Slashdot Mirror
Infected Windows PCs Now Source Of 80% Of Spam
twitter writes "The Register is reporting a study by Sandvine.com that blames Microsoft Zombies for 80% of all spam. The study goes on to claim that 90% filtering is not effective given the unprecedented volume and that sophisticated trojans are able to drop spam directly on end user's computers despite current efforts. Just another cost of supporting Microsoft, I suppose."
OK, I'm turning SpamAssassin down to .01 points and letting it all get rejected. I just give up!!!
Was this really actually a surprise to anyone or was this just confirming the obvious?
Hmmm.
90% of all statistics are invented. Especially when they bash Microsoft, but certainly not any ones that indicate anything good about Microsoft.
in filter research, maybe we should be spending it on educating users in basic protections....or converting the unwashed masses. I like the 2nd one better :P :P
Please note the sarcasm in the "unwashed masses" comment before modding me as a troll
If computers are going to be a tool used by anybody, I think along with securing OS's real user education must be encouraged.
Today you have to have a license to drive so why not learn how to play safe if your PC is connected to a public network.
Even if Linux or Mac was 80% the of desktops, you would still have people not bothering to patch their computers, and have the same problem. It might be as easy to infect the computers, but the problems would still be there. Stupid users will exist no matter what operating system you give them.
All the ISPs are going to start filtering outbound port 25. If you want to run your own mail server you'll have to route it through their mail server, or use non-standard port number to route thru a 3rd party mail server.
Yes, linux can be more secure than Windows, but the fact is that over 90% of these zombie PCs could have prevented infection by simply having (a) their firewalls enabled and/or (b) having intelligent users. By default, most linux distros don't come with firewalls enabled either (at least, the last time I checked; I think it's becoming more common for firewalling to be enabled though, as with XP SP2) and as for (b), well, we'll always have stupid users.
Which translates into Geekish as "PC's Infected with Windows."
The simpler solution would be for them to get a clue.
I run Windows and there is only a single (known) exploitable security vulnerability - and that's only because Microsoft won't release a patch for it and the workaround is too messy for me to want to bother with it as I'm not stupid enough to fall "cleverly crafted" URLs.
Windows can be almost, if not as secure as Linux or OSX if you just know what you're doing and keep up to date with the patches.
When XP Bug patch 2 comes out, this suituation will only get worse
No, it'll just fail to get much better. There's no way a bug patch can make it worse...
Come on MS, prove me wrong! I dare you!
Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
No, the pirates have a blatant disregard of the infrastructure by keeping running insecure, unpatched software. Microsoft should not be held responsible for pirates who illegally run unlicensed software.
Schools need to start teaching security. Just the idea and what you do. Kids will go home and teach thier parents. And slowly more people will become educated. How else can you educate the masses?
Evolution or ID?
Seems fairly obvious to me.
Yes, but the other 20% aren't coming from compromised non-windows systems, they're being sent by spammers who know they're sending it. If the other 20% were coming from trojan'ed *nix boxes, then I'd say you're on to something.
Fact is, 4 out of 5 emails that end up in my spam bin are there because (a) some sleaseball wrote a trojan to deliver them, and (b) someone else wrote a trojan-friendly OS to enable it in the first place.
I understand that some ISPs are now cutting off infected folks until they can show they've patched. I think that we'll be seeing more of this, and I can't say I disagree (as long as they understand what a Unix, Linux, or MacOS box is).
If somebody is naive enough to allow their PC to be used as a zombie, I can't really see them rushing out and installing service pack 2. MS should introduce some commercials or something to tell Joe Average that he should patch his windows.
Yes it is surprising. Traditionally spam has come from mail servers that were setup as open relays (by accident or design) but nowadays its coming from Windows desktop machines with viruses which setup their own mail servers. Combine that with the growing prevalence of broadband home connections and spam is just getting worse and worse.
"I'm tired of all this 'Aren't humanity great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes" - Bill Hicks
By "spammers" I mean those people who knowingly and deliberatly distribute spam, and usually make money by doing so.
The hosts and the networks they were connected to became discovered and mail coming from those hosts and networks was treated suspicious by black-list-based filters.
So the spammers use more and more infected zombie PCs. Microsoft Windows is on 80% or more of the desktops. And now these Microsoft Windows-based infected zombie PCs are sending 80% of spam, according to the article
However, this does not mean (which would contradict your "this is obvious" logic) that the x% MacOS X-based, Linux-based and *BSD-based PCs are as easily infected and effectively sending x% of the spam.
This is always the solution that comes up. There are a couple reasons why Microsoft is always picked on for virus/worms.
1. They are the single most popular operating system to date. Therefore they have the most users and giving the spammer/cracker more chances to get personal info or crack their system.
2. Most Microsft users are users that do not always keep up with patches or updates to their system. Most really don't understand why they would have to do it. Not only that, because most new users start with Windows, it's easy for them to fall for most of the phishing attacks as well.
Now, will all of that said above if, hypothetically, everyone switched over to Linux or Mac OS I'm not sure it would change much. You can talk about how secure Linux and Mac are, but they STILL are only as secure as the user wants it to be. I could still see many new users run as root all the time, open unknown files and the rest of the tips that they teach you NOT to do on Windows. Just because you don't see any Linux viruses doesn't mean they don't exist. The fact is that most people who are USING those OSs are a bit smarter and care more about security than your average Windows user that these worms/viruses/spams are being sent to.
Hmmm.
Most blacklist services these days list all dynamic IPs for most Internet Service Providers. I get an occasional bounced email because my server is on one of those IPs. Annoying as hell. But at least I can add those kind of hosts to my transport map and have email destined for them routed through my ISP's mail server.
-kidlinux.
Well, I tend to agree in some ways an disagree in some. If the problems with Windows security holes and such would only affect the computer in question then I would be all for not allowing the updates to be loaded on a pirated machine but with the current system the legimate users of Windows (and other internet users as well) suffer from the neglicence of the users of pirated software. It doesn't only limit to spam, but also network worms which can be a nuisance with the amount of network traffic they create. I think Microsoft would do a favor to all of the internet with allowing patches to be applied to non-licenses (pirated) versions of Windows.
<bad-analogy> I would compare it to stolen cars. For example, if a car would have a really really serious design flaw that would make it blow up during rush hour taking along with two blocks, would you want the car manufacturer to fix the car even though it was stolen? </bad-analogy>
I can't speak for all geeks out there (we are usually on the front line), but I have seen so many computers running Windows XP out there just getting raped by adware/spyware/worms/trojans lately. One of the primary culprits? Internet Explorer.
The reason I believe it is Internet Explorer is that I have seen a machine that is behind 2 different firewalls (one of which is a very well configured PIX) get molested. It wasn't used for e-mail, no P2P programs for downloading and nothing else was used except the browser. I am SURE some people were browsing dodgy websites on that machine. So far, it is the only PC on that IP segment that has been infected so it wasn't from another machine.
Anyone else see this out there?
I guess I have to disagree with you on this one.
Most people are using the OS that thier computer shipped with, whatever HP or Compaq or Dell put on there.
The people who are using a pirated copy, more that likely know enough about computers to actually keep a computer clean.
It's the other home users out there, joe blow, who gets his cable modem, his new PC and leaves it on all the time. That's the guy they are refering to in the article. Not someone involved enough to actually track down a pirated copy of XP, get a serial that works, and spend the time upgrading.
Many ISP's don't allow you to run a mail "server".
But you're talking about blocking _outbound_ STMP traffic. That has nothing to do with servers.
Outbound SMTP traffic can be generated by any mail server that only listens on internal interfaces, or directly by your favorite mail client.
What you're talking about is breaking the Internet even more than it already is now, turning it into a big client-server network where the servers are operated by the big media companies.
It is also, coincidentally, the lazy sysadmin approach.
Don't do it, don't go blocking big swipes of IP just because some of them do something wrong.
Be smarter, find a way to only block those that do something wrong!
- Erwin
Just another cost of supporting Microsoft, I suppose.
Just another cost of supporting users who install the software. Most of these hijacked Windows boxes are a result of a user wanting to see Britney Spears naked.
CLICK HERE--ALL NEW PICTURES OF BRITNEY SPEARS NAKED
This has nothing to do with Windows security other than running an ignorant user as an administrator.
Seems like a good idea at first look, but it's not. Here's why: lots of small businesses run their systems on static IPs which ISPs allocate within their dynamic residential netblocks. Without *very* thorough checking it's a bad idea... but who cares right, I mean, you'll just be blocking some small time companies... nobody who matters, right?
I can't send email to *anyone* at AOL now, despite running an OpenBSD firewalled Linux server for our business. It's doesn't even bounce, just disappears into the void. There are *no* Windows worms or spam coming out of my network, but some ass at AOL decided to block the whole ADSL subnet anyway. Nice way to break the Internet guys. And THANKS AOL for replying to my question about it - NOT! The arrogance of IT geeks and uninformed management strikes again. How about thinking a little harder about it, and implementing reverse host checks based on sender address, or rate limiting with temporary blocking - a real email server can cope with that just fine. There's lots of alternatives other than just shutting yourself off from a chunk of the Internet.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Step Two: Follow the money.
Step Three: Follow the money.
Step Four: Take a wild guess.
I'm just going to keep on saying this, year after year, as it becomes more and more clear that those engaging in spam are operating outrageously criminal enterprises: If you want to stop spam, FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Find some Viagra spam. Buy some Viagra. Trace the shipment to you, trace the cash transfer from you, arrest. It's not that hard. It's just not very geeky. People, there's no magic technical solution to this -- there's increasingly illegal stunts being pulled, and the only people out there with the IP-layer mechanisms for tracing the attackers really can't afford to release that data as it would compromise rather more important investigations. But -- we've got a very mature infrastructure for tracing financial and mail fraud. We just need the political will to use it against Spam.
It's just not that hard.
--Dan
... I apologise for the percentage of MS users who are beyond help, and for the admins who allow them to be so.
We keep our corporate networks nice and clean, we stomp on infections fast, we try to educate our users, we run filters and firewalls, we put in place policies and we try our damndest to prevent this stuff.
But if those users go home to an infected PC, then we've failed. failed badly. We don't get paid to keep home machines clean, but how much harder would it be to really educate our users? really?
What can we do? Well, we can impress on our users, as I'm trying to do, that thay can suffer real, genuine harm if they don't practice safe computing.
I have this idea. A user doesn't give a crap if they're not harmed directly by a virus. OK, they have a spamming trojan on their machine, do they notice? no, they don't.
So I make sure I tell my users that there are viruses out there which can log their keystrokes and, by inference, steal their credit card number or online banking details or any other personal information.
That makes them wake up. Once there's a chance they might be directly affected in ways other than a slightly slowed down machine, then they start to take notice.
I'd urge every other techie on a windows network to inform your users in the same way. make sure they know that viruses aren't just something that affects other people. then they'll wake up, and everyone else will be better off. really.
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
And the next generation of zombie programs will do a simple DNS lookup for the mailserver of the current domain and start sending spam through the ISP's mailserver.
With the side effect that in no time no single customer of that ISP can send mail because the mail server is on every blacklist you can imagine.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
For the next two weeks until i start a non-crappy job at a linux based company, I still work graveyards at one of the larger aggregate dialup resellers in the US (no, my email address, whois records, etc, are not indicative) and this means i mainly handle abuse complaints.
We get the occasional hit & run spammer who signs up for one of the $9.95/mo services with a prepaid credit card (so we can't effectively fine them) and then spams the heck out of the connection until we cut them off, but 99% of spammer complaints (that aren't due to spamcop being fooled by well crafted headers from brazil, or confused by unpublished relay hosts in our spam filtering cluster) are traced to users who have been with us for some time, who have never given us any trouble, and who have called customer service frequently for fairly basic help with simple internet setup tasks -- usually an account shared by a family with several children, or used by an old lady who just wants to look at pictures of the grandkids on the intarweb gadget. Pretty unlikely spammers.
The accounting department doesn't like it, would prefer to shoot first with a $100 fine and let customers beg for forgiveness later, but i argue constantly that we should give them at least one chance to disinfect their computer. We go ahead and fine 'em if they don't fix their issue within a few days, though, and then accounting makes them prove they are disinfected before giving them their money back.
It's poor customer service, ultimately, but wtf is an isp to do? If we just pestered them with email they'd assume we didn't really mean it, and would never fix their systems.
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
Since this study was published, whenever I receive spam that (according to the Received: headers) appears to have been sent via a broadband IP address, I refer to it in my spam complaints to ISP's. I also suggest closing outgoing port 25 per default, and only opening it for customers who explicitly indicate wanting to run a mail server.
I keep a text file with this message for easy pasting into the spam complaint.
Fortunately, this will not help, because most (bigger) ISPs have separate servers for incoming and outgoing mail, and there are no DNS entries for outgoing mail!
Karma: none (due to not believing in reincarnation)
That argument is based upon the assumption that security == marketshare.
Security is not the same as marketshare.
The vast majority of zombies were infected via Outlook's ability to run executables from email.
In order for Linux to have the same infection rate as Windows, Linux would have to have the same (or similar) flaws. For example, the same email client installed, by default, upon every Linux machine and that email client would have to run executable content.
Windows was designed with "user-friendly" being far more important than security. So important that security would be compromised in order for a feature to be "user-friendly". That is why there are so many problems on Windows machines.
Here's an example. Grab the latest copy of WindowsXP, run it without anti-virus software. Why is WindowsXP still vulnerable to the same viruses that Windows95 was?
``When XP Bug patch 2 comes out, this suituation will only get worse, since ppl can't patch their dodgy ( illegal) copy of XP.''
That won't make it worse - the situation for those user's who can't or won't install SP2 will stay exactly the same as before. Those who do install it will improve. So, it will make life not worse, but better.
It would be interesting if a critical vulnerability were dicscovered that pretty much stops the system from functioning (like Blaster). If only those with licensed installations can get the fix, the rest might realize that you don't get a good OS for free by pirating Windows. Something, though, tells me that Microsoft will make critical fixes available to anyone, though.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
You know, the 2K in Win2K is a pretty big even number...
j/k
They don't. They will simply lop port 25, and force you to use their smtp servers, or lack thereof. While they are at it, meter you $0.10 a letter. And 50 years from now we will be asking why email costs so damn much.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Latest word from Redmond is that SP2 will follow a similar rule, except that installations using one of 20 corporate keys will be blocked.
If you used a keygen, SP2 will probably install with no problem. Microsoft have spouted a lot of FUD over their anti-piracy initiatives. For instance, Windows Update shouldn't work unless you are using a legitimately issued key on the MS database, but it obviously does.
To get back vaguely on topic, what SP2 will do to prevent spam is to (a) install a better firewall and turn it on by default and (b) turn on automatic updating. This should protect the most clueless users, but I suspect most of them were using legit copies anyway.
Anyway, to get vaguely back on topic, it's the second Tuesday of the month, so let's see what the MS patch fairy brings us today. Probably another exploit for those nasty spam trojan people.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
But if the trojans are sufficiently capable of reading an Outlook mail folder and extracting email addresses, surely they could easily look up the SMTP servers configured?
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
With the side effect that in no time no single customer of that ISP can send mail because the mail server is on every blacklist you can imagine.
And guess what --- that's exactly what must happen. It'll serve to teach that ISP that they have to spam-scan outbound mail, too, to avoid being blacklisted by everybody else. Actually, that's the whole point of forcing all their customers' mail through the ISP's outbound mail server in the first place: to be able to scan for spam and worms before they unload them onto the general public.
Mac OS X is a different case, but they have secure email and browser applications. (For the most part. The issues have pretty much been fixed by now.)
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Geez, I hope the same rule doesn't apply to the minor version of the Linux kernel . . .
Not if they received the pirated copy on the computer they bought from Fast Eddy's Discount Computer Emporium.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
As far as I can figure from the statement in the article:
..it seems to me that the article should say 80% of the service provider's mail traffic was generated by zombies. This is completely different from the statement made in the topic.
"After comparing those data points with the total volume of legitimate messages passing through the service provider's mail system, we are able to arrive at our percentage of 80 per cent",
It's like you'd go to a bar and observe that 80% of women leave with drunken idiots, and thus proclaim that drunken idiots are able to hit 80% of women.
There may be some causality and statistical significance, but it definitely isn't as clear as the article suggests.
http://codeandlife.com
Its time the Internet stopped being a slave to the dumb users and put control back in the hands of people who know what they are doing.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Did I miss the actual study with actual data? I only saw the one page executive report.
Pretty flimsy but probably true.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Microsoft has just as much right to profit as anyone else does.
Which is to say, none.
Microsoft should make a deal with all software vendors to require them to put in code that checks to make sure all the latest updates are applied to the Windows box before you're allowed to install the software.
That seems like a very unwieldy solution to me. Wouldn't it be simpler for Microsoft to fixtheir system, rather than have every other software vendor on the planet work around the problems with Microsoft software?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Speaking from experience, I can tell you that it's not as easy as it seems...
.au where I'm located, the Spam Act 2003 only provides for civil penalty provisions against the spammers (in essence, the .au government will sue you for violating the spam act in civil court.)
Various jurisdiction's spam laws vary, but at least in
Even though the evidential burden in a civil case is much less (balance of probabilities/preponderance of the evidence) than in a criminal case (beyond reasonable doubt,) it still proves difficult to tie a spam purporting to advertise, for example, penis pills, to a purveyor of penis pills.
Penis pill guy sends his spam through a few thousand of 'fresh proxies' (spam guy terminology for freshly rooted or virused machines garnered from crackers or vx people), penis spam ends up in inbox with penis pill guy's contact details.
So far so good, but there's no causal link between A and B of any forensic value whatsofuckingever. Correlation is not causation.
I'd be more inclined to see a system which plugs into the MTA somewhere between RCPT TO and DATA, which performs a basic open proxy scan on the originating MTA (similar to what many EFnet servers are doing ATM,) and if the originating MTA fails the test, mail is refused (preferably with a '550 5.1.1 no such user' error as this may help get you off certain lists) and the originating IP is added to some form of distributed blacklist for X hours (i'd suggest 48... long enough to allow ample time for the machine's owner to find out that they have a virus or spam problem and fix it, not really long enough to cause a major problem.)
I'm actually working on building such a system at the moment... Details will be posted to my website when I have some half decent code that runs (instead of making postfix' smtpd dump core.)
You're doing it wrong.
But the first thing that needs to be done is to prevent machines from connecting directly out to another ISP's SMTP server. Hopefully this is done by one of the proposed IETF standards and not by simply blocking port 25, but we'll see.
From the MBSA site:
"MBSA Version 1.2 includes a graphical and command line interface that can perform local or remote scans of Windows systems."
So Microsoft releases a GUI tool to remotely scan Windows installations for security vulnerabilities, and yet it includes virtually *no way* to automatically exploit those vulnerabilities to provide a remote login?
Typical of them to rush an inferior product out the door and rely on marketing muscle to sell it over superior third party alternatives.
I've had spam show up at new accounts that were only registered, never used. I've even had spam arrive at an email account that was sent before I even created the account!
Then theare are the moron spammers who send out group addressed emails (the ones with 20-30 variants on spelling anything at all like your name.)
Anti-spam on the client is not the solution.
Sticking there severed heads on pikes outside ISPs would be far more effective and satisfying.
Or the traffic problem could be justifiably claimed as a result of poor engineering by Microsoft, and make Bill & co. responsible for the resulting expenses.
Or we could just make ISP's responsible for disconnecting any customer who has an infected machine connected. When the machine is cleaned, then they could reconnect, not before.
No, I don't care about people who can't afford to take care of their machine, buy hardware firewalls, virus scanners, etc. I don't care that people driving rust buckets can't afford better cars, either -- get the hazard off the public byways!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Two points: (1) the story never mentions Microsoft and (2) it says filters are 90% effective, not ineffective.
:P
As an ISP our biggest OS problem is Linux. Proportionally it causes far more problems than Microsoft. Why? Because Linux users sit around saying "poor MS user" and don't even know they've been hacked. And the majority have been hacked. If you say "Oh, that can't be" then you've just joined the crowd
"Just another cost of supporting Microsoft, I suppose."
Uh, no--how do trojan attachments and viruses that moron users open have anything at all to do with Microsoft?
I forgot, we needed an article that specifically made sure to say "Windows PCs" in the headline as though it being Windows has anything to do with it. If everyone used Macs today, it would be Macs, and if everyone used Linux, it would be Linux boxes. Uninformed users are uninformed users, and short of Microsoft showing up at your house and forcing you at gunpoint not to open attachments or enable viruses, what do you expect them to do?
"Sufferin' succotash."
So if you're a victim of Microsoft's negligence in making systems that can easily be converted to attack zombies, click here to contact that law firm. The most effective victims would be those who run Linux, because they're not subject to Microsoft's EULA. For them, it's a pure negligence issue. A Linux-based ISP or hosting service would be the poster child for such an action. They're being hammered on, they didn't sign any Microsoft EULA, and they're clearly suffering sizable damages due to Microsoft's negligence.
It's time for this to become a major legal issue.
Well, that's the beauty of Windows. You don't even have to be a idiot user no more. You see, an unpatched copy of XP and a high speed internet connection can get you a backdoor trojan faster then dropping the soap down at the local penitentary.
You see, unpatched windows has exploits and all the script kiddies with porn sites know this. The most common viruses now scan computers on an IP range, find a computer prone to an exploit, and open up shop on your computer.
'What you say!' They could do that just as easily on Linux or a mac. Not quite true. OS X and Linux are both based on Unix which is considerably more stable and secure then windows (for oen thing they handle file premissions a lot better and more securly). Most importantly though, primarily where linux is concerned, there are constantly people updating and improving the linux kernel. These are often the same kinds of people who would take advantages of exploits back in high school and are now turning their knack for finding system weaknesses towards a constructive goal. Open source finds bugs faster (or so time seems to be telling us)
Last and not least, yes most people use Windows. Therefore most viruses are constructed for Windows and most computer illiterate users (many of whom don't even know what spyware or the like is) use it too. So there is saftey in obscurity.
But i beleive enough of the blame can be pinned on what a mess security in windows is and someone pointing that out isn't just a tinfoil hat wearing commie shouting witch at the Big Guy.
'Course in longhorn security is giong to be better. And everything is going to be fully integrated. Some how those two have never gone hand in hand. Only time will tell. But for now I prefer the Unix ideom of 'do one thing, do it well.'
(It also reaks less of monopoly then do everything and do it noticably)
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
If 80% of all spam is coming from HACKED PC's, there clearly is criminal hacking charges on a federal and/or international level that could be brought against these guys, at some degree, conspiracy to say the least. I'm pessimistic of the DOJ's "promise" to bring the "top 50" spammers to justice this year. Why isn't that alone fueling the relentless takedowns of these guys while they pursue 15 year old virus writers that don't do much beyond pranks? Just because these zombied pc's are probably 99% home computers and not business computers where dollar amounts of damages can be easily calculated. It seems that's always the playing factor in how much the FBI "cares" about computer crimes.
This is a widespread misconception, akin to saying that if everyone drove Volvos, just as many people would die in traffic accidents as they do now. Millions of Americans have purchased large SUVs that tend to roll over three times more frequently than other automobiles. Volvos, on the other hand, are built with safety as a primary goal.
By the same token, would you expect an OpenBSD server to have the same level of default security protection as a Windows 2000 server? OpenBSD is built with the primary intention of being the world's most secure OS. Nowhere on the Windows 2000 product page do we see anything at all relating to security.
You can't assign positive characteristics to an OS on one hand (Windows XP doesn't crash as often as Windows 98) and then dismiss negative comparisons (Windows is less secure by default than Mac OS X or Linux).
Blame users all you want, but there are millions of uninformed Mac users out there. Believe it or not, in spite of their uninformed nature, they don't have to deal with anything like the litany of security and stability issues that confront Windows users.
It's hard to believe when you've been struggling with Windows for years and have grown accustomed to it, but while Linux and Macintosh aren't immune to security problems, the trojan horses and viruses that plague Windows users are a direct result of Microsoft's development philosophy, which emphasizes market dominance over quality.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ