companies that put out SMTP servers with a large share of the market) should strike while the iron is hot and take it a step further by airing some simple PSA's during a small assortment of shows. Maybe some must see TV "The More You Know" type thing...
I had a sucky sig.
There is no reason to break copyright law and repost this article. This is an example of irresponsible internet behavior at its worst - there is no justification for such action - this is not 'fair use'--it's just lazyness.
To many people, a computer is like a screwdriver. They could care less about it, they just want to pick it up, make it work, and toss it aside when they are done with it. It's unfortunate, yes, but that's just the way it is.
Why is this unfortunate? Do you want to know every nuance of the car you drive, just to get to work? How about when you watch TV? Do you really need to know about NTSC vs PAL? No, you want to watch TV.
Computers should be no different. People just want to send grandma some pictures, surf the web, type a paper, whatever... Not spend forever updating their AV package, SP updates, etc.
A computer is a tool. It is merely a means to an end.
There are three types of people:
(1) Those that recognize Microsoft's influence and approve of it.
(2) Those that recognize Microsoft's influence and disapprove of it.
(3) Those that are oblivious to Microsoft's influence and wouldn't care even if someone told them.
Groups 1 and 2 are not going to have very many people switching from one to the other. Group 3 is going to have even fewer people leaving it. So the whole "people might start to understand" bit is, quite simply, B.S. It reflects the submitter's membership in Group 2 more than anything else.
The coolest voice ever.
I agree with you: if 90% of the world were running UNIX instead of Windows, we'd still have heaps of insecure, obsolete old RedHat 6.2 boxen sitting around on the Net because users just do not take security seriously and it doesn't matter what the underlying OS is.
I've pointed out before that the rise in popularity of Linux will not make the Internet more secure; it will merely result in poorly-configured Windows boxes being replaced with equally poorly-configured Linux boxes.
Why is this unfortunate? Do you want to know every nuance of the car you drive, just to get to work? How about when you watch TV? Do you really need to know about NTSC vs PAL? No, you want to watch TV.
...but these days, computer users should have some basic training on "what attachments are likely to contain pictures from grandma - and what aren't!". Otherwise they might end up hosting some illegal warez server in their own house - without their knowledge.
I agree with the general line of your reasoning, but please observe that the examples you mention do not necessarily support your own thesis. First: if you don't know NOTHING about "NTSC vs PAL", you might quite soon end up with an unpleasant surprise buying video tapes abroad. Say, you might be an American on a trip to Amsterdam, taking advantage on their, uh-huh, liberal law regarding the pr0n. Ditto for European in Tokio.
With the car, it's even worse. You can't drive a car without valid license. The authorities consider untrained drivers too much of a threat for the public (and the drivers themselves). And it becomes more and more obvious that the Internet is also a very dangerous place for untrained computer users. You can damage yourself (sometimes just opening an email attachment) and cause damage to the others. You are absolutely right saying:
People just want to send grandma some pictures, surf the web, type a paper, whatever... Not spend forever updating their AV package, SP updates, etc.
Yeah really, laugh. From the article:
"The rogue program does not affect the Apple Macintosh line of computers or computers running variants of the Unix operating system."
Let's see, it doesn't affect Mac's or *nixes, what else is there? Why didn't they just say that it affected Windows systems only? The average person probably wouldn't put that together. It reminds me of that scene from the new austin powers movie when Dr. evil indirectly tells mini-me to go by telling everybody to get out, but then telling everybody but mini-me they can stay.
Really, I've never seen this before. Usually you report which systems were affected rather than the systems that weren't. What reason, other than ignorance, would the reporter have not to mention windows?
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
So instead of their normal scare-mongering by involving terrorism in any way possible, they are now suddenly switching into scaring everyone by mentioning kiddie porn instead? Wow, such diversity! Next thing you know NYT actually becomes a good source of news with facts and interesting content without a "we will spam your ass off" scheme! Maybe right after DNF is released...
Hate me!
Computers, on the other hand, are designed to be in partial to full control of nearly anything. In their desktop and laptop form, they are extremely generalized, and a skilled person can do all manner of tasks on it, up to and including writing their own operating system for it.
The problem, in my opinion, is the marketing not the computer. It is fully possible, and indeed there are examples, to make computers specifically designed to do non-generalized tasks, such as the one you provided at the end, reading and responding to email. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to make and support devices that do this, instead of selling all-in-one-wonder desktops that can do everything from receiving television signals to crunching gigabtyes of data in some rendering farm in Simi Valley, California.
I completely agree with your viewpoint there. Where I do not agree is that the desktop concept should be reduced in complexity to become a lesser all-in-one, just for the sake of easy of use. That is what specific intention devices should be manufactured for. There is a legitimate need for multi-purpose machines that goes beyond just satiating types like ourselves that like to tinker.
Oh, and by the way, I know people who do expect their raspberry mango shampoo bottles to connect to the Internet, people want it everywhere. :)
In summery, I don't think things are as bad as you make it sound. Yes, they are more expensive, but if all you want to do is email and a little word processing now and then, an Apple works just fine, and is enough out of the way or the mainstream to where you do not need to be hyper-paranoid about security. When you use something that is by far the most popular, and hated, operating system, in an interconnected semi-anonymous world, you have to expect a little overhead in keeping things secure. If hypothetical person A does not want to put up with that, there are alternatives that work quite nicely, even in the realm of specialized devices. I saw a little black box with a keyboard that hooks up to Earthlink that allows you to do email, and that is it. Bravo.
Once the problem with getting good alternatives to the generalized super-machine is overcome, then you really only have the newness of the tech to get over. Computers are a vast thing. Even the most hardcore geek could not claim to have significant knowledge in more than a few branches (or meta-branches,) and there are thousands of branches -- all weaved in such a way to create potentially millions of pseudo-branches through combination. The fact that we have gotten computers to the point that we have, where a vendor like Apple and even some PC vendors, can send out a machine and have a complete novice checking email a few hours later, is pretty impressive (and I am not even going to try and fix that run-on sentence, I get tired just looking at it.)
Anyway, sorry about the glib response earlier, I just get tired of the car and VCR analogies, because a turn signal stick does one thing, it operates a blinking light -- whereas a computer has to have the hypothetical turn signal programmed, and the same physical material that allows the turn signal software to work can be wiped clean and turned into a SETI number cruncher by somebody else. A powerful ability that implies the potential for powerful mistakes. :)
V