Slashdot Mirror


Curing a Corporate Virus Infection

museumpeace writes "Over at Internet Storm Center Deb Hale's 'In search of the bot net' entry for September 25 recounts a grueling hunt for all the .exe's, reg entries and sources for a bot infection of a 60 server corporate network. What a nightmare! The story ends with an indictment of careless users and a suspicion that Ares, one of the sloppier Pirate2Pirate filesharing tools was the original souce of the extensive corruption that eventually even crippled the AV tools. How typical is this sort of grief? [More more frequent than reported, I would expect: the corporate victim demanded anonymity for the story to be told]."

346 comments

  1. Ah, so the best p2p client for getting music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    also happens to be the one most prone to viruses, eh?

    Hmmmmmm.....

    1. Re:Ah, so the best p2p client for getting music by killergreen · · Score: 1

      hey, let's face facts. anyone who has no qualms about distributing crackz and warez and copyrighted items would certainly have none about distributing *really* bad stuff. perhaps it's not just the software at fault.

      --
      Funny how the monitor has a brightness knob, but the users don't get any smarter. >:-)
    2. Re:Ah, so the best p2p client for getting music by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      "hey, let's face facts. anyone who has no qualms about distributing crackz and warez and copyrighted items would certainly have none about distributing *really* bad stuff. perhaps it's not just the software at fault." You are telling me my mother who downloaded a Beegees album yesterday and probably subsequently shared it would have no qualms about distributing "*really* bad stuff?" I might buy it if you left off the asterisks, why did you have to go and leave them in? Why... WHY?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    3. Re:Ah, so the best p2p client for getting music by killergreen · · Score: 1

      ;) Now I know who's been leeching "Staying Alive" and sucking up all my bandwidth.

      I wasn't just referring to users who end up with PC's used as zombies as a result of *really* bad stuff being distributed on p2p networks. Besides, I *like* asterisks. I could use underscores instead, though, if everyone preferred. I'm not _that_ picky.

      --
      Funny how the monitor has a brightness knob, but the users don't get any smarter. >:-)
  2. Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only slightly biased. I understand the annoyance of the admins over this screwup, but take deep breaths and count to 10 before you badmouth all P2P networks.

    1. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah yes, sorry old chap, let's say Porn 2 Porn... there, better?

    2. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It still is mostly a pirate to pirate network.

      It still is mostly used as a pirate to pirate network.

      Blame the users, not the network.

    3. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      1)the network was created FOR the users
      2)the network enables the piracy.

      Any "legitimate" use (which is dubious, at best) that gnutella, is so low (i'd be surprised if it was above 5% of gnutella, etc traffic) as to not justify the rampant sharing of unathorised copies of private works.

      The *AA is completely right in going after these networks; in fact they should be focused on that, instead of on changing our legal system to eliminate truly legitimate fair use.

    4. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Toresica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That depends on how you define best.

      Most files available? Fastest downloading? Nicest looking interface?

      Just because a p2p network is efficient and easy to use, and therefore insecure, doesn't mean it's the best

    5. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Ricwot · · Score: 1

      Good god, knives and guns enable murder, but they are also useful tools, just because someone uses them for crime does not mean that the objucts are inherantly evil

      p2p != the one ring

    6. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by mefus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any "legitimate" use (which is dubious, at best)

      Your analysis is not only faulty, it is unsubstantiated opinion. There have been numerous examples in the trade, on the Internet, and brought forth in recent civil suits that say with one voice: "You are wrong. There are many uses for p2p. It's very success speaks to that."

      not justify the rampant sharing of unathorised copies of private works.

      The legitimate uses don't have to "justify" those activities. The legitimate uses stand on their own, justify themselves, and justify the use of p2p tools. Your "rampant sharing of unauthorised copies" is justified by outdated distribution models, unreasonable pricing structures, legal attacks against new technologies, and cartels hostile to their customer base.

      The *AA is wrong to blame the networks, they should be focused on security problems in the OS they've spread all over their lans, and on the insecure mailreaders installed on those.

      --
      mefus
      In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
    7. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by glockenspieler · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ok, I'm going to go off on a rant here.

      I'm bloody well sick and tired of the piracy argument. The most succint argument about the permission culture that we are moving towards is put by Lessig in "Free Culture". We have this view that because something has value, that it equates to right. Look, if i bloody well want to share files, it is not obvious that I am "stealing" from anyone.

      Example: When photography first became relatively widespread, it was not clear whether someone was in their right to take pictures of people or buildings without permission. Afterall, the photographer might be getting something of value, so perhaps they should ask permission. Now, ask yourself, what would the culture be like right now if whenever you wanted to take some vacation photos, you need to get permission? Jeez, Kodak would have been just like Napster, just aiding people trying to steal other people's value.

      Remember, treating sharing as stealing someone's property is *one* system for treating intellectual property but it ain't the only one and it sure as hell ain't the one that the US has had for at least its first 180 years.

      Piracy? Bloody well pisses me off whenever someone uses that term!

    8. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phrase "pirate 2 pirate network" doesn't imply that the network is evil, not at all!

    9. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      But P2P has not place on corporate networks.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    10. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Romeozulu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's because you don't make your living off creating original IP. Music, Movies, Games, Books, Etc.

      Please. Please take the time to understand the issue from the point of view of the artists. And please be mature enough to realize that not all artists are rich spoiled musicians.

      If I create something and people use it without compensating me for my hard work and talent, then that is wrong (assuming I am asking for something in return). Maybe it's not "stealing", but it is not fair and it is wrong.

      Do you believe that anything that is not a solid object should be freely copied whenever someone wants? Honestly? Have you really spent the time to think about what that would really mean?

      What do you do for a living?

    11. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by julesh · · Score: 1

      P2P has not place on corporate networks

      I don't agree. Piracy has no place on corporate networks. Porn has no place on corporate networks. But, despite making up a very high percentage of the traffic on P2P networks, these two are not the only uses of such networks.

      As a business user who frequently uses P2P networks to transfer large files between my office and home machines, I can assure you that there are legitimate uses, and that in many cases these are more convenient than the alternatives.

    12. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by number11 · · Score: 1

      the more effiecent a p2p network is, the less secure it requires your computer to be

      That's bull. You normally have one, maybe two ports open to incoming, and exploits have been rare. The insecurity normally revolves around 1) morons who share their entire HD, or 2) morons who download L33t Pr0n War3z without considering that "NudeBritneyAndWarthog.scr" may not be a benign file. (Some p2p progs attempt to foolproof themselves by limiting the folders that can be shared, and blocking files with executable extensions, but we all know that fools can be quite ingenious in defeating safety interlocks.) I've been running various p2p programs 24/7 for years, and have never experienced ANY security problems (if we don't count uploading files to unknown parties).

    13. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok; "best" as in, has a variety of files which you can obtain in a reasonable (ie, less than several hours or days) amount of time.

      I guess I see your point; but a p2p network that is the "best at security" would be useless because of being unusable on every other front (eg, being inefficent at getting files) which is why the networks rightly focus on the efficency side, rather than on the security side.

    14. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by glockenspieler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because you don't make your living off creating original IP. Music, Movies, Games, Books, Etc.
      br> I'm a scientist. I create what you refer to as IP every day.

      Please. Please take the time to understand the issue from the point of view of the artists. And please be mature enough to realize that not all artists are rich spoiled musicians.

      I never said nor thought that they were all "rich spoiled musicians". Indeed, I would argue that small indendent creators have more to gain from a system of distribution that bypasses the typical middle men such as publishers and record labels. I have many friends that have had book or recording contracts. I think that I would have a hard time telling these individuals whose market is likely to be small for their output that they are better off with these publishers/labels than developing alternative distribution methods. P2P is one possible distribution method and one that does not obviously equate to taking the food from the mouth of creators children.

      Do you believe that anything that is not a solid object should be freely copied whenever someone wants?

      Nice attempt to distort my original point. No, of course I do not. Do you believe that the only and best way that creators can make a living is by allowing a small number of media companies control distribution and use of media?

      Have you really spent the time to think about what that would really mean?

      Yes. Have you?

    15. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by TykeClone · · Score: 3, Informative
      As a business user who frequently uses P2P networks to transfer large files between my office and home machines, I can assure you that there are legitimate uses, and that in many cases these are more convenient than the alternatives.

      I think that the dangers outweigh the advantages of using P2P for that. Some guy has been advertising this site http://www.foundonp2p.com/[foundonp2p.com] that shows private data that can be found on p2p networks.

      For moving stuff back and forth from home, I'd think that you'd be better off having IT set up a secure FTP site than P2P.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    16. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Alright, I have a question for you then, how do you stop windows from sharing the harddrives? The default settings in windows nt/2000/xp/2003 is that they share the harddrives under \\IP\DRIVE-LETTER$\ like \\IP\DRIVE-LETTER$\ Of course they are hidden folders, so you won't see them, and when you try to disable it, windows just recreates the share on reboot by the way. Alot of people achieve to get spyware/adware etc... just by browsing certain webpages, even with internet explorer's security set to high, and auto updates enabled. as for p2p programs... well, ICQ is a p2p program, the only harm you get from it I've seen is those anoying ads (which can be removed). And, how would you know you never experienced ANY security problems? The average user doesn't even know when s/he has 12 viruses lurking around on their system.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    17. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by wuice · · Score: 1

      And the people who use the 5th amendment are "mostly" guilty. What kind of argument were you trying to make, exactly?

    18. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Calamormine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Allow me to interject. I am a professional musician (no, you haven't heard of me) and when I write a song, or a piece of music, I am thrilled to see it end up on a P2P network. Frankly, I think it's a shame that it is so hard to be a musician without having to sign with a soulless record company who only wants the rights to your intellectual property. It would be nice if selling music were more like selling your house. If you don't want to use a gigantic record corp., you put the music out yourself! Now, how would you put the music out yourself? P2P? Brilliant! It's so easy to assume the moral high ground in jumping down P2P users throats, but it's actually a very useful thing to upcoming musicians. If people don't know you they can't like you, and most people are not going to go out and buy stacks of CDs from people they know nothing about. But people are going to do genre searches, and if they come across your stuff, they are going to be able to like it, and then if they like it, they will support it.

    19. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by julesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that the dangers outweigh the advantages of using P2P for that. Some guy has been advertising this site http://www.foundonp2p.com/[foundonp2p.com] that shows private data that can be found on p2p networks.

      We have an application that automatically encrypts the files we might want to transport using 3DES, and PGP e-mails the SHA1, randomised filename and key to the potential recipients before putting the file into a gnutella public directory. This seems secure to me.

      I agree, if you don't know what you're doing with it, a P2P network can be dangerous.

      For moving stuff back and forth from home, I'd think that you'd be better off having IT set up a secure FTP site than P2P.

      That'd be useful, but the cost of upgrading our internet access to a static IP address is more than we can justify. We'd also have to upgrade our firewall to support it. P2P seemed the easiest solution to us. We tried rewritable CDs, but they quickly became a source of annoyance. Not to mention people not realising what they needed before they needed it.

    20. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by arose · · Score: 2
      That's because you don't make your living off creating original IP. Music, Movies, Games, Books, Etc.
      If someone makes their living off of creating creative works copyright has no bearing to them. The ones who make their living off of monopolizing the copying of cretive works on the other hand...
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    21. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      You've thought about it and it sounds like you've got your bases covered, but It's not something that I'd do. To each his own.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    22. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but if that's true, then you shouldn't have any need to illegally download RIAA artists because, by your definition, they aren't "true artists" and therefore produce only crap.

      Look, here's how the law works now: It's VERY simple, and all these arguments just gloss over the fact of it:

      IF YOU CREATE THE MATERIAL, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT. IF YOU DO NOT CREATE THE MATERIAL, YOU CAN DO ONLY WHAT CREATOR SAYS YOU CAN.

      Lucas created Star Wars. You can whinge on and on about how he 'ruined' it, but the fact is that because he created it, he can do whatever he wants with it. And because he puts a little notice on it saying, "this work cannot be distributed without express permission from me" that means you can't do it. PERIOD. That's ALL THERE IS to copyright law. It's simple.

      If you think it's wrong, fine, WORK TO CHANGE THE LAW, but don't break it! Use the Ghandi method to change the law, not the revolutionary method.

    23. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >As a business user who frequently uses P2P networks to transfer large files between my office and home machines, I can assure you that there are legitimate uses, and that in many cases these are more convenient than the alternatives.

      I think that the dangers outweigh the advantages of using P2P for that. Some guy has been advertising this site http://www.foundonp2p.com/[foundonp2p.com] that shows private data that can be found on p2p networks.

      For moving stuff back and forth from home, I'd think that you'd be better off having IT set up a secure FTP site than P2P.

      There are also private encrypted p2p networks like WASTE though.

      He might have meant something like that.

      For his sake I hope so... ;)

    24. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Quarters · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So should I be saying "FU!" to the people that steal the games I work on or should I be saying "FU!" to myself for being such a whore that I want to have a house for myself and my wife, food on our table, clothes in our closet, and money with which to enjoy our lives?

      According to you I'm a horrible horrible person for not working my life away to let you have all the fun you want while I live in squalor. Gee, thanks. I don't understand how I completely misunderstood my place in life all these years! You, the one with no talents but a freely available file sharing program get everything while I, the educated, hard working person with a great idea and the means to produce it must be resigned to a life of crap.

      Do you enjoy going through live being a complete and total self-centered, cheap ass bastard?

    25. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by M51DPS · · Score: 2, Funny

      So should I be saying "FU!" to the people that steal the games I work on or should I be saying "FU!" to myself for being such a whore that I want to have a house for myself and my wife, food on our table, clothes in our closet, and money with which to enjoy our lives?

      According to you I'm a horrible horrible person for not working my life away to let you have all the fun you want while I live in squalor. Gee, thanks. I don't understand how I completely misunderstood my place in life all these years! You, the one with no talents but a freely available file sharing program get everything while I, the educated, hard working person with a great idea and the means to produce it must be resigned to a life of crap.

      Do you enjoy going through live being a complete and total self-centered, cheap ass bastard?

      Yes and yes. If it's not too much to ask, could you make your games open-source and stop what you're doing?

    26. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by fsck! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Find me one architect that objects to people photographing the buildings he or she designed.

    27. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think it's wrong, fine, WORK TO CHANGE THE LAW, but don't break it! Use the Ghandi method to change the law, not the revolutionary method.

      Check out http://www.emory.edu/ENGLISH/Bahri/Dandi.html
      Som e selected quotes:

      on March 2, 1930 Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy, Lord Irwin:

      If my letter makes no appeal to your heart, on the eleventh day of this month I shall proceed with such co-workers of the Ashram as I can take, to disregard the provisions of the Salt Laws. I regard this tax to be the most iniquitous of all from the poor man's standpoint.


      Hmmm. "to disregard the provisions of the Salt Laws". Sounds like he was planning on breaking the law.

      On April 6th he picked up a lump of mud and salt (some say just a pinch, some say just a grain) and boiled it in seawater to make the commodity which no Indian could legally produce--salt

      He DID break the law....

      He implored his thousands of followers to begin to make salt... Salt was sold, illegally, all over the seacoast of India. A pinch of salt from Gandhi himself sold for 1,600 rupees, perhaps $750 dollars at the time. In reaction to this, the British government had incarcerated over sixty thousand people at the end of the month ...and encouraged others to do so also.

      Know what you are talking about before you speak.

    28. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Do you sit in your fucking basement with a few encyclopedias and a big notebook writing replies to possibly anti-piracy arguments?

      Holy shit, so because I was *slightly* wrong about Ghandi means that stealing people's IP is right? Good thing you have it all fucking figured out.

    29. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by mAineAc · · Score: 1

      No that is not what I said but there is a difference between art and doing work that you are getting paid for. If you are working and getting paid then that is your reward. You have no rigth to call it art. The Mona Lisa is art. It has a very high value tied to it, but the artist never saw any of htat value. He created it because of his love of the creation of it, not because he was going to make big money for it. I see nothing wrong with getting paid for art, but to get rich off of something and doing it for the soul purpose of getting rich is not art. If you write a program for the sheer joy of writing that program, becuase you twist code into beautiful prose, then that is art. But if you write a program that you are writing to just finish a project or because you have the soul desire to get rich and nothing more than you have crossed over to just doing for a totally different reason. I realize that years down the line you don't know what the purpose behind something was and some things become intrinsically artisitic and valuable, but to say that Britney Spears is an artist just makes me sick because art is the furthest thing from her mind. Perhaps in the beginning it was but what she does now adays has nothing to do with art.

    30. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) Google is your friend
      B) RTFM
      C) Q314984

    31. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by jdreed1024 · · Score: 1
      Frankly, I think it's a shame that it is so hard to be a musician without having to sign with a soulless record company who only wants the rights to your intellectual property. It would be nice if selling music were more like selling your house.

      You mean how you can either sign with a soulless real estate agency and get a lot of people passing through and publicity, or how you can go it yourself and take twice as long to actually sell? (I agree with what you're saying, it's just selling house doesn't seem that much easier)

      What would have been clever is if a bunch of independent musicians had gotten together in the dot-com boom, when you could still get millions of dollars from venture capitalists just by adding "e" to the beginning of your company name, and formed some sort of online recording label with low overhead which could actually get artists out there and on the radio or selling non-DRM mp3s for cheap. And it probably would have been profitable and not gone under, since people actually want music (As opposed to other sites whose business model was 'make a website that uses Flash and then buy as many Aeron chairs as possible')

      Once you get one record label that doesn't have slavery contracts yet still gets the artists heard on the radio and the charts, it'll be the beginning of the end for current recording contracts and practices. But until then, it still sucks.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    32. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is even if everyone did buy the game. Your employer wouldn't give you a penny more in wages. But i'm sure your employer likes you fighting the capitalist fight anyways. Unless you are the Employer/Capitalist of course.

    33. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      IF YOU CREATE THE MATERIAL, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT. IF YOU DO NOT CREATE THE MATERIAL, YOU CAN DO ONLY WHAT CREATOR SAYS YOU CAN.

      That's wrong, very wrong. In some places, the creator does have some control over it, but nowhere in the world does the creator have sole control and say-so. Copyright is not an inherent right, it is a necessary evil. It is limited in length and scope (though seemingly less so every day). To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the inherent problem with IP laws, in comparison to normal property laws, is that they cover ideas. Though the law tries, it can never hope to restrict the passing of an idea, nor can it stop the idea from sparking new ideas in others (derivative works). In fact, you can't stop the idea from spreading. Once it enters someone's head, the harder they try to get it out the more stuck it becomes. IP differs significantly from normal property in that the idea can be, and is, copied repeatedly without depriving the "owner" of the property themselves.

      Property laws exist solely because the property can only be used one at a time. IP law only exists as a limited form as an incentive to share ideas (ironic, eh?). But it is not all encompassing, far from it. Fair use and time limits are paramount to the point of IP laws.

    34. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by spectecjr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Mona Lisa is art. It has a very high value tied to it, but the artist never saw any of htat value. He created it because of his love of the creation of it, not because he was going to make big money for it.

      He certainly was paid big money for it. Da Vinci worked on commission, and for specific people most of his life, including the Pope, the Duke Of Milan and others.

      Learn some history.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    35. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      The irony is even if everyone did buy the game. Your employer wouldn't give you a penny more in wages. But i'm sure your employer likes you fighting the capitalist fight anyways. Unless you are the Employer/Capitalist of course.

      Hmm... last games company I worked for had this little thing called "profit sharing", where employees would get a considerable chunk of the profits on any game, scaled by performance, but with a base floor.

      Even a poor performing division of the company would make $4k of bonuses per year for every employee, plus the merit amount.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    36. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god we have pompous ass hats like you to help us understand what art is.

      If I paint a picture for money it's not art, but if I paint a picture becuase I can get money for doing it to pay my bills, so I don;t have to live i a card board box it;s not art.

      You are a stupid self rightous small thinker.

      What was the last thing you created? A big mac?

    37. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by rifter · · Score: 0

      A) Google is your friend
      B) RTFM
      C) Q314984

      Yeah and you haven't tried to actually do this. As the previous poster noted, windows puts these back automatically. Even if it did not, deleting the root drive admin share and some others breaks Windows in various and sundry ways because even some local services rely on these admin shares.

    38. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      So should I be saying "FU!" to the people that steal the games I work on or should I be saying "FU!" to myself for being such a whore that I want to have a house for myself and my wife, food on our table, clothes in our closet, and money with which to enjoy our lives?

      Here's an honest question. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm curious what your answer is. If people "stealing" your game results in more sales of the game, and hence more income, would you think it is acceptable for people to share your game without your permission (i.e., steal in your words), or would you still be quite opposed to it?

      I ask only because I think this is a very grey area and I'm not sure there's a solution. There is plenty of evidence that file sharing has resulted in many artists selling more and even general increases in CD sales at point-of-sale (stores, online). Similarly, lots of software (potentially games) attract and get users "addicted" through illegal copies. I've been using "free" copies of Matlab on my own for about 10 years, and my skills in it have lead me to get the company I work for to buy a number of licenses from Mathworks. Now, I never would have paid for Matlab for personal use, I could never afford it. But Mathworks has made tens of thousands of dollars because I was able to obtain "free" versions.

      This type of case suggests it is in Mathworks interest to allow sharing/illegal copies of Matlab. On the other hand, if these copies were legal in nature there'd be no incentive for companies to actually pay for their copies. This leave Mathworks in a paradox. They benefit from illegal sharing of their software, but if they support it as a legal practise then they lose the benefit. It seems that the solution that is in Mathworks' best interests it to turn a blind eye to personal sharing and keep their mouth shut, but enforce the law with commercial businesses. This can only work if law enforcement also turns a blind eye to personal sharing.

      I imagine there are a lot of cases like this. Perhaps yours is too. If that's the case, it might be in your best interests just to grin and bear the illegal sharing, if your goal is to feed and clothe your family. It's an odd set of circumstances, but I'm not sure there is a better solution than the status quo.

    39. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't be angry at all.

      Look, the vast majority of the people playing your game without paying for it wouldn't have ever paid for it if you had some sort of magic copy-protection technology.

      You sure do have a right to royalties from the sale of your game, and should be flattered that people want to play it.

      I find that MOST people out there do have a conscience, they will go out and buy stuff they use a lot, be it music, movies, or games. I remember a few years ago a VCD of Mallrats went to each of my friends, one of us had a CD burner. Now, of that group of ten or so people, three went out and BOUGHT the DVD. So seven people are watching it 'free', but three people bought it, and that's two more than if we didn't have the VCD in circulation.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    40. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do you enjoy going through live being a complete and total self-centered, cheap ass bastard?

      Yes.

    41. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your analogy just fell apart, because the parent poster had the gall to point out that Gandhi indeed broke the law! No, of course no person with a life would bother pointing that out to you.

      All the capital letters didn't work, so let's go ad hominem! It'll be all right, because you know you're right.

    42. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Quarters · · Score: 1
      I can honestly answer that question..."yes". Early in my career (mid '90s) I worked for an online game company that gave the games away for free. You could download them for free (not counting subscription fees) from GEnie. You were then required to pay by the hour to play them. It worked and the spread of the free games did indeed help acquire new paying customers.

      That business model has all but dried up, though. Games now are sold in boxes and the SKU is king. Royalty rates are tied to the success of the company. The success of the company is tied to the publisher selling boxes. If the publisher doesn't sell the minimum number of boxes needed to fulfill the contract then the developer gets $0 after the release of the product and, more often than not, goes out of business. It's painful as all getout to see a game you've worked multiple years on not sell well, yet literaly hundreds of thousands of people are playing it online. It's doubly painful to see those numbers while you are unemployed, sitting at home, polishing up your resume, and doing everything you can possibly imagine to try and get another job.

      The original ranter can call me a money grubbing whore all he wants. He can claim that since I make money off of my work I'm not making art, blah blah blah. But until he sits down and actually devotes his talents towards creating something and then seeing it used without compensation--seeing first hand the connection between rampant copying and the rapid depletion of his personal savings as he tries to stay solvent, he'll never be able to have a valid debate over this. He's wrong, front to back, but he doesn't have the real world experience (e.g. pain) to understand that. So, instead he'll act like the world owes him somethng for nothing and turn a blind eye to the fact that his actions do have direct consequences on other human beings.

      Case in point, the author of the story this discussion deals with had to expend a lot of personal time, effort, imagination, and corporate finances to track down a network that had been compromised because somebody felt it necessary to have some dodgy P2P software installed on their work machine. Someone at that company felt entitled to get something that they should've paid for and caused a fellow worker now end of grief just for their own personal convenience/amusement.

    43. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      I've always been fond of calling them file-stealing networks. That doesn't keep me from using them though.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    44. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by number11 · · Score: 1

      how do you stop windows from sharing the harddrives

      Windows shares don't have anything to do with it. P2P programs (at least, all the ones I'm familiar with.. the KaZaa clones, Soulseek, WinMX, Piolet, Limewire, Bearshare, Shareaza, Gnucleus, BitTorrent, ES5, a few others) share specified directories or files. Usually the default is something like C:\Program Files\Shareaza\Downloads, but that can be changed by the user. (I have one particular set of folders that I share, the same folders for every program.) Some programs will scan your HD looking for media files and offer to share them, but you're not obliged to accept the offer. I think at one time, there was a braindead program (maybe KaZaa) that offered to share C:\ but I don't recall ever personally seeing such defaults, and some programs will not accept such a setting even if you want to do it.

      how would you know you never experienced ANY security problems? The average user doesn't even know when s/he has 12 viruses lurking around on their system.

      Obviously I can't prove that there are no security problems that I am unaware of. (Leaving aside the "security problem" involving other parties who may take offense at one or another file that I share, but that's an innate risk in any non-anonymous sharing.) But reports of security problems are rare, unlike the situation for people who use IE/OE, where new problems seem to be a weekly event. And yes, there are people who don't notice they are infected with viruses until their machine dies under the load, but I'm presuming a minimal level of competence, reasonably current AV software, and the understanding that any downloaded executable needs to be carefully checked before running it. Anyone who can't meet that standard will probably run into trouble no matter what they're running, or not running. I routinely run p2p programs, follow p2p news, am significantly more paranoid than the average user, and do tech support for one such program; if there were any significant known problems, I'd have heard about it.

    45. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Problem is you can not trust the files.

      I have 2 worms on the system I am typing this on. I like my porn and can't run Linux due to my wifi card not being recongized so I have to use Windows.

      I just have 2 different windows installations on my system where one is used for work and I never open porn while the other is for goofing around.

      When I do a netstat -an everything seems fine at first. After watching movies and logging into DC++ I have ports opened at 23, 6667, and 21. I am not stupid and know my system is logging into IRC chat and telnet and ftp servers.

      But back to my point I think a NFS volume or internal ftp site where the administrators know the executables are safe, would be the safest bet. Most places today have strict policies where users should not run unathorized executables anyway or even change their settings on their pc due to support issues.

    46. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Now, how would you put the music out yourself? P2P? Brilliant! It's so easy to assume the moral high ground in jumping down P2P users throats, but it's actually a very useful thing to upcoming musicians.

      Hmmm... I would argue however that the majority of people on P2P networks aren't downloading stuff that is new and unknown, they are downloading the known and overrated.

      I/We lived with my gf's family members for a bit. They had a computer and the cousins and nephews came and used it all day and night. It was on a 3Mbs connection so they marvelled at their download speeds. Soon a junior highschooler came over and downloaded Ares.

      What did he download with it?

      Blockbuster movies: Torque, 2 Fast 2 Furious, Lord of The Rings (we had the DVD's in the SAME ROOM!), and "hit" music: Britney Spears, "50-cent", Eminem, Eminem, Eminem, and their ilk.

      What happened? The lines were clogged constantly and the computer went down to computer viruses and spyware.

      Sure, the fault is the users. No doubt that I've used a few networks to get Linux distributions (Gnutella, eDonkey) but most users are doing that. Ares isn't good for anything more than piracy, it's users all looking for Hollywood movies and RIAA protected acts. Same goes for Kazaa. Some networks are prone to be piracy only because of their userbase.

      I'm not for shutting anything on the Internet down but I wasn't suprised when Napster was closed (made sense to me) and Kazaa should just silently die. For god sakes, Kazaa makes money off other people's copyrights (ads in the program). That is wrong.

    47. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by mantera · · Score: 1


      "The UMG boss had little sympathy for the twelve-year-old girl in a New York housing project who had harbored an MP3 of the theme tune to her favorite show on her computer, and had been sued by the RIAA. Her family paid out thousands of dollars in a settlement. She was a "serious file sharer", insisted Kennedy.
      But he had even less sympathy for songwriters, who receive only a small fraction of royalties that recordings owners receive. that was fair, he insisted, as hits were down to investment in marketing, he said."
      "He'd be more sympathetic to songwriters, he said, the day that record companies had "50 per cent margins". In fact, he claimed that record companies spend more on R&D than technology companies, because of the marketing spend required to create a hit [On the balance sheets that the rest of the world must use, marketing expenditure is filed under "cost of sale", not R&D.]. The implication was clear: the success of an artist was down to the Shock and Awe bombing of the record company's marketing team, which is very expensive.
      (Alert readers will be wondering why, if the songwriter's contribution is so ephemeral, UMG doesn't score a number one hit with every record it releases. John could then write all the hits himself, on a toy piano).


      From Music boss can't wait to sue British file sharers

      Question; why should I have any sympathy for such a carnivorous jerk??!

    48. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by phillymacmike · · Score: 2, Insightful
      According to a paper I just googled,
      Copyright provides architects, as authors of architectural works, protection for their designs, and grants to third parties the affirmative right to photograph publicly accessible buildings and to freely distribute and display those photographs. The free exchange of ideas, and the freedom to borrow and expand on those ideas, are integral to the design process; copyright protection tailored to the particular nature of architectural design benefits the public and advances cultural development.

      In contrast, however, in trade mark law, architectural works are properly protected where the design is the "signature" style of the architect. Copyright law permits individuals to photograph architectural designs, but trade mark law preempts the right freely to use a trade marked architectural creation. Some buildings in the U.S.A. currently under trade mark include the Chrysler Building and Guggenheim Museum in New York, the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco, the Wrigley Building and Citicorp Center in Chicago, and The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. Trade mark protection for buildings is limited, however, as it precludes another party from designing a building in the same shape.

      So there are some IP protections available to real property developers. =)

      Quotation from this Word file.

      IIRC, the section of the Copyright Act that explicitly allows photography of publicly accessible buildings--120--was written in response to a lawsuit against a photographer by the Guggenheim in New York.

      --
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _>8
      Too many errors in one post (make fewer).
    49. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Mona Lisa is art. It has a very high value tied to it, but the artist never saw any of htat value.

      It's called commission, dipshit.

    50. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by flonker · · Score: 1

      Have you tried dynamic dns? P2P seems like incredible overkill for this problem.

    51. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      Yeah and you haven't tried to actually do this. As the previous poster noted, windows puts these back automatically.

      Only because you didn't RTFM.

      To delete the hidden administrative shares for all root partitions and volumes (such as C$) and the system root folder (ADMIN$) and to prevent Windows from re-creating them, add an AutoShareWks DWORD value to the following registry key, and then set its value data to 0:

      HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\LanmanServer\Parameters

      Even if it did not, deleting the root drive admin share and some others breaks Windows in various and sundry ways because even some local services rely on these admin shares.

      Most home users do not need or use these services.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    52. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Holy shit, so because I was *slightly* wrong about Ghandi means that stealing people's IP is right? Good thing you have it all fucking figured out.
      Calm down, dude. All he did was point out that your Gandhi analogy was false. He didn't say that it disproved your point about IP law. You should be grateful that he politely corrected you, so that next time you can write a better post, instead of being an asshole about it.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    53. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If I create something and people use it without compensating me for my hard work and talent, then that is wrong (assuming I am asking for something in return). Maybe it's not "stealing", but it is not fair and it is wrong.

      Why do you think continually receiving remuneration for "hard work" you did once - up to and beyond the end of your life - is "right" ?

      I mean, most people go out, do a days work, and get paid for it - why do you think "artists" should be paid for a days work over and over and over again ?

      Do you believe that anything that is not a solid object should be freely copied whenever someone wants?

      I don't think that copying anything should be disallowed purely because doing so has suddenly become extremely cheap.

      Honestly? Have you really spent the time to think about what that would really mean?

      Yes. Have you spent time trying to understand the logic that says storing a copy of something in your brain is fine, but doing it on a piece of paper, a cassette tape, a CD or a computer is wrong ?

      What do you do for a living?

      I work, and, much as I'd like to be paid for the rest of my life (and most of my children's lives) for each day I work, I don't think I have any moral right to be.

    54. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      Now, ask yourself, what would the culture be like right now if whenever you wanted to take some vacation photos, you need to get permission? Jeez, Kodak would have been just like Napster, just aiding people trying to steal other people's value. --------- You are aware that in some locations (example stores) they have the right (requirement) to take your camera/film due to IP questions. So yes you can do all the photos you want but not inside/next to a store.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    55. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by FreakWent · · Score: 1


      I have 2 worms on the system I am typing this on

      And you know this, and you leave them there? That's unwise, to say the least.

    56. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "If I create something and people use it without compensating me for my hard work and talent, then that is wrong."

      Bullshit.

      There is nothing in the theory of property or the history and evolution of the human species and economic social behavior which supports this notion.

      Nothing.

      Period.

      As for "copying anything not a solid object", what the fuck do you think people are going to do when nanotech allows you to copy ANYTHING - including solid objects?

      There is no such thing as "intellectual property" - except the one situation where I know something you don't and I sell that information to you - ONE TIME. After that, it is no longer "intellectual property" and becomes "general knowledge" (unless of course you keep it a secret, too - then you become a competitor.)

      And in addition, your argument is bullshit because there is nothing in economic theory that says you HAVE to be compensated for anything, OR that you have to be "properly" compensated. All economic theory says is that you can trade something for something else. It does not say you have to be repeatedly compensated for the same item, nor does it say that you have to make a living from that compensation, nor does it say anything about replication and distribution by anyone else.

      Nor does economic theory say anything about "fair". "Fair" is a value judgement and has nothing to do with economics. Economics measures "value" based on action - if you do it, you thought it was in your interest to do it, so that was the "value" you placed on it.

      Anything else is moralistic bullshit.

      If you produce a product which is easily reproducible and distributable, you'd better find a way to make your money up front or all at once, because in the real world - not the world of lawyers and politicians - in the real world of technology, the "value" of your product is going to go to near (but never absolute) zero very quickly. The way you deal with that is to be creative in your marketing - not by whining and passing laws and attempting to coerce people into giving you money for something which has MUCH less "value" than you think it does.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    57. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Quarters · · Score: 1
      Wow, what a great slanted, uneducated, and banal response that was.

      I never said people should buy somethng I work on if they feel it isn't worth their money. That false claim came from you, not me. If people don't like what I create that's fine. That's great. That lets me know I should should do better next time. But, those people have absolutely no right whatsoever to make the completely illogical, misguided, and outright immoral claim that since they weren't going to pay for the product they should just get it for free anyway. Next time you feel that way go in to any local store, pick up an item and walk out with it. When you get busted for shoplifting use the claim of "I value it at $0, so I should just get it." and see where that gets you. Yeah yeah you can make the strawman argument that digital bits can be copied without incuring any financial burden so it's "different", blah blah blah. That totally marginalizes the work done to create those bits in the first place, though.

      Yeah, It's all about me because I need money to survive. Whatever..

    58. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't talented people wanting to profit from their intellect and the fruits of their labors. It is greedy people and corporations with money buying patents, from a gov org gone whacko, on "IP" that is no more complicated than "One Click Shopping" and using the patents in place of true 'innovation' to block competition from folks with talent, like yourself.

      Microsoft, plundering the commons, according to the courts now owns the word "Windows, which has been in the dictionary for hundres of years. I fully expect 200 year old math algoriths to be patented next. A lot of "IP" patents that are being issued today are for code snippits that have been around for decades. Can you say "Prior Art"?

      Most folks like yourself don't have the cash to fight Amazon, Microsoft, or some Lizard lawyer whose started a "Technology Holding Company", has never invented a thing, and uses submarine patents to put a lock on innovative ideas before they come to term. So they steal your "IP" as their own because a corrupt TPO and a corrupt court lets them get away with it.

    59. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Lancaibheal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? I have a hobby business, and I sell music and books - pretty much flogging licences to IP. I don't exploit the creators of the IP, in fact, pretty much everything I sell comes straight from the author or artist, with them getting a reasonable cut of the profits. These are the people that "sharing" is supposed to help, but in reality, it doesn't really work out for them. They sure need the money more than RHCP or Stephen King does - so each individual sale lost to piracy hurts like hell. It doesn't help me either, because the money that I spend promoting these wares, and developing the infrastructure to sell/distribute the materials is also lost when some pimply kid decides he'd rather "share" the music than pay for it. I'm all for using new technology to distribute material, cut out the middlemen, and get artists an equitable share for their work. But if you want something, even IP, you have to pay for it, and no amount of feel-good "sharing" arguments are going to change that. Piracy isn't just hurting the big record company executives, it's hurting everyone else down the chain as well.

    60. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      They are in my porn mpegs.

      They will come back each time I view the files.

      I dont care because I backup my critical data elsewhere and use another worm free windows installation where I never open the infected files.

      If I could run them under Unix I could. I would not have that problem if I run them via xine in jail.

    61. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      IP is not the only way for society to reward creativity. It is just the best one we've thought of so far.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    62. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're an artist and you're teaming up with the record companies (and you agree to their facist methods) then you're a moron. Their obviously using you. And because you like that, they want to abuse me by taking my painstakingly earned dollars.

      How much does it cost to produce a cd? not much more than a dollar.

      The MPAA and the RIAA (and other similar facists) say they are defending your rights. They defend your right to be fuked up the ass enormously.

    63. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      You didn't grasp anything I said.

      No surprise.

      "That totally marginalizes the work done to create those bits in the first place, though."

      I have news for you. They ARE "marginalized". That is the PURPOSE of the free market - to minimize the cost of survival for everyone in the species. Which is why people who are first to market get "monopoly" profit - which is then rapidly eroded as others invest in that market and reduce the cost of acquiring that product.

      Which is exactly what technology is supposed to do - and which is exactly what technology IS doing to so-called "intellectual property".

      You have no clue. So you continue to blather "whatever", which demonstrates that fact clearly.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    64. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're apparently not so educated if you've such limited vision of life.

      Do you really think that aal the people that might have downloaded your pitifull product are potential buyers?

      If your product was so great, the holy grail, the solution to all problems, people would buy it.

      Now go back to you pathetic monitor and hide behind it, live there your simple silly insignificant life, you simious looking tech moron.

    65. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Fair use and time limits are paramount to the point of IP laws.


      Fair use, however, does not mean "I don't want to pay for it, so I can copy it whenever I want".

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    66. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

      That's because you don't make your living off copying IP. Music, Movies, Games, Books, Etc.

      Please. Please take the time to understand the issue from the point of view of the copiers. And please be mature enough to realize that not all copiers are rich spoiled capitalists.

      If I copy something and people use it without compensating me for my hard work and leet skills, then that is wrong (assuming I am asking for something in return). Maybe it's not "stealing", but it is not fair and it is wrong.

      Do you believe that anything that is not a solid object should not be freely copied whenever someone wants? Honestly? Have you really spent the time to think about what that would really mean?

      What do you do for a living?

      THIS IS A serious PARODY

      --
      I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
    67. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Probably not in the mpegs; the ASFs are a more likely carrier, as ASF supports scripting and is subject to the same script-related vulnerabilities as internet explorer.

      If you switch away from Windows Media Player, you will find a number of players that don't execute the scripts in ASF files. There are also utilities that will recode your ASF files to AVI, which cannot have scripts in them.

    68. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      Fair use, however, does not mean "I don't want to pay for it, so I can copy it whenever I want".

      This is absolutely true. But that's completely different from "IF YOU DO NOT CREATE THE MATERIAL, YOU CAN DO ONLY WHAT CREATOR SAYS YOU CAN" from the parent post. Yes, there are some restrictions, but they are very limited. By the way, depending on what country you live in you can generally "copy it whenever I want" and in others you can copy it under a fairly wide range of circumstances. For example, in Canada it is legal to borrow a CD from a friend and copy it and even P2P downloading and sharing are legal for music. And yet CD sales in Canada have increased. (I find it funny when sales decrease the music industry blames it on P2P and when sales increase they blame it on "publicity arising from music industry efforts to sue illegal file swappers" -- which doesn't even recognize that it is legal in Canada.)

    69. Re:Pirate to Pirate? by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      The original ranter can call me a money grubbing whore all he wants.

      And I'd also disagree with him. People should be able to make a living off of creating software, music, etc. However, as in my example with Matlab, it seems to me the issue is far from black and white. For example, you state "It's painful as all getout to see a game you've worked multiple years on not sell well, yet literaly hundreds of thousands of people are playing it online." Supposing P2P didn't exist and the only way those "hundreds of thousands of people" could get that game was by paying for it, do you know that even a single one of them would have bought it? Or would they even have heard about it if it was distributed over P2P?

      Just because somebody likes something doesn't mean they'd buy it if they couldn't get it for free. (Of course many of those people might not even like it, they might just be trying it out to see if they like it.) Think of all the people who have downloaded more than 10,000 songs. Does anybody believe they'd actually buy 10,000 CDs (~$150,000) if they could get them for free?

      Unfortunately, we can't know. The marketplace is too complicated to atribute things to one source. Yet some people spin it like it can, resulting in absurd statements like if CD sales drop it is because of P2P "pirating" and if they increase it is due to publicity of suing illegal sharers. Now that's spin. Somehow free music (to the listener) on the radio increases CD sales but free music from P2P decreases them, unless they actually increase in which case it is because of efforts against P2P. Give me a break.

      Anyway. If your case is truly due to P2P, it's a shame. It's quite possible. But I'm not sure anyone can know. I also don't know what the solution is. As I pointed out with my Matlab example, outlawing P2P isn't the answer (baby/bathwater), and yet completely legalizing sharing of everything also won't work. The answer is somewhere in the middle and is going to be very complicated. Good luck.

  3. It's easy to blame the users... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's easy to blame the users, but the ultimate responsibility always is the IT department, because it is responsible for security.

    And security always includes usage policies.

    1. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by hookedup · · Score: 1

      right.

      that user should not have had the priveledges to install software in the first place.

    2. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Misinformed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Its easy for admins to blame users.

      Users probably broke some internal rule about not installing external software and are certianly not blameless, but the ultimate job and responsibility of admins is to administrate. The admins let them have the right to install programs and seemingly didn't enforce/check logs to see what users had been installing.

      --
      --

      Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.
    3. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by SlamMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Plenty of don't have that option. When management says "no, of course users should be able to install software on the machines they use," the IT shop has a bit more of an added challenge.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    4. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Mod+Me+God · · Score: 0

      I totally agree dude, the administrators and IT department failed in their fidicuary duty to protect, or try as best to protect, the IT network. As root of this thread pointed out, this includes security and user policies.

      --
      --

      FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
    5. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Uber+Banker · · Score: 2

      Absolutely bang on!

      an indictment of careless users and one of the sloppier Pirate2Pirate filesharing tools

      Certainly suggests some prejudice from the story poster - to me this episode sounds like an indictment of careless admins. Why they jump on P2P being pirate I don't know, but I point out that if the story poster was related to the case, fail to acknowledge they are a related party, and the case ends up in legal predeedings, they have may have prejudiced the whole thing.

    6. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by An+Economist · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the usual jobsworth jerk blaming the users and not taking responsibility for their job.

    7. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just go back to the classic-server rule of thumb.

      1.) Desktop machines can use windows

      2.) Servers must be unix based.

      The user can corrupt the hell out of their hard disk, and they have only themselves to blame.

    8. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But because it's Windows, some application need escalated privileges to run. The fault lies with the OS design and those who mandated its use.

      Paul

    9. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have 400-500 employess in one location, with varying access to the IT asssets.

      Locking everything down is not an option - we have legitimate power users/developers as well as those who have finagled way too much access for thier needs

      With that number/mix of people, sh1t happens.

    10. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by mrseigen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We actually lock down our Windows XP machines pretty hard, yet for some reason a virus is capable of installing DLLs into the system folder on a non-priveleged account.

      We've had a number of keylogger viruses and such pop up on local machines, even from machines with restricted permissions (i.e. can't even write to C:). I don't know what's wrong with XP, but this looks to be a pretty big flaw.

    11. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Spoing · · Score: 1
      1. Just go back to the classic-server rule of thumb.

        1.) Desktop machines can use windows

        2.) Servers must be unix based.

        The user can corrupt the hell out of their hard disk, and they have only themselves to blame.

      While I agree that this provides a very good level of isolation between clients and servers, it doesn't take care of maintaining the client systems and it doesn't take care of every issue. Maintaining client systems is a PITA. A well run server should be little trouble.

      Isolation between client systems is really needed; disallow peer to peer, focus on using the network as storage, and backup everything. Sweeping through the client machines on a regular basis to see what data people have left there -- and making it easy to use the network instead -- is a good idea.

      Also, by switching the servers to *nix you do not eliminate abuse you only eliminate malware that the users run getting on the servers. Anyone with just enough knowledge to be dangerous -- either by mistake or intentionally -- can still cause hard to impossible to find dammage (ex: database access and changing a field property or correcting one piece of data that has dependencies elsewhere).

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    12. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by fire-eyes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At which point, management has taken on that responsibility. They've looked at the options and said no, it's not important.

      When something goes wrong, they surely deserve the blame.

      --
      -- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
    13. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Spoing · · Score: 5, Informative
      1. We've had a number of keylogger viruses and such pop up on local machines, even from machines with restricted permissions (i.e. can't even write to C:). I don't know what's wrong with XP, but this looks to be a pretty big flaw.

      If the service that the viruses are using aren't enabled, they can't be exploited.

      Here's one way to deal with this...

      Isolate the client; vlan/router or yank the system and put it in an isolated environment (test lab, 2 system LAN, ...). Turn off the client XP firewall (if any), run Nessus on another system and point it at the client, go back to the client system and disable all services that Nessus reports -- even the ones that are not considered problems! Do any security hardening Nessus suggests. If you really need the detected services, write down what you would loose by disabling the service, what it would take to secure the service, and if there are any automated tools that can be run client side to clean up or better block hostile attacks.

      Document what you needed to do, do the same to a few more systems, and then automate the process (registry files, boot scripts, policies, ...).

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    14. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by base3 · · Score: 1

      Of course. And when the machines get pwned, they'll step right up and take that blame, rather than accusing the IT establishment of having failed. Because integrity would require that, even if it mean resigning in disgrace.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    15. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by saha · · Score: 1
      Thats not a bad way to go. This would be more ideal for our needs:

      1) Desktop machines can use Mac OSX (Mail.app, Microsoft Entourage, Lotus Notes)

      2) Servers can be Solaris, OS/400, Linux ( Lotus Domino) or FreeBSD

      Mac OSX by default is much more locked down than XP. Forget using any version of Windows prior to 2000. I don't like the idea of allowing my users to shoot themselves in the foot. Both servers and client should be locked down, with the server having a few extra levels of protection if its going to be the backbone of your operations.

    16. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Micro$will · · Score: 1

      Locking everything down is not an option - we have legitimate power users/developers as well as those who have finagled way too much access for thier needs

      Development machines and/or machines with sensitive info should be isolated from the corporate network, either by firewall restrictions, or by epoxy in the ethernet port. You're right, it's not an option; it's mandatory. Guess who's to blame when the the "shit happens?" ... YOU.

    17. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      So you think it is an exploit in some service that XP is running that allows it to wedge the DLL in there?

    18. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by legirons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the article: "In spite of the Policies in place that prohibit download and installation of software, inspite of the policies in place that prohibit P2P applications"... etc., etc.

      In response to articles like this by the network nazis selling lockdown software ["your employees are downloading programs - stop them now!"] , let's imagine that for some unknown reason I want to download and run a program from the internet. (Say for example, I've just discovered that our core business requires that I can decode a certain type of file, or that we've just discovered we need a WAV editor or a video converter or something...)

      Imagine that it comes as a Windows .exe file.

      Handler on Duty believes that downloading and running that program should be prohibited, with severe consequences if I were to download and run the program. I would be blamed if it were to be a virus, spyware, or adware. Even if it was a reputable GPL project, some companies would turn purple-faced and declare that it mustn't run on the company computers.

      Exactly how much use is such a policy? It seems that if you were to allow a manager such as he into your organisation, you simply wouldn't be able to obtain software to do your work. Assuming that IT department won't provide virtual-machines to test with, won't test programs for you, and has no access to the source-code of any of these programs (and don't have the resources to audit them even if source were available), if the virus-scanners can't detect viruses less than a day old, and assuming it takes days if not months (years, at any university) for the IT dept to certify a program as "safe to run", the answer presumably, is to force people not to do their work, or to use inadequate tools. (how many people have you seen using powerpoint to edit a picture because they can't download a real program?)

      Just seems quite odd, this "despite our warnings not to run programs from the internet" stuff. Exactly how are you supposed to know that Win2KSP4 is ok, realplayer isn't ok, XMLedit is okay but XMLeditor isn't, RSSfeed is okay but the plugin formerly known as claria isn't, that the barney toolbar will crap on your PC but the google toolbar won't?

      Either you need a whole big IT department to test all these programs on isolated networks, or you need to show people how to run a program as an unpriviledged username other than their own (and give permissions on their PC to allow this). Telling people not to run EXEs from the internet just isn't any use to anybody.

    19. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Spoing · · Score: 3, Insightful
      1. So you think it is an exploit in some service that XP is running that allows it to wedge the DLL in there?

      It has to be some service, otherwise there would be no way to have the files inserted on the machine.^ Put it this way; the trojan/malware/virus/... can't inject itself onto another computer. It needs to request that the target machine do something -- allowing the program/library/registry entry/... to be installed.

      (The service being exploited might even be the admin drive share, though it's more likely some of the other less obvious ones.)

      Bring up the services list to get a general idea of what is running or can be run (on demand). Keep in mind that the list is incomplete and disabling a service there might not really turn it off; verify that it is really off by running nmap and nessus against the target system.

      Caution: Disabling a service does not mean your systems are more secure. Many services are only local and are not exposed to the rest of the network at all. While I suggest turning most of these off, the urgency is not as high and some of them are really necessary. Most of them are crap, though. This will be a lot of work, so take notes and look for things that break.

      Another gotcha: When installing updates, the services you turned off before may be turned on again without warning. (Bet on it!)

      1. ^. OK, it could be an application exploit (IE/Outlook/...) though for the the network wide plauges these are not as effective since they nearly always require people to do something to cause the exploit to be active. Only 1 machine with the exploit loaded needs to be on a network with access to others with the service enabled; no human interaction needed.
      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    20. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by mabu · · Score: 1

      Bring up the services list to get a general idea of what is running or can be run (on demand). Keep in mind that the list is incomplete and disabling a service there might not really turn it off;

      Ahhh, Unix, how do I love thee... Let me count the ways... at least I can get an accurate list.

    21. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by BVis · · Score: 1

      Except when IT isn't allowed to implement sane usage policies (locked down machines, automatically expiring passwords, actually making users have different passwords than one company-wide password for everyone), because management doesn't want the users to complain.

      Because, as we all know, having users that don't complain is MUCH more important than having a secure network.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    22. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      We've had a number of keylogger viruses and such pop up on local machines, even from machines with restricted permissions (i.e. can't even write to C:). I don't know what's wrong with XP, but this looks to be a pretty big flaw.

      There's no flaw in XP. The problem is, despite your claims to the contrary, that the users have permissions you claim they don't have. You need to carefully review the file permissions and group memberships. One thing to note is that upgrades attempt to retain backwards compatibility and therefore result is weaker security configurations (for example an upgrade from NT 4.0 to Windows XP will result in normal users being added to the "Power Users" group giving them highly elevated privileges, including the ability to write to system directories).

    23. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >the ultimate responsibility always is the IT department

      Does the IT department have ultimate authority?

      The CEO is the one with ultimate authority and it's always dangerous to split authority from responsibility.

      Sarbanes-Oxley in the US makes CEOs legally responsible for whether their computers create accurate financial statements.

      The oldest cliche in the security business is that any initiative depends on full support from the people who decide the budget and hire/fire/promote/demote.

    24. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by pjrc · · Score: 1
      The user can corrupt the hell out of their hard disk, and they have only themselves to blame.

      If you RTFA, that is exactly what happened.

      In addition to having themselves to blame, the abusive network traffic disrupted connectivity between 40 company locations and connectivity to the internet.

      So yeah, a some individual machines were messed up. But almost ALL other machines were impacted, because without connectivity to the rest of the company, employees were unable to conduct their dialy activities.

    25. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by bigberk · · Score: 1
      We actually lock down our Windows XP machines pretty hard, yet for some reason a virus is capable of installing DLLs into the system folder on a non-priveleged account ... We've had a number of keylogger viruses and such pop up on local machines, even from machines with restricted permissions (i.e. can't even write to C:). I don't know what's wrong with XP, but this looks to be a pretty big flaw.
      I'll second this. This is what I have experienced as well (in our student lab), except even on Windows 2000 machines. Malware entering through a low privilege account found its way to areas of the disk guarded by NTFS. I don't know how this happened. On our UNIX systems I might expect something like this if there is a privilege escalation flaw in the kernel or an exploitable service or setuid root binary, but the difference is...

      I keep our UNIX systems fully patched and see no problems, but when I try to keep the Windows systems fully patched it seems that privilege escalation still happens, and the logs suggest that it's not happening through a service.
    26. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      "The user can corrupt the hell out of their hard disk, and they have only themselves to blame."

      And how about the passwords they will enter that will get snooped, helping the intruder to move further through the network?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    27. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      "If the service that the viruses are using aren't enabled, they can't be exploited."

      That's just plain wrong. There are lots of ways to get into a Windows system, clicking on email or internet links or running downloaded programs for example, or one of the Outlook preview exploits.

      But never mind, sound like you have a clue and be part of the problem, in the long run it actually helps people get into the mood to ditch Windows.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    28. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Spoing · · Score: 1
      1. That's just plain wrong.

      You're right. I noted that here.

      1. But never mind, sound like you have a clue and be part of the problem, in the long run it actually helps people get into the mood to ditch Windows.

      Thanks & agreed.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    29. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Flower · · Score: 1

      And for the vendor apps which are written for Windows only??

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    30. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by saha · · Score: 1
      In our office we use Microsoft Office, Eudora (or an IMAP mail client) , Acrobat Pro, Filemaker, Citirix client to interface with the Peoplesoft applications on a server, Firefox and IE. All are available on both systems.

      However, if there are specific Windows apps that need the user to access over 5%-10% of their time, then they ought to use a WIndows PC. In most of our cases we can get away with using a decent Window 2003 server for those Macs that need a few Windows apps once in a while. Keeping the Windows client PCs down reduces our maintenance efforts.

    31. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Flower · · Score: 1
      Or the software requires administrator rights to run....

      Let's see, other situations I've run across where the networking crew had to compensate. Patch breaks application. Antivirus software slows down PC to unusable level. User can't do something so supervisor gives him someone else's login. Users share someone's account. No budget for needed control. Trojan is out on the Internet but there is no signature update for your AV software and user clicks the attachment. I'm sure others have a lot more situations they could mention.

      The hardest part is usually none of these happen in a vaccumm. They may be interrelated or they one may spin-off from another. For instance, you implement Control X which inconviences a number of users. They want the control relaxed, preferably off, and when you explain that you can't do it immediately they say they'll work around it by doing security breach Y which is much worse than the risk you origianlly meant to address. Now Y (e.g. the group is going to share all there passwords and put them on a sticky note) isn't something you can easily control through technology. It comes down to working with the users and getting them to work with the new way of doing things.

      Any successful security initiative is going to have user buy-in.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    32. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by fire-eyes · · Score: 1

      No, you're making it too complex.

      Management was told of a threat, and they decided that it wasn't important enough to 1) establish policies but most importantly 2) ENFORCE those policies, if they were set in place.

      When there was a problem, IT says "hey, back on such and such date we presented this and this and that information to so and so, recommended the following, and it was rejected. We tried to do what we thought was our job, and were prevented. It's out of our hands."

      If management still decides to shit on IT, then it's definately time to move on, as you're employed by a lot that won't take responsibility, even after you tried to do so.

      --
      -- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
    33. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      Linux to the desktop, preferablly a "live cd" on the hard drive. Knoppix has this capability.

      *nix on the servers EXCEPT that you use a Citrix Metraframe server to publish vertical apps that are incompatible with *nix.

      Notice I said PUBLISHED APPS, not a full desktop.

      Your problem your network is now scalable, robust, flexible and secure.

      What more do you need?

    34. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      That won't work because most of the "really good" worms bring their own services nowdays... Look at how Klex [or was that blaster?] that spread with it's own SMTP server. You can block the ports, but that doesn't work in a corperate environment where people expect to use "file shareing" between user machines on the lan, or all the custom software that freaks out with non-standard windows installs.

      Eventually, you get the user that knowingly breaks ALL the rules. While SP2 looks to address some of the issues with runaway user clients, once something is inside a corperate network it's really hard to stop. After all, not all machines can run XP with SP2... you may have hardware tied to older versions of Win98, NT, or 2K... that doesn't have all the update features that XP does.

      Speaking of update features, the most secure thing to do is NOT let user machines hit the internet directly. My shop has all the machines locked down with no users as administrator. Internet is HEAVILY filtered...even slashdot .ico files don't come thru!!! and all incomming ports other than 80 and it's dependants are rigidly blocked. Unauthenticated machines can't get on the internet [i.e. no Knoppix CD for you!] and all SMTP traffic is blocked or routed to 1 corperate exchange server... Sounds extreme right...

      Wrong it's still only a stop gap. A SMS server costs $50k and then you might get close... using other third-party stuff [say $100k total] MIGHT get you to being totally safe from all internal threats...considering we only have 250 nodes [not all computers are for users] that's like $400 per machine for security...on top of hardware, OS and software... no manager in their right mind would sign off on that bill!!! Not to mention the increase in staff from 3 to X just to keep up with all the patching...and all the old software that's broken...or hardware that has to be replaced simply to RUN the security software... The problem is a crappy OS and now the "network effects" are being seen...we spend more and more money on IT to "keep up" and get nothing in return...and the bean-counters hate that when sales are down!!!

    35. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Nintendork · · Score: 1
      "It's easy to blame the users, but the ultimate responsibility always is the IT department, because it is responsible for security."

      No, it's the IT department's responsibility to produce an Information Security Policy, Acceptible Use Policy, get management buy-in, train the users on the policies and have them sign. Assuming all that is done, it's up to management and HR to enforce the policies with the technical assistance from IT in monitoring for acts of abuse. It is by no means, all up to IT. In the end, it is the responsibility of the user that did something they knew they shouldn't be doing.

      If what you're suggesting is using technology to stop the users from doing anything bad, GOOD FUCKING LUCK! Technology can only help save the users from themselves up to an extent and that boundry is easily crossed every day thanks to programmers that intentionally dodge these measures. Virus writers, adware, P2P software, IM software, etc. It is simply too prohibitive in most situations for IT to lock down the machines and the network that far. As an example, do you realize how difficult it is to block Yahoo Messenger from connecting out? I had to use a network sniffer and the messenger software on my workstation to create a list of all the servers (A few dozen) that shit tries to connect to using port 80. If I wanted to lock things down completely, I'd have to block everything by default and create exceptions. That includes limiting what programs can be launched using a hash for each exe, deny all egress access, and create exceptions for every little thing that the employees need access to. I'd also have an staff dedicated to personally looking at every inbound email communication since viruses are now using zip files. It gets past my list of blocked file types and there's a time gap before new AV definitions are available. I can't rely on many employees to be smarter than the social engineering tactics, regardless of the training I give.

      In a nutshell, I'm sorry, but most companies aren't the NSA where information security is number one.

      -Lucas

    36. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by Spoing · · Score: 1
      I'll go through your reply point by point. If I miss something, let me know...though keep in mind that I approach this from a specifc POV that you may not share;
      1. Simplify, simplify, simplify; if it is too complex to understand you can't be assured that you can detect intentional or unintentional dammage. Constantly remove cruft.
      2. All machines are suspect and potential platforms for abuse to be spread around; clients, servers, and networking gear.
      3. Unless a system is booted using a known good image of an OS and all data on all media are compaired against a known good list of files, the machine should be considered untrustworthy; 'I guess it is OK' or 'Norton didn't find any problems' aren't good enough.
      4. With that in mind, isolate all systems at the network level (vlan...) as well as reduce all services to a minimum.
      5. Move services to the servers.
      6. Move data to the servers.
      7. Server hardware should be single function unless securely segmented; the database not be a file, print, web, and login server.
      1. That won't work because most of the "really good" worms bring their own services nowdays... Look at how Klex [or was that blaster?] that spread with it's own SMTP server. You can block the ports, but that doesn't work in a corperate environment where people expect to use "file shareing" between user machines on the lan, or all the custom software that freaks out with non-standard windows installs.

      Answers;

      No, don't block ports (see my sig). Remove the services entirely and know what is running or you can't be in control.

      Any available service is a target. Turn them off or secure them (not trivial), and they aren't targets. (This keeps the client and servers clean in the first place.)

      Nessus and nmap scan for ports. If the port is open, it can be discovered.

      Many pieces of mal ware want to be discovered thus they will leave open ports. Scaning for the ports and turning them off shows you if anything else is hiding there; if the service for that port is off, and you've removed the service...it has to be something you don't know about (malware or otherwise).

      Yes, people expect client to client corporate network services. Doesn't make them a good idea! Hostile environments -- and client systems are to be considered hostile -- should not be on the inside of the corporate network. The dedicated servers can provide the same services even if set up as a proxy for what is really peer-to-peer style communications (ex: corporate IM).

      1. Eventually, you get the user that knowingly breaks ALL the rules. While SP2 looks to address some of the issues with runaway user clients, once something is inside a corperate network it's really hard to stop. After all, not all machines can run XP with SP2... you may have hardware tied to older versions of Win98, NT, or 2K... that doesn't have all the update features that XP does.

      Consider laptops. They are entirely outside the control of the admins...so treat them like hostile systems; limit the dammage they can perform. Peer to peer services are off, and the routers control what the laptop sees on the network.

      Good idea for laptops? Yep. Good idea for all systems -- including servers.

      That the systems run one OS revision or another means less once you have the network properly configured. Each can be scanned for problems. Each that you do control can be made more secure even before updates and patches are applied.

      1. Speaking of update features, the most secure thing to do is NOT let user machines hit the internet directly. My shop has all the machines locked down with no users as administrator. Internet is HEAVILY filtered...even slashdot .ico files don't come thru!!! and all incomming ports other than 80 and it's dependants are rigidly blocked. Unauthenticated machines can't get on the internet [i.e. no Knoppix CD for you!] and all SMTP traffic is blocked or
      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    37. Re:It's easy to blame the users... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If management still decides to shit on IT, then it's definately time to move on, as you're employed by a lot that won't take responsibility, even after you tried to do so.

      I don't expect you're a lawyer, but if you get fired due to the management's incompetence & ignorance, couldn't you sue for wrongful dismissal? It would be a hell of a case to prove, but would you be justified in trying?

  4. Doesn't happen here by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $ su -

    # uname
    Linux

    # iptables -P INPUT -j DENY
    # iptables -A INPUT -m state --state=ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

    # exit
    $

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Doesn't happen here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a clever way of saying "i use linux hahaha i'm so great", as most linux zealots often say.

    2. Re:Doesn't happen here by zulux · · Score: 1


      I remember when you could map a drive from Windows to \\ftp.microsoft.com\data

      I like your sig....

      buy now, with a bit more work, it's silly pretty easy to map a drive from Windows to

      \\security-through-obscurity.microsoft.com\os\lo ng horn\.hidden-directory\scource

      It's kinda odd though - there's very little C code, but a lot of .VB files...

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    3. Re:Doesn't happen here by cliffiecee · · Score: 1

      # iptables -P INPUT -j DENY

      Set the default INPUT policy (P) to DENY all incoming connections. (Even if you do catch something nasty, there's a good chance that any attempt to access it from the outside world will be blocked.)

      # iptables -A INPUT -m state --state=ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

      Add (A) a rule to the INPUT table: for every connection initiated from this machine, ACCEPT net traffic. This is called 'stateful' packet filtering, meaning that iptables is 'aware' that a connection with a remote site has been ESTABLISHED. iptables will also allow any packets RELATED to this connection.

      HTH

    4. Re:Doesn't happen here by Ollierose · · Score: 1

      Become Root

      tell me what OS is running (Linux)

      set the default policy for incoming packets to DENY
      set the policy for packets on established or related* connections to accept

      leave root

      * Related is stuff like ftp-data, when the command channel is open

    5. Re:Doesn't happen here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a clever way of saying "i use linux hahaha i'm so great", as most linux zealots often say.

      It's why some in the Linux development community fight to keep the OS hard to use. When people realize the confusing command line babble is just a bunch simple commands, the aura will be lifted. They'll be seen as the pathetic losers that they are, not as the anime superheroes they aspire to be. Oh, wait, everyone already sees them as patethic losers.

    6. Re:Doesn't happen here by cliffiecee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Forgot to mention- that first rule does NOT guarantee you are protected. If the 'nasty' program initiates a connection of its own, then it WILL BE ACCEPTED because of the second rule. I'm just saying that someone can't initiate contact with it from the outside.

    7. Re:Doesn't happen here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Hi! I'm the anti-RTFM-guy! Allow me to explain:
      $ su -
      This is the Switch User command (some call it the SuperUser cmd) which switches you to be the root administrator by default. The dash just means that your environment is setup as if you had logged in as this user, so that things like the PATH variable include /sbin and /usr/sbin if it didn't already.
      # uname -o
      Linux
      `uname' prints the system type that you are running. The -o flag tells it to only output the generic Operating System name, which in this is case is "Linux", but could also be "FreeBSD".
      # iptables -P INPUT -j DENY
      `iptables' is the program that you use to tell the operating system how to change its internal `netfilter` firewall. In this case, we're telling iptables to set the default -Policy for any INPUT coming into out computer is to not let it in (by -jumping to DENY).
      # iptables -A INPUT -m state --state=ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
      On this line we -Add a rule to the firewall which says to let in any traffic that it remembers that WE asked for. For example, if you tell your browser to get www.google.com:80, the firewall will only allow the google.com server traffic in because it remembers that you asked for it. Very secure. If you want to a run servers, you have to add more rules opening up those services to allcomers.
      # exit
      This exits you from the root Administrator mode back to your normal user. This is good for safety reasons. In fact, the `sudo` command is even safer, but you should RTFM about that one n00b.
    8. Re:Doesn't happen here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no, I wouldn's say adding iptables to sudoers is a good idea. Quite far from it.

      Best way is to use a startup script to set up the firewall, even better if it runs before the network is brought up.

    9. Re:Doesn't happen here by Quila467 · · Score: 1

      # iptables -P INPUT -j DENY

      Actually, this command will cause an error. The correct syntax is this:

      iptables -P INPUT DENY

      When assigning the default policy for a chain, the -j option is not used. The -j option is used when defining rules.

    10. Re:Doesn't happen here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, what loser thinks Linux is a sooperhero tool anymore? They should move on to *BSD and let us who have work to do work on Linux. It's not quite as usable as it should be, but it's coming along.

  5. Protected Ports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you can use the 'protected port' option on e.g. cisco switches, TURN IT ON.

    Essentially, it prevents the indicated ports on the switch from communicating with other ports that also have that protection set. Unless you have sloppy shared directories or some reason for the actual PC's to talk directly to eachother, it won't harm anything and will prevent the viruses from spreading pc-to-pc once (not when) they get in.

    1. Re:Protected Ports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Good suggestion.

      He also brings up the he coudln't find the file in dos.. guess he doesn't know dir/a. Sounds like the admin should have had all file sharing blocked, we know that will break some windows apps. And the firewall probably needs more ports blocked.

      Something that was not brought up. Were all users part of power users or administrators. Did they have local admin rights? If you don't want users installing software do not give them access to.

      Another thing. hummmmm trusted computer network. It was able to spread because it had one users ID and password, wonder what would have happened if it was changed. Of course all users should have to change their password now. They have been compromised.

      Which brings me to my favorite quote as of late. I don't know who coined it.

      "I rooted your girlfriends box and didn't use a trojan."

    2. Re:Protected Ports by calmdude · · Score: 1

      PVLANs come in more useful when you have it go into an L3 switch so administrative PCs (those needing access to protected port PCs for departmental administrative access) can have their traffic forwarded through that L3 device and gain access.

  6. Control your network. by JasonUCF · · Score: 5, Interesting

    [disclaimer: i work for a major fortune 500 company with a large, 50+ distributed node WAN]

    Everytime there's a big ass Windows vulnerabilty, there are security emails and IT manager emails basically saying "heads up, check your shit." But let's say somebody doesnt check his shit, and a site ends up infected. The WAN group watches the network, especially during times like this, and nodes are just dropped off routing from the rest of the network until they get their act back together.

    I realize the article is talking more about the pains of these nasty new infections that mutilate machines, but the old saying works -- a good offense is a great defense. Assign local managers responsibility for the server boxen at their node, he/she should be keeping the machines patched, but when that fails, close the node off the network before it can damage anywhere else.

    Of course the major server boxen have their own layer of network between them and the rest of the WAN, so they can be isolated if the worm is already rampant on the network. Doesn't hurt to access list transmission ports, either, icmp, tftp, foo...

    1. Re:Control your network. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Everytime there's a big ass Windows vulnerabilty, there are security emails and IT manager emails basically saying "heads up"...But let's say somebody doesnt check his shit

      I emailed the local IT guy from a state job that will remain anonymous about the recent jpg exploit. Told him we updated to IE6 recently and we may need the patch. 1) he didn't get back to me about it 2)I overheard him asking someone else about it. Chances are high the person had IE 5.5 installed and then he assumed everyone else would be safe.

      I seriously can't wait for the whole place to blow up and me having that piece of email as evidence of the arrogance and attitude these people have. Which is for me, the ultimate reason why this kind of things can happen.

    2. Re:Control your network. by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Exactly! With viruses rampant as they are, why would users machines have full access to all the ports on the servers. Thats what internal firewalls and vlans are for.

      I would bet (I didn't rtfa yet) its an issues of IT funding. The infrastructure for vlans, internal firewalls, and the appropriate access controls cost money and takes staff to manage.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    3. Re:Control your network. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting


      While I agree with some of this, it is not always possible to just drop a remote site until they "get their act together".

      In the healthcare industry for instance that would be impossible without impacting patient care. You drop the site and now they can't access master patient registries, run drug interaction routines in the pharmacy systems, lookup medical records etc.

      Granted there are backup procedures in place in case of catastrophies, but you have to weigh your options carefully in those environments.

    4. Re:Control your network. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True. That applies to a lot of industries, actually. Airline transaction processors can't just be switched out, considering the loss of income that would entail. A number of manufacturing and refining corporations where I've installed custom systems just don't have the option to turn off a node: if that system just happens to be a primary data collection system an entire facility can be brought to a screeching halt. Of course, depending upon the particular infection it may come to a screeching halt anyway. It's a tough call, though. It is possible to have a zero-percent infection rate but the problem is that your systems will locked down so hard that no-one will be able to use them for anything.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Control your network. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that IE5.5 is unsupported and has 100 other problems besides the JPEG one...

    6. Re:Control your network. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      yep...that's the REAL WORLD!

      Engineers expect to buy shiny new manufacturing equipment and just plug-n-play with the company network. EVERYTHING runs windows now...and adding security software often is unsupported and voids the warranty of million dollar machinery!!! Heck it's hard enough just keeping vendors of systems compliant with the particulars of YOUR MS licensing agreement.

      the real problem is that MS has sold business managers the promise of "commodity" PCs...they should just run to the store and buy a few and that's good enough to have a stable reliable business... Of course MS turns around and tells US in IT that we need MCSEs [for the psulrty sum of $60K in education!] just to set up a windows machine...or you're not doing it right...that's why it doesn't work...yeah...whatever.

      SO that leaves IT in the middle of marketing versus reality. The trouble is that most IT managers spend so much time troublshooting windows problems [some real, most imagined by users] they honestly don't touch computers when they're at home! So there's no time to learn Linux or any of the other alternatives... they aren't perfect so it looks like more of the same as MS....so nobody feels like changing over to ANOTHER new system. After all, in a company setting it seems like there's at least 2 projects a year that FORCE a multi-month upgrade process...hell, even the MS upgrades take weeks of trial and error with the company's software library before you can let real users on the new machines...There's no way anybody would move a new entire OS network in... MS says it's just too hard.

  7. Point the finger at yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Blame your own policies, not your users. Users are not IT experts and will not be even with extensive training.

    Restrict privileges. Don't allow anything that is not necessary...

    1. Re:Point the finger at yourself by paradizelost · · Score: 1

      The only issue with that theory is that some places, management doesn't allow that tight of restrictions.
      i worked at a gov't facility, in which one department (the one i was in) fixed things ahead of time, i.e. patches, etc...

      we had another, larger, it department, that was not allowed to patch unless the user requested that the patches be done to their machine. this was stemming from back in windows nt where installing a patch could break things.

      the larger dept. had more virus breakouts, etc... because they weren't allowed to patch, and users didn't know that they had to request that it be done. the users thought that the patches were pushed out automatically.

      talk about a catch-22.

      --
      "In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
    2. Re:Point the finger at yourself by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where I work we have 2 employees coping with 180 Windows desktops, 20 IBM Infoprint 21, 5 Infoprint 1120 printers, about 13 servers, and 2 OS/400 running Midranges. Oh yeah, and we're a medical facility so we are subject to HIPAA and our servers must be up 24/7 or it impacts patient-care.

      We don't have the manpower to create policies on all our desktops. I know that everyone on Slashdot is going to declare that I'm incompetent, but I have no training on policies in Active Directory (I came here after managing Novell networks), and every time I start to read up on the subject, there's an emergency... someone's printer died, one of the servers is acting up, etc.

      The place can't afford to hire anyone with sufficient Active Directory experience-- hell, they can barely afford to pay me. The Bonds and Levies run in this district have failed for almost the last decade.

      What is your recommendation? What do I *do*?

      I mean, saying that's the solution is one thing, but implementing it is another. We have some computers that need to be entirely locked-down (patient rooms), some that need to be almost entirely open (marketting and administrative), and tons that are somewhere in the middle.

    3. Re:Point the finger at yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that the point of ActiveDirectory is to SAVE you time.

      I know you were asking for it, but when a sysadmin is running around in emergency mode all of the time, it usually indicates something wrong with that guy. The good SAs are lazy quake-playing bastards.

      If it's not your department, then get a job at a place that afford to support their IT infrastructure.

    4. Re:Point the finger at yourself by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The place can't afford to hire anyone with sufficient Active Directory experience-- hell, they can barely afford to pay me. The Bonds and Levies run in this district have failed for almost the last decade.

      What is your recommendation? What do I *do*?


      Ditch Windows as fast as you can.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:Point the finger at yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That helps him a lot. He doesn't have enough manpower to do anything at all, so you want him to roll out a new OS he also won't be familiar with, train all his users, and do it all flawlessly with no money.

    6. Re:Point the finger at yourself by jesser · · Score: 1

      What is your recommendation? What do I *do*?

      Give up. Read and post to Slashdot while at work.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    7. Re:Point the finger at yourself by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's entirely impossible that I inherited these problems-- I must have created them myself.

      God, this crap, and the guy who said, "just switch to Linux," reminds me how fucking out-of-touch everyone who posts here is. Nevermind.

    8. Re:Point the finger at yourself by nolife · · Score: 1

      So basically what the AC stated, Blame your own policies, not your users. , in your case (which I have seen before), blame the management that makes that policy which is obviously about 5-10 years out of date..
      Remember the Colorodo DMV screwup/fiasco article here last week? Same thing. People that do not know IT should not be doing IT. The pendulum will swing and heads will roll but the person(s) that were making the IT business decisions should not be in that role and should have made it known they were not the person that should be doing it. The result after an incident will be a manager on thin ice who better watch out for the special back seeking knives that start falling down the ladder.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    9. Re:Point the finger at yourself by lakeland · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter where the problems came from, you're now the sysadmin and that makes them your problems. Finding the solution to them is also your problem.

      If you continue to run around in 'emergency mode', dealing with problems as they come up then sooner or later you will get one too many emergencies at once and the whole stack of cards will come crashing down. Possibly you will have quit before the stack comes crashing down. Possibly you'll get a better job shortly after being fired for the crash.

      So, you have a choice. Run around until then fixing problems as they come up and hope that you can get a new job either before or after the stack falls down. Or you could spend some time now and get on top of the situation.

      How long would it take to learn? perhaps an hour each day of (additional?) overtime for a month if you're a bit slow or way over your head? Perhaps just for a week if you're a fast learner.

      At least at this workplace, I find before the day starts a much better time to put in overtime than after five. Between 6 and 8 AM, very few people will interrupt you; whereas between 5 and 7 PM seems to be fair game.

      What you do is your call. I personally like to have day to day business very cruisy, spending my time preventing problems _before_ they arise. This means that when things do screw up I have the time to deal with it. But, I know other people who view getting and staying on top of things as poor use of time -- they claim they can deal with problems that arise in less time than it takes me to organise everything so as to prevent the problem arising. Certainly, I spend a lot of time setting up safety nets that never catch anything.

      But I don't think there is much point complaining to slashdot. You know the choices and you know the implications of the choices. All I've done in this post is repeat stuff you already know.

    10. Re:Point the finger at yourself by nolife · · Score: 1

      Document and send up the chain what your ideas of how to improve the system and prevent specific threats from happening. That will serve three purposes.

      1. Should make you feel better that you are doing the best you can with what you have availabe.
      2. May help you down the road if the shit hits the fan and someone higher up (if exist) has to get involved. You will look much less like part of the problem.
      3. If something does happen that you specifically warned about, they may really be willing to take your advice the next time.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    11. Re:Point the finger at yourself by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Form a union with the other IT worker. Lock down all IT equipment. Of course, try not to let patients die in the process.

      Demand from management to either get a consultant in, or a 3rd person who has experence in what you need to do. If you get that third person, don't forget to add him to the union.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    12. Re:Point the finger at yourself by csirac · · Score: 1

      God, this crap, and the guy who said, "just switch to Linux,"

      I'm in a similar situation as you, and I too had to chuckle at the "just install linux" attitude.

      Even though I have Linux and _only_ linux at home, all my work is Windows NT4/Server 2000/Server 2003.

      It was hard enough to convince the bosses into using a Linux box to run the new PABX system, can't imagine what sort of drugs I'd have to use to convert the desktops and exchange servers!

    13. Re:Point the finger at yourself by anticypher · · Score: 1

      ... roll out a new OS he also won't be familiar with, train all his users, and do it all flawlessly with no money.

      Sounds like many managers I know ;-) but you forgot "in his copious free time".

      the AC

      --
      Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
    14. Re:Point the finger at yourself by w2xo · · Score: 1

      If it will make you feel better, we have 340 registered users on 3 LANS located across the US, some of which are dialup field personnel. We have 11 servers, and 32 printers and only one full-time admin and I have not authority to tell anyone to do anything, as I'm considered an IT engineer, just part of the engineering department. Luckily, practically no one understands anything about IT, so I am able to implement some things that I have learned the "hard way".
      Here's my favorite survival list for the lonely admin:
      Keep your servers running *nix where you can.
      Try to discourage the use of Outlook (it causes me more wasted man-hours than any other single program. ) Use Thunderbird or Opera mail
      Keep your antivirus absolutely up to date. Update several times daily of your software allows it. Virii sometimes hatch in hours, not days.
      Keep Windows servers totally away from the internet. Isolate them behind *nix firewalls and only map ports you absolutely have to from one of your *nix servers.
      Get good layer 3 switches and put in routing and VLANS so that worms can not easily infect the whole network. Don't allow connectivity from VLAN to VLAN more than necessary
      Just my $.02...

    15. Re:Point the finger at yourself by 0BoDy · · Score: 1

      Active Directory:
      It will fix most of these problems.
      Active Directory is pretty easy to use. You can probably get a book on windows 200/2003 server and it will cover some of the basics with active directory. All you really need to know is the basics.
      Running a domain is one of the only ways to really secure a windows network.
      You might also be able to get some support by posting on the activewin.com forums. I've seen some pretty good stuff there.
      I'm even willing to help you out if I can. My e-mail address whould be public on my profile here, if not reply to post, or send me a personal message (I think slashdot supports that)
      I don't have a lot of experience with AD, but the opportnity to have a reall situtaion to work with is intruiging

      Also, I am full-time linux user, at home, I don't do windows, but in that type of operating environment don't even consider [linux] as I see you haven't. That's way more work than you obviously have time for.

      --
      Can I be a Luddite too?
  8. Wrong approach by cperciva · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...a grueling hunt for all the .exe's, reg entries and sources for a bot infection...

    Wrong answer. If you have a compromised system, trying to clean it is (a) likely to be really difficult, and (b) not secure.

    Wipe the system, reinstall, and recover from backups. (You do keep good backups, right?) It sounds pessimistic, but in most cases an attempt to "clean" a system is going to end up with you pulling out the OS reinstall disks anyway.

    1. Re:Wrong approach by bstanton0101 · · Score: 1

      There are way too many hours spent removing spyware and viruses/trojans from corporate users' PC. Just make a Ghost image of the PC before it hits the floor. Then, when the user calls IT support about "weird things" happening, wipe it and install image from Ghost.

      --
      Please excuse my English. I am American.
    2. Re:Wrong approach by tylernt · · Score: 1

      Ghosting kinda works for servers, assuming you have saved a new image each and every time your or the dba or whatever makes a configuration change on the server. Otherwise, you restore from image only to find that your app is broken because there are a half-dozen settings that were made after the backup, that now need to be re-done. And the dba didn't document them. This is easier with Linux because you can just back up the config files, but in Windows this is a real PITA.

      In addition, finding 1-2 hours of downtime to save the image can be difficult too. What if your app is used in different timezones and there's no 2 hour window you can take it down without killing several users?

      Ghosting for disaster recovery utterly fails for desktops. Users lose their local data (which they should back up but don't) and they lose all their little customizations -- wallpaper, etc. Users hate this. Yes it is petty and stupid but we always have users complain to the boss when we re-image a desktop because "they have to spend hours setting everything back up again." Whether the complaints are legit or users are just whining, re-imaging just does not work for desktops.

      You could take the approach of the Dept. of Labor (at least in some states). They do a multicast re-image of all desktops EVERY NIGHT. That certainly keeps the crap levels low. :)

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    3. Re:Wrong approach by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      In a well-managed environment, users are not *allowed* to have local data.
      Things like wallpapers are in the user profile, which should be synchronized with the server at every login/logout.

      Where I work, PC's are just throwaway installs. In fact, I can re-install a PC with a network boot and a couple of keypresses. The user won't notice.
      Users have no write permission anywhere on the C disk except in their profile ('Documents and Settings')

      The 'no local data' is even a requirement, as users don't have fixed working positions and thus login at different systems every day.

    4. Re:Wrong approach by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 1

      Reimaging DOES work for backups. We do it at our company all the time. We just make sure users know as soon as they're hired that 1) they need to store all their files on a network drive and 2) their wallpaper could be lost at any time. The wallpaper is the only thing we allow users to customize, and if they want to set it back up after a re-image it only takes a few minutes. Additionally, we very easily could set up roaming profiles which are stored on the server which would get around all customization issues.

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    5. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Actually, that's not true. The vast majority of the time these systems are all compromised the same way, so all you need to do is figure out how to clean one and then just duplicate the process. It was my job before - insert cynicism - my employer decided security was not sufficiently important to warrant a dedicated team for it. (I still work at the company, just in a different capacity.)

      Admittedly, we had a different situation there. (Shared webservers with 400+ customers per machine, so it's totally unacceptable to take them offline for five hours while restoring 40GB of data over a 100Mb/s connection.)

    6. Re:Wrong approach by tylernt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... and when each of your users requires a different piece of software to do their job, and you don't have licensing to make all that software a part of the image, your users are going to have to reinstall stuff every time.

      Ok, I retract my earlier statements. Re-imaging CAN work SOMETIMES in certain situations. :)

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    7. Re:Wrong approach by bstanton0101 · · Score: 1

      In a small company with 2 HR reps, 2 Marketing people, 3 development Engineers, etc., everyone needs different apps. But in medium and large businesses, MOST people use Outlook, Excel, Access, Word and maybe a couple industry-specific software pkgs. I'm NOT disagreeing just to be annoying, I really beleive IT should think of PC set-ups in terms of how quickly they can be brought back to 100% usable. I would like to have removable harddrives that can be pulled and replaced it 10 seconds without the user losing any data.

      --
      Please excuse my English. I am American.
    8. Re:Wrong approach by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how licensing requirements to image a software would be different from licensing requirements to use.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    9. Re:Wrong approach by tylernt · · Score: 1

      You can't add PhotoShop to an image and then download that image to 200 PCs if you only have 10 licenses. Even if, somehow, you got 190 of the users to promise not to use it.

      Sorry if my original post was unclear.

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    10. Re:Wrong approach by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      We keep a separate list of applications that are not to be installed on ALL pc's, and during re-installation these programs are automatically installed.
      We don't use images. Images are inflexible and hard to maintain. Each PC is build up using unattended installation procedures of the OS and all applications that are required on it.

    11. Re:Wrong approach by tylernt · · Score: 1

      That's pretty cool. How do you script 3rd party app installs? Is there a common InstallShield interface, or do you have to design a solution for each piece of software?

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    12. Re:Wrong approach by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      There are some apps that can be installed driven by a .ini file or other unattended install, but often it is difficult to get information about it.
      We use it when possible. E.g. for Office, Mozilla, etc.

      When not possible, we use a KIXtart script. It can start a program (in this case, usually SETUP.EXE), then watch which dialogs appear on the screen and send keypresses to it. It can also insert delays, etc.
      Usually a couple of Alt-N ("Next") and/or Enter keys will do the job.

      The same is possible with VBscript or Auto-It.

    13. Re:Wrong approach by Flower · · Score: 1

      Even if all you're getting is a base image to install additional software on it's usually worth it imho. My experience with images is they usually take a quarter of the time a Windows install takes. MTTR is as important as MTBF.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    14. Re:Wrong approach by k12linux · · Score: 1
      There are several packages which can either run an install from .msi unattended, read what is installed/changed from the .msi or just compare before and after an install to generate a "what do I need to do to install this" list.

      ZenWorks For Desktops for example can generate system images for all the "common" apps and also let you make installation objects. You can assign objects to individuals or individual computers. When you re-image a system, the system will get the "common" image assigned to it and have all the "extra" applications automatically layered over top of it.

    15. Re:Wrong approach by DA-MAN · · Score: 1

      There is an entire guide on unattended.msfn.org describing this exact process on the Windoze side. on Linux just simply use kickstarts post scripts.

      --
      Can I get an eye poke?
      Dog House Forum
    16. Re:Wrong approach by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see, wasn't thinking of that scenario. Thanks for the clarification

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    17. Re:Wrong approach by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 1

      We don't install the custom software by hand each time. You build .msi installer files (doesn't need user interaction) and apply them to specific computers using the Active Directory. It's simple, easy, and has worked perfectly for every bit of software we have so far. You can even bundle patches and apply them this way.

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
  9. Modding by StevenHenderson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    one of the sloppier Pirate2Pirate

    There are really times when I wish you could mod a submission as "Flamebait."

    1. Re:Modding by museumpeace · · Score: 1

      Objection sustained. My apology is tucked into the "RE: pirate to pirate" thread. But I have to admire /.'ers who have managed despite their ire, to serve up some interesting insights from several positions about how, once some thing CAN be had for free, folks get good at figuring out why it SHOULD be free. I have even more admiration for the replies that stayed on topic with interesting posts about what sysadmins can actually do to ward off troubles of the sort reported...THAT is the news I can use.

      --
      SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    2. Re:Modding by StevenHenderson · · Score: 1
      I agree with you in your anger towards p2p services, as they are an IT dept's worst nightmare. However, you had to have realized that you were walking into a snakepit saying something like that on Slashdot. It is like insulting open-source software...you just don't do it. :)

      Anyways, I admire your apology, and your submission/question was VERY important. I, too, learned some useful info, and such. I use p2p software at home, but I download CDs on a trial basis. If I like it, I buy it. I can easily say that I have bought 3x as many CDs as I would have otherwise and have gone to countless concerts based off my use of p2p programs. Therefore, I do not see them as Evil (TM) or anything, but rather an invaluable tool for aspiring artists. Thanks for your submission as well as your reply to my post - very well done.

  10. Pirate to Pirate?-Piss to pot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Only slightly biased. I understand the annoyance of the admins over this screwup, but take deep breaths and count to 10 before you badmouth all P2P networks."

    YEAH! Let's badmouth only the ones used to transport "pirated" material.

    1. Re:Pirate to Pirate?-Piss to pot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, it's not ok to install and operate programs that compromise the workplace network. This is not about the ethics of P2P filesharing. It's about security.

  11. The cure: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
    1. Re:The cure: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All Windows(shitMark 1980-2004 MS) workstations are behind a Linux firewall. All mapped network shares are writeable only with a password - same password for all machines, but no virus/trojan will infect others.

      IE replaced with Firefox
      OE replaced with Thunderbird

      If someone does get a virus from DL/P2P or other nit wit action, the only machine affected is their own. Quick fix - wipe and reinstall.

      We 0wn our own.

  12. It happened to us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It took more than a week to fix. Basically IT took everything down and cleansed each individual computer before it was allowed to be back on the network ... except of course for the linux boxen and even they were affected by the lack of servers.
    Since I have great respect for our IT guys (they are really scrupulous about permissions and patches), it was a sobering experience.

    1. Re:It happened to us. by brainiac · · Score: 1

      How big is your company ? How many computers were affected ?

    2. Re:It happened to us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around 1500 desktops.

    3. Re:It happened to us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a college. I don't know the exact numbers 'cause I'm just a lowly prof. but by counting the stuff that I can see I would guess the following: Number of computers: > 500 Number of servers > 20 Number of IT > 15 (counting student employees)

      I never hear about probems with viruses etc. except, of course, this one occasion.

  13. The song name is SlashDotDash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what happens when you download prerelease bootlegs.

  14. And how they handle that shows how good they are. by khasim · · Score: 1

    #1. Convince management that this is a BAD idea.
    -or-
    #2. Convince managment to give you some funding/equipment to implement network security upstream of those insecure PC's.

    The next question is WHAT you'd implement and HOW you'd do so and HOW you'd monitor it.

    Anyone can throw a bunch of PC's on a hub and claim to have setup a "network". It's the added security and monitoring that differentiates the best from the worst.

  15. It's easy to blame the users...Cake talk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how it's IT fault for not getting people to follow the rules (whatever happened to self-discipline?). But then everyone complains about the policies (waaa, the BOFH keeps me from doing what I want. Waa the BOFH keeps me from changing whatever I want I hate this screensaver.)

    1. Re:It's easy to blame the users...Cake talk. by Misinformed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes it is IT's fault. They let users have privilages sufficient to install programs, leading to viruses. If it were a buffer overflow in a JPEG I wouldn't blame IT.

      Rules are clearly stated - enforce them or if you want to let users have more freedoms then keep and monitor detailed logs on what they do with these 'rights'.

      You seem to demonstrate an immature attitude and lack of respect for users - if you are an admin you are employed because you are a specialist and it is better for you to be the single point of expertise for that task - just like you couldn't calculate the accounts for a company I doubt the finance staff would be so patronising as saying "waaa, the accountant says I can't have 3 21" LCDs, waaa, the CEO says I can't take 5 months paid leave a year".

      --
      --

      Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.
    2. Re:It's easy to blame the users...Cake talk. by mefus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny how it's IT fault for not getting people to follow the rules (whatever happened to self-discipline?).

      Self-Discipline can be overwhelmed by rules. If you tack on all the Computer Rules to all the other rules (on Harassment, on Job-Requirements, etc) you rely on someone to remember a long list of do's and don'ts.

      But a healthy admin policy will restrict the user without requiring her to remember what's acceptable and what's not acceptable, and why, and all that.

      Who gives diddly what you think about your screensaver. That doesn't help you do your work.

      --
      mefus
      In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
    3. Re:It's easy to blame the users...Cake talk. by BVis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes it is IT's fault. They let users have privilages[sic] sufficient to install programs, leading to viruses.

      Ok, then whose fault is this:

      IT: We need to implement $securityrule.
      CEO: No.
      IT: But it will prevent $securityproblem.
      CEO: No.
      IT: ...

      Or this:

      IT: $User violated a security rule. They should be reprimanded.
      CEO: No, we don't want to piss them off.
      IT: But it was in the employee handbook, and they signed a statement saying they'd follow the rule.
      CEO: Get back to work, shouldn't you have a microchip to renoberate or something?

      If it were a buffer overflow in a JPEG I wouldn't blame IT.

      You're in a very small minority of people who actually have a working knowledge of network security. Everyone else blames IT for everything from global warming to their coffee getting cold. The mantra is "Don't understand it? It's not important. Blame IT."

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    4. Re:It's easy to blame the users...Cake talk. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      WIth an organization with over +1000 users you are bound to have trouble makers.

      People get fired all the time and rules on job requirements and sexual harassment will never be 100% followed.

      If an employee sexually harrasses another he/she is fired and its a done deal. If a user however unleashes a worm that cripples the internal network than your job is on the line.

      Does that sound fair?

      Policies are needed and yes most organizations have computer usage policies so someone launching a worm can and should be fired but the administrator will always be blamed while the bosses of those who dont fill their job requirements rarely have their jobs on the line.

      Its unfair and this is why such a policy is needed.

    5. Re:It's easy to blame the users...Cake talk. by mefus · · Score: 1

      Policies are needed and yes most organizations have computer usage policies so someone launching a worm can and should be fired but the administrator will always be blamed while the bosses of those who dont fill their job requirements rarely have their jobs on the line.

      I'm not arguing that policies are needed or that people break them. No argument from me.

      If a user unleashes a worm that cripples the internal network, though, is a different can of... well you know.

      Worms come from (on MS-based machines) unpatched systems, and (more generally) Trojans come from deficient network policies regarding email.

      Yep.

      Blaming the user for not anticipating weaknesses in the operating system and mail reader is not fair.

      Can't say I'd blame the network people either, though, since network/architecture configurations are subject to bean-counters and management decisions. It's complex.

      --
      mefus
      In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
    6. Re:It's easy to blame the users...Cake talk. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      You just reminded me why I am not in IT anymore.

      I tell people there is nothing I can do thanks to the budget and I get fired.

      I deserved it of course for speaking up but if the routers reboot daily or dumb shit like worms happen because teh CIO wont pay for newer routers or anything above novell 3.12 than what can I do?

      Most businesses these days just have settings in outlook that disable attachments and automatic virus scanners on their computers.

      But with these newer worms that can be launched just by IE opening a picture without user knowledge makes your task impossible.

      I think pallidium drm will have corporate America digging it by storm. Its a scary thought but its the only way to really lock down a pc and get rid of these headaches.

      Than its paying $2,000 for Windows/Office per seat all over again thanks to the monopoly it will create. Sigh.

    7. Re:It's easy to blame the users...Cake talk. by mefus · · Score: 1

      You just reminded me why I am not in IT anymore.

      Ditto!

      --
      mefus
      In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
  16. Treat naive users like threats by Oriumpor · · Score: 3, Informative

    You needn't treat them like a threat to their face, that is just rude. Most people are "too busy" or don't care enough to learn about computer security. So nod and just listen to *their* problems and lock down their system against the big threat.

    We had to deal with this more often than not ... so we set out to prevent user folly. In so doing we created the IT tech's dream.

    First off you start at the network layer, and make sure via firewalls that people can't get anywhere or use any application that will cause you grief.(p2p/streaming etc.) Then you transparently proxy all your traffic so that the guy who checks out classic-cars.com all day for backgrounds can do his thing and not screw everyone else.

    Then you take every user system and you lock them down. You start out by moving all their dynamic data (that you wanna keep) to a file server. Mapping the winblows appdata/my documents gives you a wannabe roaming profile without all the garbage.

    After you make all that effort you either impliment a mandatory PXE re-imaging overnight (too much of a headache for us) or you use something like Deep Freeze and lock down the system entirely. Due to Deep Freeze even the most zealous surfer can only horribly damage their system once a day.

    Now you have an ideal environment. All changes on a system that need a reboot *must* involve a contact to the IT department, and those you think are savvy enough not to need a frozen system can do 90% of their own support.

    Ok sure so your level of responsibility goes up. The pristine environment means you have plenty of opportunity to script away your work. Not to mention silly things like virus outbreaks are really limited because a frozen system need only reboot to remove the virus.

    Think *pro-active.*

    1. Re:Treat naive users like threats by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

      ugh Faronics main page

      That's what I get for not hitting preview.

    2. Re:Treat naive users like threats by magarity · · Score: 1

      You needn't treat them like a threat to their face, that is just rude. Most people are "too busy"

      So business users who are supposed to be working are "too busy" to learn proper computer use but they do have time to install P2P software and dl warez and music (which includes time to search and select)?

    3. Re:Treat naive users like threats by rpbailey1642 · · Score: 1

      All good suggestions. I work for a school system in Nevada, and we use Deep Freeze on our machines whenever possible. However, one shouldn't get into the habit of thinking Deep Freeze == secure. Recently we had an outbreak of Sasser at one of our schools. A machine (with Deep Freeze) gets infected, lets it spread to a few more machines and then crashes. It comes back up, clean, and promptly gets reinfected. I'm going to have to go through machine by machine to install the patch. At least when I take them off the network and reboot, it'll be a clean system I'm patching. Again, great suggestions, I just wanted to throw my two cents into the pot.

    4. Re:Treat naive users like threats by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes. The point is that no matter how well you try to train your users, sooner or later one of them will do something stupid and something will try to infect your network. In most cases, all they did was read their mail because management decided that Microsoft Outlook is a fine program. You can't depend upon the user base to keep your network secure: that just won't work, and the more users you have the problem grows exponentially. One mistake and that's all she wrote. If users shouldn't be downloading software and warez and music on their office systems, that's a matter for management and personnel to take up, not the IT department. Regardless, it is the IT department's job to try and prevent individual user problems and mistakes from affecting the rest of the organization.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  17. Re:what OS are you running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not on MY corporate network you don't. Our users actually have to get shit done. We don't have time for fucking debugging your shitty gnu/(cr)apps.

  18. Confirms my unease with P2P by SimianOverlord · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I used P2P for a while (eDonkey) but stopped, but I became pretty uneasy about the whole thing (ethically/ pragmatically). I feel it is only a matter of time before virus writers become more proactive in using these ready made networks for the transmission and control of their viruses. When the first P2P transmission virus blazes through the network, like HIV in a lymph node, then uses it as a reservoir for systemic (Internet) infection, it will be too late. When a virus writer releases an upgraded payload, or a modification to escape anti viral scanner via P2P to create "escape" mutants, we will be in serious trouble. We need government legislation of P2P now. Learn from biology.

    --
    Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
    1. Re:Confirms my unease with P2P by pashdown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Learn from history. Government legislation against spam has done squat.

    2. Re:Confirms my unease with P2P by BandwidthHog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who convinced you that they were legislating *against* spam?

      CAN-SPAM: It's not just a horrible backronym.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    3. Re:Confirms my unease with P2P by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      Oh, yeah. Use Outlook and MSIE instead of a p2p.

      I am curious. Since it seems that all MS programs are the real cause of problems, then we should just shut down MS. In fact, since only some other bad company would replace MS, then we should simply forbid all computers. In fact, come to think of it, all computers (so far) need electricty, so we should stop electricy. But you know, it is only a short time before we have biological computers, so we should destroy all biologicals that can posisble think. But just thinking about it, it is possible that we could spread to the unive

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Confirms my unease with P2P by tsaler · · Score: 1

      I installed eDonkey once, but I didn't like it. It installed spyware on my computer, and nothing really worked right. I downloaded it straight from download.com, so I didn't just get a bum copy. The program itself is crap. It wouldn't even connect to the Overnet server.

      Virus writers are inevitably going to try to take advantage of the routes used by the highest number of people. The problem lies in the fact that government involvement in P2P is more likely to eliminate the higher number of networks, servers, and front-ends we have available to us. When there are less networks, less servers, and less front-ends, it actually makes it easier for virus writers to target one network, one server, or one front-end because a higher concentration of people are using it.

      Plus, when the government gets involved, some people tend to believe that the problem has been solved and that, through regulation, it's now safe to use. Do we want people to be using P2P networks willy-nilly, not even thinking twice before they download something, execute it, infect their entire machine, and then share all their other infected files with other machines on the network?

      I think it's a better idea to eliminate government regulation on this sort of thing. It means that a network that is secure with smart users is more likely to be successful, and it means that those of us who practice safe computing don't have to worry about the government locking us into an insecure system.

      Final result is that government isn't going to solve the problem.

    5. Re:Confirms my unease with P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "all MS programs are the real cause of problems," ...mod that crap down to pure flamebait.

  19. Blame? by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    • Running Windows
    • Not using total security throughout the network.
    • Allowing Users to download any tool that they want
    • I will bet that they allow CD/floppy downloads.
    • Probably allow Outlook (and in an insecure fashion).
    And the Blame goes to:

    p2p software??????

    Our society really suffers from a lack of taking blame.

    Anybody who runs MS should know that it takes a lot of effort and money to truely lock it down. As such they should do so. It is simply part of the total cost of running a Windows system.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Blame? by chris_eineke · · Score: 0
      • Running Windows
        Not using total security throughout the network.
        Allowing Users to download any tool that they want
        I will bet that they allow CD/floppy downloads.
        Probably allow Outlook (and in an insecure fashion).
      This sounds like your average university campus.
      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    2. Re:Blame? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah. Blame P2P software. Not because it's peer-to-peer, or because you're using it to download illegal music, but rather because of the fast-and-loose way its users play with the rules.

      There are many valid, legal uses for P2P software. Unfortunately, many (I'd venture to say most) use it illegally. In all likelihood, the user that the poster complains about was using it that way.

      But that's not what concerns me. What concerns me is that users who are willing to illegally download copyrighted music (not counting all the high-minded, fair-use-encouraging, fighting-for-the-musician-against-the-RIAA slashdotters, of course) will not necessarily check that the software they download is free of spyware. Indeed, they'll likely skip over the part of the EULA which says, "Warning: we're going to report everything including your shoe size".

      The P2P software is an excellent vector for spyware and viruses to enter the system. Users download it deliberately. Then they execute it, and not even Linux can distinguish between spyware and valid programs. (Linux tries to prevent you from doing it as root, which MS does a lousy job of, but spyware and viruses could do plenty of damage in user mode if somebody were to write such.) It's never installed by the adminstrators, since it's rarely work-related, so it's never vetted for quality. And because it's illegal for the use many users put it to, they're unlikely to come to the administrators for help when there are problems.

      I assure you, there's plenty of blame to go around: the users for installing software for dubious purposes, Microsoft for failing to secure their OS, and all the others you mentioned. But do not forget, either, that some blame goes to those who those who write P2P software and then include spyware (deliberately) and viruses (inadvertently or otherwise).

      They say you can't con an honest man. It's not true, of course, but greed is a great entry past somebody's common sense. In this user's case it could have been anything: p2p software, a worm, another trojan, or in all likelihood a combination of factors. If he's tracked down the vector to some piece of P2P software, it wouldn't surprise me if he's at least partially right.

      His solution? There are few good ones. Banning Outlook is an excellent start, but a properly patched Outlook client isn't much of a hazard any more. A more draconian policy towards software installation will help, at substantial cost to convenience. A switch to Linux will help more through hybrid vigor than actual security; if enough people go there they'll start slipping Gator into Linux P2P clients. Educating users is always valuable but it's expensive and imperfect. Locking down the network is best; it at least helps eliminate the spread of viruses, but at a cost of higher administration expenses.

      One of the first ones I'd say is, "No P2P software until you can show that you're using it for valid reasons, and then only after I've approved the particular piece of software you want to use."

    3. Re:Blame? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      True, our society suffers from no lack of pointing fingers, but most of them are just pointing in the wrong direction. Might as well blame TCP/IP or fiber optic cable for spreading malware if you're going to throw the book at an entire class of application software. Doesn't mean that specific applications aren't faulty or problematic, but to say that peer-to-peer is conceptually wrong? Sheesh. Good thing these guys weren't around when the screwdriver was being invented: you can stick it in somebody's back, you know.

      I feel very little sympathy for organizations that get hit with Windows-related security problems. Several years ago it was different: Windows' status as a bullseye made of Swiss cheese wasn't commonly known or publicized, and people assumed that Microsoft knew what it was doing security-wise. At this point however, any management has to know how risky Microsoft's stuff is when the Internet is involved. Given that knowledge, if management doesn't allocate sufficient IT resources to upgrade their security or switch to a more secure OS ... well. As Bill Cosby once said, "That's like if somebody throws you a left you, you lean into it." Nobody to blame but yourself.

      Part of the problem lies with the nature of IT departments. They aren't profit centers, in fact they are simply operational overhead. And as belts continue to tighten in the corporate world, IT personnel are at risk because they have a harder time justifying their existence than the guy on the plant floor running that punch press. In fact, the best IT departments (i.e., the ones that have successfully kept their user base productive in spite of the flood of malware) are the ones most likely to be axed because there is no apparent need for them. "why do we have all those IT people around? They're expensive and we've never had any virus problems." Of course, once the cutbacks get made and there aren't enough IT people left to do the job, problems ensue.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Blame? by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      One of the first ones I'd say is, "No P2P software until you can show that you're using it for valid reasons, and then only after I've approved the particular piece of software you want to use."

      Not really sure that I entirely agree with that. More of what needs to happen is that p2p needs to be set up for the corporate, but it needs to be limited to just corporate and/or corporate partners. p2p can be very useful, but all ppl see is what the media shows us (which of course reinforces keeping the good uses away).

      A switch to Linux will help more through hybrid vigor than actual security; if enough people go there they'll start slipping Gator into Linux P2P clients.

      That is the funny thing. One of the items that worries me about the OSS world, is that we are sitting a bit too much on our laurels.

      In particular, I really think that distros need to be configured during install to automatically do security system updates. This should be the default settings. Of course, it should have the option to be turned off, but the default should be on. Any admin can then turn it off and manage it their way. But we need to worry about the shear number of systems that are going in and the fact that the new users will be average users.

      The other problem is that far too many ppl do think in terms of root will save us all. However, noobs will be doing what they do in windows today. The truth is, if an app can get on Linux and can be ran, it can find an opening. Of course, the hard part is getting to the running part. It is no different than a cracker. Once they can get on the system, it is only a matter time before they own root.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Blame? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Don't forget us IT workers who *aren't* in the corporate world but are struggling at publicly-funded facilities whose levies and bonds fail every single year when taken to election.

    6. Re:Blame? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes. Well, like I said, when there isn't enough IT to go around ...

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:Blame? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Windows is a religion:
      Users fervently believe in it
      Users refuse to try anything else
      Users actually enjoy the suffering
      Users refuse to accept blame for anything
      Users believe that it will work better tomorrow

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  20. "strings" command? by JMZorko · · Score: 1
    I've never tried this (I don't have a Windows box), but wouldn't a quick way of searching for registry keys that programs touch be to install Cygwin and use the *nix "strings" command? i.e.

    PugsleyButt:~/devstuff/c++ jmzorko$ strings file_to_examine

    It just seems to me that this would be an obvious, but fairly effective way to quickly find all the registry points (as well as DLLs and other files) that a piece off could would touch ... maybe use it in conjunction with nm as well ...

    Regards,

    John

    --
    Falling You - beautiful
    1. Re:"strings" command? by JMZorko · · Score: 1
      Yikes.

      s/off could/of code/g

      Hey, i'm just waking up :-)

      Regards,

      John

      --
      Falling You - beautiful
    2. Re:"strings" command? by Jimmy_B · · Score: 1

      Three problems with that. First, they're often constructed piecewise at run time, which means they won't be in the executable at all. Second, there are a bunch of different formats (ASCII, UTF-16, compressed) that the keys might be in, and strings won't get them all. And third, you get a whole lot of unrelated junk to sift through.

  21. Modding-Party line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There are really times when I wish you could mod a submission as "Flamebait.""

    Do you have anything counter to it? Oh yes, one datapoint counters a forest of datapoints. It's flamebait because this entire forum is turning into "preaching to the party line".

    1. Re:Modding-Party line. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      On the other hand ... sometimes the party line is the correct one to take. Knowing when to jump off the bandwagon is the key.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  22. That's right! by pschmied · · Score: 1

    You have no idea what sort of trojan / backdoor / über nasty malware was loaded on each individual machine.

    Your time is much better spent developing a network reimaging system so that your machines can be reverted to a known state relatively quickly.

    -Peter

  23. Shameless plug by haxor.dk · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Over at Internet Storm Center Deb Hale's 'In search of the bot net' entry for September 25 recounts a grueling hunt for all the .exe's, reg entries and sources for a bot infection of a 60 server corporate network. What a nightmare!" ...Apple Macs and Assorted Linucen, curing .exe, registry and bot infections for 5 years and counting!

  24. Is it just me... by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...or does this guy come across as a total ass? "Pirate2Pirate"? Blaming the users? I mean, isn't *he* paid to enable *them* to do their jobs, not the other way around? (Of course, the actual article is /.ed, so maybe it's just the summary that gives me that impression.)

    1. Re:Is it just me... by base3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just a typical power-tripping Network Nazi given adminstrator access to desktops and a $30K/year salary and thinks he's Jesus Christ reborn.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    2. Re:Is it just me... by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I drive a car over a bridge, start swerving around for fun, then crash through the side guards and park said car next to a fresh-water lobster, would the goverment be responsible for failing to create a bridge that is capable of withstanding my driving?

      If I install Kazaa, Comet Cursor, Internet Optimizer and surf porn all day long, would the IT department be responsible for the shit I create on the corporate network?

    3. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. No
      2. Yes

      Next.

    4. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If I drive a car over a bridge, start swerving around for fun, then crash through the side guards and park said car next to a fresh-water lobster..."

      Sooner or later, no matter what the subject, someone will have to compare it to a car.

    5. Re:Is it just me... by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      If I install Kazaa, Comet Cursor, Internet Optimizer and surf porn all day long, would the IT department be responsible for the shit I create on the corporate network?
      Considering that securing a computer from undesirable uses is a lot more feasible than securing a bridge from undesirable uses, I don't think your analogy holds. Here's why.

      The (de facto) cost to build a bridge that can prevent anyone from driving anything through the railing would be exorbitant; it wouldn't be reasonable to expect the government to build such a bridge. But the (de facto) cost to secure a computer against users installing unauthorized programs is not only relatively low, it is easily within the budget and skills of the average IT department. And once you implement that security policy once, you can replicate the policy for basically zero cost on all the other computers in your department. Building two bridges costs twice as much as building one bridge.

      Granted, it's not always that simple; changing requirements, corporate infighting, and budgetary problems can make it difficult for the IT department. Granted, there still is a point of diminishing returns, where spending the effort to make the computers more secure doesn't outweigh the long-term costs of doing so. That point comes much, much earlier when building physical transportation infrastructure. :) Granted, there's only so much the IT department can do, but I think their responsibility can quite easily be stretched a lot farther than the government's responsibility toward building invincible bridges.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    6. Re:Is it just me... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      "If I drive a car over a bridge, start swerving around for fun, then crash through the side guards and park said car next to a fresh-water lobster..."

      Sooner or later, no matter what the subject, someone will have to compare it to a car.

      Really? I thought it was more like a comparison to the "Ted Kennedy School of Driving".
  25. Someone, mod that up by slavetrade55 · · Score: 1

    That's the most succinctly put point I think I've ever read on slashdot.

  26. Otherwise B2B... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...should be bastard to bastard. ;)

    1. Re:Otherwise B2B... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Let's not be sexist about this ... there are B2B (Bitch to Bitch) networks as well.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  27. The root/admin flaw by drl0gic · · Score: 1, Informative
    Why windows users insists using admininstrator accounts, when they could use a limited account that prevents access to the system and program dirs?

    No reference at microsoft site about using a machine in limited mode to stop viruses/trojans.

    I think linux users don't run exim or apache with uid 0...for a reason.

    1. Re:The root/admin flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Could have something to do with the fact that so much shit breaks when a user isn't a local admin.

      ~~~

    2. Re:The root/admin flaw by drl0gic · · Score: 0

      Like p2p programs? Like games? Like cool IE plugins? Good.

    3. Re:The root/admin flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of moron are you? How about like legacy mainframe emulators that require that the user be an admin (not just a power user) and many legitimate pieces of software. Grow the fuck out of your high-school power tripping "I am admin, I am God" mentality and welcome to reality.

    4. Re:The root/admin flaw by drl0gic · · Score: 0
      I tell you that these piece of software was not developed with security in mind, well, switch to a more competent company that develops with security in mind (nah, security isn't important).

      And, interesting, I use the open-source IBM mainframe emulator (hercules) and I don't need to be root to run it.

    5. Re:The root/admin flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I deal with a lot of SW that needs access to specific registry keys, \program files (if you are not aware, W2K doesn't give users write access to the tree by default), files shoved in \winnt.

      It's the lazy programmers who focus on bling but not on the big picture that cause a lot of grief. Software is written without any regard of the system(s) it has to run on, without regard to security, multiple users, WANs, and "oh my God, you mean users don't have full access to your server shares?"

      The other AC was right. Lose your I-hate-users-because-I-have-root power trip and research who you really should blame.

    6. Re:The root/admin flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. I meant "terminal emulator," not emulator. And Host on Demand, from IBM, doesn't work if a user isn't a local admin.

    7. Re:The root/admin flaw by thepoch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem with this is that most applications for Windows don't consider the "multi-user" environment. There are a lot of apps that simply don't work well when it's not run by an Administrator account. Take for example Office 2000. I've installed this before on a Windows 2000 machine. When I run it as an Administrator, there is no problem. When I run it as a User account, it keeps asking me to insert the Office 2000 CD because there are missing components. WTF? Granted I installed it with only the features I need, but why the hell should it ask for the CD in the User account and not the Administrator account?

      Another case... I used to program for a corporate environment. I was the only one who programs with conditions as to who is running the software, so I could save their data into their respective "Documents and Settings" folder, under Application Data. The rest of the developers don't care. I even set the installer to make sure only an Administrator account can install (using InnoSetup, great software).

      So who's to blame? Users for running as Administrator (because they have no choice a lot of times)? Developers for not developing with multi-user environment consideration? Or Microsoft, for "hacking" Windows to become a horrible multi-user environment?

    8. Re:The root/admin flaw by julesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why windows users insists using admininstrator accounts, when they could use a limited account that prevents access to the system and program dirs?

      It's standard practice on a Windows network not to allow users administrator access. The only system that MS has ever released that encourages users to use administrator is XP Home, which is designed for home use, where that is probably more appropriate.

      I find it highly implausible that the company described in the article here allowed their users to access administrator accounts. But then, you don't need administrator access for a trojan to launch an attack over the network and break in to other computers on it. Not in Windows, nor Linux, nor any other OS I've used.

      No reference at microsoft site about using a machine in limited mode to stop viruses/trojans.

      What, you mean like this one:

      Microsoft recommends adopting a policy that provides the fewest privileges possible to help minimize the impact of malware that relies on exploiting user privileges when it executes.

    9. Re:The root/admin flaw by c.ecker · · Score: 1

      Fact is, until recently Windows Viruses could EASILY gain administrative priviledges, even when the logged in user was only granted User Priviledges.

      The Data Execution Prevention feature installed with SP2 might, someday, maybe, mitigate this to some extent, but right now has not been demonstrated to be effective.

      Adware and Spyware have no trouble installing via pop-up ads through Internet Explorer EVEN WHEN THE USER HAS 'USER' ONLY PRIVELEDGES. Virus have the same easy route to installation.

      Switch to Linux on the Desktop. Quick!

      --
      My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds ...
    10. Re:The root/admin flaw by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Try Lotus Notes sometime. Ugh.

      At least software from Microsoft you can be somewhat sure they might have considered the user might not have admin access... at Lotus this seems to be an entirely foreign concept.

      Of course, Notes also has two different installers: One that puts its data in its own folder in Program Files, and then the "multi-user" version which (correctly) puts its data in Documents And Settings... why the hell would ANYone use the first installer?

    11. Re:The root/admin flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No reference at microsoft site about using a machine in limited mode to stop viruses/trojans."

      oh realy?!?!?

      I see it all the time on MS sites and hundreds of others, not including all the books that say this...so tell us oh-wise guru of all IT knowledge, what dark warm place is your head in that keeps you from seeing what is all over the planet concerning this????? ...or was your fud speach intended to feed more trolls on the hate-wagon?

    12. Re:The root/admin flaw by grcumb · · Score: 1

      "The only system that MS has ever released that encourages users to use administrator is XP Home, which is designed for home use, where that is probably more appropriate."

      With all due respect: This statement is bollocks. Windows has never graduated from the assumption that there's only one user on the computer and she is God. The 'Run as...' feature is considered a Great New Thing, for crying out loud. That feature is only 20 years old in other operating systems.

      And just FYI, anybody who knows anything about security would not ever run normally as root - not at home, not anywhere. The admin/root account is for changing the state of the machine, and nothing else. There's no evidence more damning than this that Microsoft just doesn't get security.

      Please, offer whatever opinion you like about OSes, but try to base them on something bearing a passing resemblance to fact.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    13. Re:The root/admin flaw by julesh · · Score: 1

      With all due respect: This statement is bollocks. Windows has never graduated from the assumption that there's only one user on the computer and she is God.

      Oh, come on. The Windows NT family has never been a single user system. It was designed from ground up with user separation as a core feature. Win95 et al are now just about dead, so it must be NT we're talking about.

      The 'Run as...' feature is considered a Great New Thing, for crying out loud. That feature is only 20 years old in other operating systems.

      Well, yeah, Windows only really caught up with the rest of the crowd four years ago. This only reflects negatively on previous versions, but doesn't say anything at all about current ones.

      And just FYI, anybody who knows anything about security would not ever run normally as root - not at home, not anywhere. The admin/root account is for changing the state of the machine, and nothing else. There's no evidence more damning than this that Microsoft just doesn't get security.

      No, I think Microsoft understands security just perfectly. They know that there is a tradeoff between ease of use and "perfect" security, and know that the average home user would _rather_ have a system that doesn't require them to switch their user accounts to perform an administrative action (which many home users do frequently, installing and trying out new software seems to be a hobby of the casual computer hobbyist). Obviously this isn't ideal, but that's what the market wants. Microsoft is in the business of selling operating systems, not dictating to its users how they should use their computers. If XP Home hadn't put users in the administrators group by default, it would not have taken off. Everyone would have said "I like XP, but things don't work right. I prefer ME."

      Please, offer whatever opinion you like about OSes, but try to base them on something bearing a passing resemblance to fact.

      Please don't ram your biased conclusions down my throat in such an insulting fashion. There is more to designing an operating system than just security.

    14. Re:The root/admin flaw by Merkuri22 · · Score: 1

      Take for example Office 2000. I've installed this before on a Windows 2000 machine. When I run it as an Administrator, there is no problem. When I run it as a User account, it keeps asking me to insert the Office 2000 CD because there are missing components. WTF? Granted I installed it with only the features I need, but why the hell should it ask for the CD in the User account and not the Administrator account?

      You need to reinstall it for every new user who wants to use Office. It's a "security feature" of 2000. If you really want to use MSOffice, try 2003 instead.

  28. vlans and other isolation tools are your friends by Spoing · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I get very annoyed when hearing about whole networks being knocked out by a virus/trojan. It should never happen; any dammage should be isolated.

    Limit access to the application/web server level at the router. Isolate workstations so that they can each see the file servers but not all other systems. If someone needs direct access to servers, they should have a real good reason (or it should be obvious; admins, developers.).

    Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that the limits be so strict that people are annoyed and attempt to break or ignore security. They should be well organized, though, and monitored. Reasonable exceptions should be made immediately, and unreasonable exceptions should be granted quickly with an eye to isolating the damage of that exception as much as possible.

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  29. Whats a firewall again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is an idea that seems to slip past many...

    C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-E F-I-R-E-W-A-L-L

    We used to have botnet probs in our corporate network... once we installed a Zonelabs Integrity server and were able to control what programs had access to the internet and which ones did not, it was pretty easy to fix.

  30. It's the "missing sandbox" principle by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    upon which all Windows operating systems are based.

    Just out of curiosity, have you had similar problems under Win2K, or are you just seeing this with XP?

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:It's the "missing sandbox" principle by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      I only came onboard in the process of converting to XP, so I can't vouch either way for the relative security of 2K, sorry.

      Luckily, we have really good network administrators (Just a grunt tech here) and usually we can track down, isolate and kill infections before they can pose too much of a threat to other machines. We did have a couple copies of the latest Bagle running around, and that was no fun, but at least it didn't install itself into the system's shared-library directory.

      Coming from Linux, the concept of something installing a DLL to /lib without having root permissions is terrifying.

    2. Re:It's the "missing sandbox" principle by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      Ah crap, Linux doesn't use DLLs, it uses .SOs. I need some more sleep.

    3. Re:It's the "missing sandbox" principle by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Coming from Linux, the concept of something installing a DLL to /lib without having root permissions is terrifying.

      Coming from Windows, the concept is equally terrifying.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  31. Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IT staff should either have a super-fast reinstall system (unattended install + all software) or use imaging system (I'm using this method) and just reimage patched OS.

    User systems should not hold any vital data (documents etc.) - these should be in central server, thus there is no danger in loosing data in PC, plus one can implement central backup system.

    1. Re:Right by julesh · · Score: 1

      Note that the story was talking about removing infections from servers, not user desktops. Presumably they did just reimage the desktops, but the servers had to be handled with a little more subtlety (probably to minimise downtime).

  32. Master Plan !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its all a master plan.. Microsoft is such shit. *nix based os's never have this sort of issue, I have had less problems recovering an owned box, than trying to get a windows box booted that is infected with the nimbda virus.. Its just so frickin pathetic.

    Windows costs so much to secure, and it takes so much frickin time, and you have all of these moronic microsoft minions, running out and paying thousands for the dumb ass certifications that basically prove that you know how to "use a GUI".
    (Whooope frickin doo).. heheh IM a MCSE, I know how to configure windows... hehe and I paid 5000 dollars for it.. hehe... (im smart) ;-)..

    Not to mention you have so much shit to deal with if something breaks or "gets infected". You would think that its all one big plan, microsoft keeps holes in its software, so they can be exploited, so that people will buy more and more software to keep them from being infected, keeping everyone happy... I know I for one dont have the time to d4eal with the big MS virus drama.. oh geez george, i have the latest Anti-Virus-97x.GI.IQ virus protection... am i safe?

    There are far too many people with way to much time on their hands..

  33. Re:what OS are you running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We don't have time for fucking debugging your shitty gnu/(cr)apps.

    I'll say. How could you be debugging if you are spending all your time fighting Virus/Worms/Crackers/ etc. on your few remaining windows boxes.

    I find it amazing that MS people complain about lack of apps on Linux, yet about 97% of them use only a browser, MS Office, and Outlook which are all easily replacable.

  34. What's your business? by mangu · · Score: 1
    Our users actually have to get shit done.


    Let me guess: you work for a toilet-manufacturing company?

  35. Re:Treat naive users like threats - don't forget by Graemee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Excellent. But don't forget to keep administrative control from the users and limited to the a few users.

    Run security audits to make sure only the chosen few have administrator rights. This is for local PCs. Domain rights should even be more tightly controlled.

    Keep AV defs updated daily. Report the numbers daily to check compliance.

    Remove the ability to disable AV.

    Check AV logs daily. Any report should be dispatched to a tech to "fix" the PC or determine what happened to the AV and take action accordingly.

    Use group policies to ban known software, P2P & Hack/hacked tools. ( Not perfect but keeps the stupid honest)

    Scan all email in & Out with AV & Spam Killer.
    Be perpared to shut mail off if required to protect systems. This means you will nee to provide some user with a safe external email.

    Keep your PCs patched on a regular basis. After testing on several test groups for issues.

    Document your system & processes.

    Inform & educate your users.

    Happy to report the last big virus we had hit was Melissa. It made us retool the whole AV/Patch process and take these measures and more.

  36. Re:vlans and other isolation tools are your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's simple enough to say - but what about when you are responsible for a corporate network of 400 users, and a remote WAN of over 30 sites, and 1000 users? And your Network operations department is comprised of you and a monkey sitting under your desk?

    With the massive number of companies 'downsizing' lately, I find it hilarious how so many of you recommend doing all this rearchitecture, when most of us in the Ops/IT field are already spending 70+ hours a week fighting fires.

  37. Corporate Story by apsio · · Score: 1

    So I was a part-time (big projects, twice a month maybe) sysadmin at a local office of a large actuary firm. About 70 computers all tied in over a leased line to the central offices. Anywho, back when the Melissa (I think) virus was making its rounds I gave the full-time guy a heads up on wha to expect, patches, etc. Of course, his head was firmly stuck up his 'exit-only' hole and neglected to do anything. So our systems slowly but surely (not so slowly now that I think about it) groud to a halt.

    Long and short of it was that we had to manually clean every system, and in doing so found dozens of other infections, trojans, etc. I never did any of the client admin work, just helped with the long-distance networking. But the head of the office took me aside and asked me for a "no shit" assessment. I told em the full-time had dropped the ball. He offered me the job, I chuckled and politely declined as that office was NO fun and the pay sucked (hence the lowly full timer they wound up with).

    Anyway...

    1. Re:Corporate Story by 0BoDy · · Score: 1

      You should have told them that the problem would continue to re-occur unless they expanded the IT budget for personnel, since you were more qualified, but definitely worth more. At least, the moron should have been fired IMO.

      --
      Can I be a Luddite too?
  38. Do not DROP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except when you are a poor dialup user where
    every byte counts, do *not* use DROP!
    Be a nice citizen of the Network, use REJECT.

  39. Ahh, blame the users for Admins screwup by AnswerIs42 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Come on.. this is an example of a VERY poorly managed network.

    At work we have 20K users in the US alone. We actualy don't have that bad of a time dealing with viruses and worms and the like.

    Why? Because 98% of the users get pushed their virus updates and their OS updates. This includes the clueless people.

    We also run network scans and know WHEN computers were updated. If the computer is connnected to the network, we know what updates it has or doesn't have. The only hard part is FINDING the unpatched computers.

    We also have a firewall that prevets P2P connections, FTP and anything else non web browser related (gets anoying at times).

    In reading this story.. I can only assign 1% of the blame on the users and 99% of the blame on the admins for not doing a proper job.

    1. Re:Ahh, blame the users for Admins screwup by octaene · · Score: 1

      Just curious, what corporate managed antivirus tool are you using?

    2. Re:Ahh, blame the users for Admins screwup by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      We use Symantec Antivirus (corporate edition). Very nice. The central server gets signature updates and pushes it to the clients (either right away or on the next boot, whichever is first)

      I don't have nearly that many clients, but I do have the system set up to e-mail me each time signatures are updated. This includes the machine name and I kind of keep track of which ones are up to date.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  40. more proof by scottking · · Score: 2, Interesting

    yeah, yeah, i'm sorry, you're sorry, everybody's sorry... quit blaming your users. that aside, i think this article is a little more proof that anti-virus programs like norton, are ineffective these days. the way they function needs to be re-thought badly. i hope to see the cost of devices like this one come down to more consumer friendly levels in the future. anyone have any ideas on how anti-virus can be improved?

    --
    scott king
    1. Re:more proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > anyone have any ideas on how anti-virus can be improved?

      Yeah, read this and install linux or BSD.

  41. Re:vlans and other isolation tools are your friend by Spoing · · Score: 3, Insightful
    1. It's simple enough to say - but what about when you are responsible for a corporate network of 400 users, and a remote WAN of over 30 sites, and 1000 users? And your Network operations department is comprised of you and a monkey sitting under your desk?

    It's even more important. Do you want to chase problems every 5 minutes and waste your weekend? I don't!

    1. With the massive number of companies 'downsizing' lately, I find it hilarious how so many of you recommend doing all this rearchitecture, when most of us in the Ops/IT field are already spending 70+ hours a week fighting fires.

    Exactly my point!

    Take one thing at a time, starting with your most troublesome group or servers. Don't grab the 300 client system nightmare first; look one server and see what it depends on. Are there 10 applications running on it? Is there a way to move one or a set of them of them off and isolated that?

    If you're getting pecked to death by ducks, start by killing one duck at a time! (Or find a smaller group of ducks to kill at a new job.)

    Don't let upper management know that you suceeding, though. They may want to get rid of the monkey.

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  42. Analogies... by MunchMunch · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yeah, except a network admin should be able to set privileges to disallow the installation of 3rd party software, and so on. And also, this is a private entity, so the public good part also fails. So your analogy should be more like:

    "In a world where a private corporation could create a private bridge and set strict rules of usage for that bridge, would that private corporation be responsible for its own damages if its manager of Bridge Upkeep failed to set the readily available measures to prevent paid employees to swerve around for fun, crash through side guards and park said car next to a fresh-water lobster?"

    Sounds more like this guy was just looking for an excuse to submit a story and use the term "pirate2pirate."

  43. Flag on the field!!! by goldspider · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Apple Macs and Assorted Linucen

    "Making up a new plural case of a word to try to sound cool", on "haxor.dk". That's a 15 yd. penalty and loss of down.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  44. So the Internet is used mostly for pirating. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if you knew the first thing about how network protocols work, you wouldn't be such a huge ass.

    Like Warez HTTP and FTP sites don't exist. Or people don't email each other software. Or you can't find it on USENET.
    Oh wait, should we ban all Internet traffic?

    Oh wait, NO WE DON'T YOU FUCKING TWAT!!!

    WE GO AFTER THE PEOPLE USING THE TECHNOLOGY INAPPROPRIATELY!

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:So the Internet is used mostly for pirating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other protocols are mostly used for legitamate purposes, this is why they aren't a problem. P2P is mostly used to transfer illicit copies of other people's work, this is why they are a problem.

      I don't have exact figures, but I would guess that illegal material comprises 1% of email usage, 10% of http useage, 15% of nntp useage and 95% of p2p usage.

      THIS is the problem.

      Now gb2/b

  45. Blame IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I admin a lab in a fortune 500 company, almost everything is windows. Since it is a lab, not everything can be patched, but we are very careful. The three times the lab has been infected, we have traced it back to being spread by a corporate IT box (file servers, web servers, etc). Very very annoying. But since it is a lab, we just wipe everything and reload from backups, and then wait and wait and wait for IT to finish cleanup before we trust their network again.

  46. Capitalistic Whore? Won't you mooch a clue please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm

  47. Is it just me...Personal responsability. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Blaming the users? I mean, isn't *he* paid to enable *them* to do their jobs, not the other way around? "

    And are *users* paid to do their jobs, without creating unnecessary work on others, including IT?

    If your going to take that tack, then it's only fair to ask about the role users behaviour play in the whole situation.

  48. Keep it on the down-low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's a lot of corporations that refuse to report a breech in security. Simply for the reasoning that people will bail out like rats, leaving the company with little to no customer base. I suspect there's an amount of identity theft involved with the whole sordid affair, and that quite a few people make the mistake of signing up with those companies.

    One day, some kid working on his thesis paper will compile a list of the IDT (IDentity Theft) victims, and there will be a nasty little coincidence...

  49. Re:what OS are you running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >dude, we are living in 2004

    Don't call me Jude, it's not my name

  50. Alternative to Deep Freeze... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Appropriately setting security permissions, or assigning users to the Users group. Also, try renaming ntuser.dat to ntuser.man (and of course remove write permission to the top of the user's profile).

    That'll mean they can change their settings, but they'll be automatically reset at logout. You don't even need a domain server to do it.
    Of course, the users might get a little annoyed. The savvy ones will write .reg scripts that run at login time to reset the settings. ;-)

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  51. Zuh? by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    How can the edge firewall detect what software is driving the ports on the user's desktop? I guess you had to install the Integrity Client on each user's machine as well.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:Zuh? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Well, aside from that (I don't know anything about ZoneAlarm's services), you could also do application-level filtering. It possibly/probably wouldn't prevent things like spyware requesting banners and the like (provided the spyware could spoof http headers), but you could use it to deny things like P2P, FTP, and the like w/o a problem. Additionally, you could tell it to disallow, say, IE from accessing the internet (via application-layer filtering - check the "OSI model" on wikipedia) - there goes 95% (or more) of the problem of spyware. :)

      This seems like much more of an elegant and fool-proof method of filtering than having a client on each workstation. AFAIK, IOS, netfilter, and ipfw (BSD) can all do application level filtering.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  52. VLANs and Port to Port Security by HermanAB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Geez, any self respecting switch has some of those features - people should learn to use them to partition the network. On a Windoze office network, very few users need to talk to each other - most only need to talk to a server.

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  53. Re:Treat naive users like threats - don't forget by legirons · · Score: 1

    "But don't forget to keep administrative control from the users and limited to the a few users."

    Specifically, make sure you transfer power to yourself and your friends. It's fun having complete control over people, isn't it? Good thing power doesn't corrupt.

    "Run security audits to make sure only the chosen few have administrator rights."

    After the third time missing a meeting due to the PC having an incorrect clock, no administrator access to fix it, and a big wait-time for the IT department to do anything, I decided I never want to work for an organisation with someone like you in it. Other people feel the same way about their wallpapers, their favourite browser (you do lock down people's PCs so they only run Internet Explorer, don't you?) and other similar things.

    The classic one is getting a tar.gz or a .pdf or other such file from a client and realizing that the IT department never even considered the possibility that you might need to download additional software occasionally to open such things. Of course, it makes you feel important when people have to telephone you many times per day to do trivial things like installing software (as if you know the difference between good and bad software just by looking at the name)

    "Remove the ability to disable AV."

    Watch as your developers' machines take 25 minutes to recompile an application that used to take 3 minutes, as the virus-scanner scans every single file they open, including all standard headers and libraries...

    Indeed, watch as the emails relating to the bespoke software you're buying get mysteriously deleted (quarrantined, delayed, or just disappear) as the software company has attached the new build of your software as an EXE file. You have no idea how much time we waste trying to communicate with customers that use such AV solutions.

  54. It's you own fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...by now any intelligent and well-informed person should know how insecure and bad Microsoft products are, the facts are all over the 'net. If you still run a Microsoft OS, then any trouble you run into is your own fault and you deserve to be hacked/virused/trojaned/wormed/etc. If you're not intelligent, or you don't keep yourself well-informed, then you don't need to be using a computer in the first place.

    Install a Linux operating system and you won't be bothered by most infections. Mandrakelinux can be downloaded and installed for free and I have found, after installing it on over 100 machines, that it is faster and easier to install and use than Windows. You can even go to Distrowatch and learn more about the hundreds of different "flavors" of Linux, there's a Linux distribution for any need and taste. And, you can go to Easy Linux CD's and pay a few dollars for a Linux disto and have the CD's mailed to you if you don't want to download the files.

    Stop being a statistic and do something about the problem. I am sick and tired of hearing Microsofties cry, moan, and complain when there is such an easy and affordable solution close at hand. There's no excuse not to use Linux.

    This comment is an attempt to begin to teach people how to rid themselves of the Microsoft operating system problem and everything herein is true, as I have experienced it. However, this comment will probably be modded down due to the fact that Slashdot doesn't really care about the "truth". We shall see how it is modded.

    1. Re:It's you own fault... by timelady · · Score: 1

      Dude, as much as I loathe M$, I find myself having to keep a partition for XP on my puter...there are apps that DON'T run on Linux, or have equivalents yet. The killer for me is MYOB, a book keeping program - I'd be deleting the yukness of Windows in a heartbeat if there was an equivalent or a reliable port. And no, its NOT reliable under Wine, or listed under Crossover.....I sodding hate having to reboot into XP yukness, and am hanging out for a MYOB equiv for Linux. Give corporations, and SMEs these sort of needed tools, as Open Office is doing, and you would see a swifter transition to Linux - hell a stampede! Oh, and if anyone knows a really equivalent type tool for MSAccess or MSPublisher, trying to transition a Community Centre to Linux would be simpler:)

      --
      Nothing - well thats something.
  55. I like the virus writers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... they keep all the Windows users fouled up and off the internet and out of the way of those of us who know what we're doing on Linux :-)

  56. Oh brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pirate2Pirate....what kind of bullshit is this? Fuck you for writing this, and fuck you, Slashdot, for approving this garbage. Yeah, p2p networks are used for piracy. The Internet has been used for piracy ever since it's inception. Do we trash the whole internet because of it? No, we don't. Fuck off. I should stab you.

  57. Yep you are a whore by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    You should give me all your work for free!

    ( while that was a joke, i think you will find taht if you make a quality product that is worth buying, you really dont lose anything via 'piracy'. A person that was not going to buy your product anyway isnt a lost sale to you.. so you didnt lose anything. )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Yep you are a whore by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      ( while that was a joke, i think you will find taht if you make a quality product that is worth buying, you really dont lose anything via 'piracy'. A person that was not going to buy your product anyway isnt a lost sale to you.. so you didnt lose anything. )


      Which is a fallacy. If my quality product has no value to that person, why would they copy it at all? Obviously it has some value to them - just not the value I set (or the other option is that they want to steal it and get it for free).

      It all comes down to them not wanting to pay for it, but wanting to take it anyway. Which is generally regarded as freeloading or stealing in most if not all societies on this planet.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    2. Re:Yep you are a whore by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      IT all comes down to value. If your product wasn't of enough value to pay for, then they got it for free.

      If it wasn't available for free, your product wouldn't have been used at all by those people.

      See, nothing lost.

      I'm not talking about people who would have bought it, but chose the free route only because its available.. that's different, and I DO agree they are freeloaders in that case. However you cannot ( honestly ) assume that just because someone got it for free, it cost you a sale. 95% of the time it has not. That is reality.. not a fallacy...

      ( and if that 5% of 'true' lost sales causes you to go under, then your business plan really sucked to begin with.. )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:Yep you are a whore by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about people who would have bought it, but chose the free route only because its available.. that's different, and I DO agree they are freeloaders in that case. However you cannot ( honestly ) assume that just because someone got it for free, it cost you a sale. 95% of the time it has not. That is reality.. not a fallacy...

      Yes, I honestly can. Again, if it had no value to them, they wouldn't copy it. Therefore, they're taking something of value without paying for it.

      So yes, they're freeloaders, pure and simple. And yes, it cost a sale.

      If you really want to convince me otherwise, address that central point - if it had no value, they wouldn't want to copy it.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    4. Re:Yep you are a whore by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > if it had no value, they wouldn't want to copy it.

      If you set the selling price to be closer to the actual value, perhaps you would have made a sale.

      Sometimes the value is not in the product itself. I'll admit it: I'm a dirty filesharer. I'm a pirate (Arrrr). I'm a criminal (according to some). I downloaded tons of music (not as much any more, though). Most of it was received in bulk -- I wasn't looking for your song in particular, I was looking for any song that I hadn't heard before in some genre.

      You see, I consider myself a collector. I have no delusions with regard to this -- I am still "breaking the law" the same as if I was doing because I think artists smell bad & deserve to be stolen from. In this case, the value is in the collection as a whole, not from the individual songs in it. Each MP3 is worth perhaps a nickel to me. I downloaded them because they were offered at a price I could afford ($0), not because I thought "I must have these exact songs," although, admittedly, there are many individual songs that I searched for.

      My favorites, I have bought, but I won't lie to you: they are very few, compared to the ones I have not bought. That doesn't make me an evil person, although I may be for other reasons. I don't know exactly what my point is, except that nothing is ever black & white.

      I don't feel that I deserve free music, but I don't feel the need to justify myself. I also don't feel that I am taking away money from anyone. If I didn't have the music, the creators would not have more money. I would probably be at the library instead, getting free content there in the form of books. But since the music is available, I get it. If it stops being available, I'll simply not get any more, purchased or otherwise).

      Calling someone a bad person does not make it so. Giving them reasons why they are evil does not really help your position even if your observations are correct. If someone feels that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, it will be very difficult to convince them otherwise. When you keep screaming at them (in general, I don't mean to say that you are screaming at anyone), they just get defensive & pissed off that someone would attack them for such a "petty" reason.

      Any monetary value placed on a nonphysical (or even physical, IMO) item is purely made-up. Nothing has inherent value unless it is a necessity for life & exists in small quantities (such as, water is "valuable" in the desert). This does not make my actions "right." In fact, regardless of what you think of me, there is no right or wrong here, only actions. The right and wrong are simply perceptions that you choose to see. Go ahead: say I'm justifying my "unlawful activities," call me a moral relativist. Do you think it will make the slightest difference on my opinion?

      (If you were offended by anything in this post other than the fact that I hold the viewpoint I do, it was not intentional. Also, sorry for the long-windedness, I'm not a professionally trained debater.)

  58. attrib to find worms/bots on win32? by kwench · · Score: 1

    Can someone enlighten me what the authore means when he talks about using "attrib" to find files which are potentially bad? How can I do it?

    1. Re:attrib to find worms/bots on win32? by Detritus · · Score: 1
      Go to a command line prompt.
      cd to the directory of interest.
      type "attrib *.*"

      This will list all files in the directory, including those with SYSTEM or HIDDEN attributes.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  59. Ever since I instaled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Debian and Slackware (2 separate computers), I never had a problem. I didnt graduate high school, hell, I never even seen the inside of a college. If I can instal and learn how to use Linux, you can to. Instal Linux and shut the hell up!

  60. OK, swell, the gandhi method! by zogger · · Score: 1

    Here's some dandy quotes that might fit in with this discussion, all from gandhi:

    Increase of material comforts, it may be generally laid down, does not in any way whatsoever conduce to moral growth. What does that mean? Trying to get rich off of anything means nothing for your moral growth? Would that include artists?

    I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers. Whoops! Creators of so called "intellectual" property! He doesn't believe in equality for them!

    It is the quality of our work which will please God and not the quantity. Does that mean accumulating ridiculous warchests of dubious IP patents is not a smooth move? How about those middlemen who accumulate thousands of copyrights, then use their financial clout to have the laws extended to benefit them, to the detriment of everyone else? Could Gandhi be talking about regular plain vanilla old fashioned sins like greed, gluttony, avarice? Sounds like it to me. How much is enough? How rich, how much money do you have to accumulate, how much does some vague non person "person" like a corporation have to accumulate before they can say "enough"? Why is it they can profit from technological advances which make their jobs much easier-merely making "copies", while they don't want anyone else to be able to use modern technology? Doesn't that seem a scosh greedy and wrong?

    The mice which helplessly find themselves between the cats' teeth acquire no merit from their enforced sacrifice. Perhaps he means being a *professional victim* isn't a wise thing. Perhaps he means we should resist predators? Seems like you could extend this to being a victim of out of control colluding corporate entities who seek to enrich themselves and pass laws through bribery to increase their "IP" profits at your expense, making a mockery of any sort of "free" market, let alone "advancing the arts and sciences" for the good of ALL. Perhaps.

    Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment, full effort is full victory. Satisfaction in producing "IP" lies for the creator in the attempt, not in what comes after the attempt.

    As to working to change the law, a lot of what he and the millions of Indians did was technically "illegal" according to British Imperial rule "laws". You can start with failure to obey orders, and go up and down and sideways from there.

    As for me, personally,I do all manual labor for my coin, all of it. The *exact second* that there exists a technological way for someone to "copy" what I do, to replicate it cheaply and easily, please, go right ahead! Enjoy! Modify it! Share it with your friends! As it is now, doing mostly landscaping maintenance type stuff, the best I can offer is you can drive by on the road and go "nice work, looks good, better than that raggedy mess it was last week!". I've created visual "art". It costs me effort, my employer expense, there's fuel, maintenance equipment, etc, plus my salary. MOST of what I do is purely visual, it serves no other purpose other than to change the way a certain section of reality looks. It's "art" in a way. I mow huge areas, plant gardens, make flowers bloom where before was crab grass and poison ivy and brambles. It looks "better", and it's certainly changed, and I try to be "soft" with what I do, to be careful to not do harm, only to enhance for effect. My "patron" pays, but anyone driving by looking may "enjoy" it at no charge. Some folks even have a term for that now, it's called "viewscape", it has a certain "value" to it, as does any other sort of "art". But, it's not "copyright-able". Should it be? should I charge a fee for looking at it? Hey, what a concept, what I create all these people are ripping me off for, they are looking at something FOR FREE, something THEY didn't create or pay a fee for! What should the license say, how long may I hold that license, where can I set up a toll booth for anyone to drop their money into as they drive by and look? Work's work, right? Although many others als

  61. XP Firewall = ! enterprise by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    It also wreaks havoc trying to manage pcs remotely in an enterprise..

    And if you open those ports, it sort of negates 90% of the value of the 'local' firewall in the first place..

    It also seems that locking things down via GPO isn't keeping a lot of them out either.. The viruses that
    manage to get past a good antiviral program still find something to attach too. ( this includes spy/mal ware,
    which sould be re-classified as a virue/trojan.

    Its a no-win scenario, eventually we will have to have 90% of our PCs OFF the net, and no extrernal email..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  62. Curing a Slashdot Color Infection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  63. can you say 'anger management'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm.. someone needs an anger management class.

    1. Re:can you say 'anger management'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want some too? I promise you don't want any of this.

    2. Re:can you say 'anger management'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never pick a fight with a total stranger... you never know what they are willing and able to do to you.

  64. That is the problem in today's world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a serious lack of humour or ability to understand humour.

    Comedy vs. Tragedy. Far too many MS people are Tragedy based.

  65. Just use Languard by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    Portscan your entire network, it can also probe what things you are vulnerable and gives direct download links to the patches for each machine.

  66. Think Different! by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

    This is the traditional post stating that the Mac is OS is superior because it is unaffected by Windows viri.

    Also included in the traditional post is a gratuitous slam against Windows users: "Windows users are poopieheads for using Windows!"

    Finishing up with a "In Soviet Russia..." joke

    In Soviet Russia, you infect virus!

    It has been my pleasure to provide the Slashdot Community with the traditional posting making fun of the Windows OS and WIndows Users, contrasting the Windows OS with the Mac OS, in a snarky, oh, so superior and ultimately uninformative manner, in a comment thread about yet another flaw/fault/sploit in the Windows OS.

    Thank you for your kind attention!

    P.S. if you use Linux or any of the UNIX variants, please substitute the name of your OS for Mac OS in the above posting, the better to observe the Slashdot traditions we so revere.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  67. Yugo ownership by eyepeepackets · · Score: 1

    Once upon a time there was a fellow who bought a Yugo. It had a really shiny paint job and plenty of marketing oomph behind it too. Unfortunately, the pretty, painted Yugo was still just a Yugo on the inside and very soon after purchase the new Yugo owner was most unhappy, as were all his fellow Yugo-owning neighbors.

    One particularly troubling day the Yugo owner asked his fellow Yugo owners why this sorry state of affairs was extant and if there wasn't some way to mitigate the myriad problems inherent with Yugo ownership. After much argument and debate and considerable gnashing of teeth, the Yugo owners all decided to go and get fresh, clean paint jobs on their Yugos: No other solution seemed palatible to their collective Yugo mindset.

    Obviously this solution did not solve any problems other than a few scratches in paint, but it did make the Yugo owners feel better for a while. Unfortunately, Yugo owners are horrible with simple math and have almost no concept of the value of quality when measured over time and so continue to make this same error in all aspects of their lives. Such is life for the Yugo owner who can't bring himself to admit that the Yugo is just a sorry piece of poo on the inside, regardless of how much he has spent on the paintjob.

    The moral of the story: Windows users, YOU GO!

    (Psst! Hey fella, here's a free clue for ya: The Porches are free! *snicker-snort-ROFL* Doh, what am I going to do for cheap entertainement when everyone is running *NIX?)

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  68. A good question is a half of insight by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

    How typical is this sort of grief?

    This sort of grief is very typical. But only for incompetent drones, known better publicly as "Windows users". It is extremely unlikely for enlightened open source hermetics.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  69. Prevention is the best medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4 words: "do not use Windows" :)

  70. Re: gb2/b by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Which one???

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  71. Originality by Detritus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That's because you don't make your living off creating original IP.

    How much of the work is truly original? Most artists draw heavily upon a shared cultural heritage and public domain to create new works. It's a bit hypocritical to make use of that heritage and then scream "It's mine! All mine! Nobody else can ever look at it or listen to it without paying me for the privilege."

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  72. Re:Treat naive users like threats - don't forget by mikefe · · Score: 1

    Then *you* should be administrating your machine, and complying with all policies the administrator has to comply with, and everything else.

    --
    There: Something at a specific location.
    Their: Owned by someone.
    Please make sure your english compiles.
  73. find a new job by emmons · · Score: 1

    Find a new job before your network explodes and management blames it on you rather than face the fact that they should have had 3 more admins to handle the load to prevent the explosion in the first place.

    --
    Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  74. Blame only P2P... on spyware-infected machines?!? by Behrooz · · Score: 1

    We are still cleaning up and testing to ensure that the infection does not return. We did discover that we had several machines throughout the organization that had various spyware and other downloaded games and programs. One that stands out and may well have been the entry point for the worm is the ARES P2P program.

    Sounds like p2p is only one of many potential culprits in this case. From prior experience, I'd be more inclined to blame spyware programs which are deliberately designed to socially-engineer users into compromising their own systems.

    Once you've got spyware running, the security of your system becomes dependent on the integrity of spyware creators who have already passed the ethical brightline of coercing users to install their product through either dishonesty or direct exploits.

    The content that can be reached via P2P software poses some degree of security risk in untrained hands, but that risk is miniscule compared to the mind-boggling insanity of discounting the danger of spyware which has gained access to your network without necessarily even being intentionally placed there by a user. If spyware is running, the system is compromised. End of story.

    ...and that's why I run PeerGuardian Lite with the malware/evil only blocklist and Spybot S&D in active-protect mode on my system and anywhere else I have access to. You should too.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  75. How to use attrib on win32? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    At the Windows commandline Attrib is like dir, except it displays hidden, readonly and system files by default. It can set/clear the hidden, readonly, or system file bits. It can also include a search of subdirectories, as can dir. IIRC in the original DOS and in earlier versions of Windows, dir could not display readonly, hidden or system files, but in later versions it can; but attrib has always been able to do that. Here's the online help for attrib, obtained by entering attrib/? at the commandline:

    ATTRIB [+R | -R] [+A | -A] [+S | -S] [+H | -H] [[drive:][path]filename] [/S]

    + Sets an attribute.
    - Clears an attribute.
    R Read-only file attribute.
    A Archive file attribute.
    S System file attribute.
    H Hidden file attribute. /S Processes files in all directories in the specified path.

    When I need to delete a system, readonly or hidden file at the commandline I first use attrib to clear the appropriate file attributes first.

  76. Pirate to Pirate?-I know better than you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Allow me to interject. I am a professional musician (no, you haven't heard of me) and when I write a song, or a piece of music, I am thrilled to see it end up on a P2P network."

    Great! And copy-right allows you to do that. However the pirates are taking the decision out of your hands, and for good measure are saying "I know better than you". They may be doing you a favour, but you should be the arbitor of that. Would you like your "fans" to make some other decisions for you? Wipe your chin? Comb your hair only on Tuesdays?

  77. It beats using MSN Messenger by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    I kid you not, some companies really do shuffle stuff around the office using "all your content are belong to us" Messenger, not even internal email. Yes, it is dumb. Yes, the traffic bills are indeed horrendous (or were, they upgraded their DSL link to "unlimited", solely because of this, but their traffic excesses over a year would have more than paid for an internal email server and a file server, including hardware, either of which could have profitably run an internal P2P network for essentially zero effort). Yes, they do send sensitive info that way, including "client privilege" stuff. Yes, they have had it explained. No, they didn't believe me, I think because as far as they know it has never yet bitten them on the ass.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  78. Pirate to Pirate?-Utopialand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what? I agree with all of it. Over on the usenet forums devoted to art we have this debate between pirates, and us ALL THE TIME. Now here's something for people to ask themselves. Is entertainment a right? If you don't agree with the price asked for? Why are you then entitled to getting the item for free. And as you've just witnessed the latest. The guilt trip. There's the implication that you should "do it for the love" and be quiet about asking for compensation. You have to wonder if they were ever told that utopias don't exist? I even made an agreement with them. We'll take "love" as payment for services rendered, if everyone else would do likewise. Guess what response I got?

    1. Re:Pirate to Pirate?-Utopialand. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > You have to wonder if they were ever told that utopias don't exist?

      I make no statement here regarding the subject, nor the content of your post except for the exact phrase that is quoted above.

      Just because they don't exist, should we then never strive to achieve it? Even if we know it is an impossibility, should we give up?

  79. There is no such word as "viri" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey moron, there is no such word as "viri" or "virii". The plural of virus is viruses. If you don't believe me, then go to Dictionary dot com or Merriam-Webster Online and look it up for yourself.

    You stupid people make me sick.

  80. This is a lame excuse and here is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep hearing this time and time again and it is such a lame excuse that it still makes me laugh.

    When you went to Linux from Microsoft, you learned how to use a different window manager, web browser, email client, chat client, menu system, file system, firewall, network connection, etc. didn't you?
    You can do the same with MYOB. Now, there may not be a Linux app that is exactly identicle to MYOB, but there are tons of accounting and book keeping apps out there for Linux. It's just a matter of you changing the way you do things... just as you did when you moved to (Linux) a whole different file system/operating system.

    My advice is to find and learn to use an app on Linux that does pretty much the same thing as MYOB and leave Windows in the trash where it belongs.

    Otherwise, it isn't MYOB that is keeping you on Windows... it's you who is keeping you on Windows.

    1. Re:This is a lame excuse and here is why... by timelady · · Score: 1

      OK Anonymous coward - YOU tell me which app that is? Because your arrogant presumption I havemt looked is ill informed. I have looked, and while there ARE book keeping apps out there, there is NOTHING that compares to MYOB - and its what my organisation, and a business I help with, need. ITs not sticking with the devil I know - anyone who knows me knows how much I loathe windows. But also, ask anyone in business who would like to use Linux about their accounting requirements - nothing currently available meets that. yes, I've tried GnuCash - its a good start, but it just hasnt got what MYOB has. And thats what I need, unfortunately. And bitching that the user hasnt trawled sufficiently to find an app doesnt alter the fact that a comparable one for Linux isnt there - yet. Id be overjoyed if someone knows of one - as I stated.

      --
      Nothing - well thats something.
    2. Re:This is a lame excuse and here is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, learn some C/C++ and write your own accounting app. I'm sure that there are thousands of people who would appreciate you for it.

      You obviously don't hate Windows too much or you'd be doing your accounting with pencil and paper.

      As the parent commentator said, the only thing keeping you on Windows is you.

    3. Re:This is a lame excuse and here is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, learn some C/C++ and write your own accounting app.


      The only thing that exceeds your arrogance is your stupidity. "learn some C/C++ ..." How stupid is that suggestion? You obviously don't code for a living or haven't written a big project on your own, or you wouldn't make such a preposterous suggestion. Forget asking one newbie to do it ... it would take a TEAM of newbies several man-years to write an app as good as MYOB.


      The man is trying to run his business, not learn how to code software. MYOB is only $250. He'd burn through that money buying books on coding, to say nothing of the money his time is worth.


      The fact is: there is NOTHING on linux that is as integrated and easy to use as MYOB. Not GNUCash, not SQL-Ledger, not MoneyDance... and there probably won't be for some time, if ever.


      Besides, regardless of how much you or I loath M$, if M$ disappeared tonight we'd still be using Win2K and XP 10 years from now for some apps, even if Linux were running on 99% of our desktops. I work at a place that has a dozen servers and 400 desktops. We only just replaced our last Win95 box. There are such things as budgets you know.

    4. Re:This is a lame excuse and here is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are such a moron. Yes, I do write apps for Linux. I stopped using Windows two years ago and when I cannot find an app for Linux, I write my own.

      I stopped being part of the problem and became part of the solution. So, shut the hell up and start being part of the solution.

      > We only just replaced our last Win95 box. There are such things as budgets you know.
      Yes, I know about budgets. I moved to Linux, two years ago, and learned C++, free from the internet, and all that has cost me about $50.00 (for CD-RW's). The problem is idiots like you, with their heads up their asses, who think it costs major bucks. Your way of thinking is totally wrong and that is what's keeping good people on Windows.

      You should be shot for thinking the way you do.

    5. Re:This is a lame excuse and here is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, don't let them get you all worked up. They have obviously been on Windows way too long and have been brainwashed by Bill and Co. Screw 'em. People who are that stupid should just stay on Windows and let the virus writers and script kiddies fuck them up so they are out of the way of us good people who use Linux.

      Besides, if everyone felt the way these idiots do, this whole planet would only have one automobile comapny, one beer company, one computer company, one soft-drink company, etc.

  81. no, it's really like that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're no longer called guard rails. They are officially termed guide rails. This change occurred after somebody crashed through some and complained that they didn't guard him from that cliff.

    It'd be funnier if it wasn't so sad.

    -theed.

  82. Re:Treat naive users like threats - don't forget by k12linux · · Score: 1
    Specifically, make sure you transfer power to yourself and your friends. It's fun having complete control over people, isn't it?

    Do you honestly believe the average admin locks down systems, disables installs, etc. because they seek power and want to inconvenience you? Or maybe you think it's because they don't have enough to do already just protecting against viruses, hackers and users who trash thier systems by installing free screen savers and IE toolbars which include spyware and other malware?

    Did the admins at your previous employer even KNOW you were the unique employee who actually knows enough to keep their own system running without being a threat to everyone else? I'm promising you, if you are able then you are in the minority in the workforce. (Probably the majority on /. but very few organzations are made up entirely of /. readers.)

    It's likely that before the lockdown they spent 90% of their time just fixing things users broke themselves. Do you have a solution for this other than a lockdown which would work but wouldn't baloon costs in some way? Have the user's PC taken away or maybe she should be fired on the 3rd offense and training? Try getting the CEO to fire his favorite secretary because she's a "bad computer user."

    How does an admin choose who is qualified to not need a locked-down PC? Do they base the choice on the word of the person in question? In our organization at least, there are a few people who consider themselves computer-savy or even experts. Only a couple are. I'm saying that based on how often they mess up their PC and need help, not my personal opinion about their abilities.

    Or how about if you only lock down systems after the user has already disabled their PC or infected the network with a virus? Sure, that's an option in an office of 10-20. But what if you are responsible for 30,000 PCs?

    Throwing more IS staff at it doesn't go over well with most organizations these days. Unless you are an IT business, your IS department probably doesn't earn the company a cent directly. Instead, to the accountants, it is un undesirable (though neccessary) expense of doing business.

  83. I almost regret using the term Pirate2Pirate... by museumpeace · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...because it verges on flamebait for responses that will not be entirely on topic [I thought the /. gods did a good thing recatorizing the story as IT] but the sparks have been kind of flying and I do enjoy fireworks. The sad truth is that there are valid points being made by both Calamormine and Quaters. Consider how some small time software developers try to make a living with share ware or the "free" trial version that, if you like it but want all the bells and whistles, you have to pony up 59.95 to get a licencse key [and of course, those poor guys are at the mercy of people who pass around key-gen programs]. Point being that products that benefit from word-of-keyboard marketing CAN take advantage of pervasive sharing. You could learn a lot from reading Dan Bricklin's article on how the right license can make or break a small company's fortunes. BTW, My oldest son is a fairly creative musician but though he still spends hours per day composing or improvising, has chosen to study molecular biology, abandoning an idea he had in high school to put his compositions up on his web site. Why? When he comes home from college, I unplug the rest of our computers from the cable modem, he plugs his laptop in so he can keep picking "stuff" up with Ares. I let him have a nice wallow in the information sewer highway and point out the keylog files on his hard drive at the end of his visit. Within a few days the weird protocol/port combinations bouncing off my firewall drop down to normal levels. Why? You have to ask someone his age I guess.

    I can't tell you how fervently I wish I could make a living in a cabin off the grid with a few hot PCs and a solar powered satellite dish serving up fairly priced tricks and treats you all would not mind paying to have on your computers but I can't think of any way to protect it. I have resigned myself to working in a soulless megacorp, writing software I can't tell anyone about because megacorps have the means to get customers by the short hairs and hang on.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    1. Re:I almost regret using the term Pirate2Pirate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well after reading "Master of Transhuman" and "King_TJ" I can see why you'd be discouraged. What everyone's forgotten is it isn't about technology, nor it's pace. It's not about life owing you anything. It's about people playing by ethical rules, and the effect of those who don't. Situational ethics is the norm, and your son and you are paying the price. You without your cabin dreams, and your son, one less musician in the world. Unfortunately for humanity many more victims will be sacrificed on the alter of "I can do whatever I want" before it collapses under the weight of reality. When it does, much like any revolution. Sanity will once again return, and the seeds that first brought strife about will lay dorment to spring anew on a generation who's forgotten the previous lessons.

  84. RE: you and your twisted logic by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    You know something? I *used* to do a little software development. I don't anymore. You know one big reason why? I realized that writing software (while not doing so as part of one's job description, working for someone else) is not and shouldn't be something that guarantees me "food on my table, clothes in my closet, and money to enjoy my life with".

    If I develop an excellent piece of software on my own, then sure, there's a good likelihood I'll make some money from it. But screaming at all of the people "pirating" my software, trying to accuse them of "cheating me out of my money" is ridiculous. Quite simply, those folks are part of the same demographic as the rest of the population who DIDN'T think my product was worth paying for. (Would you think it right to FORCE some people to buy your software package, even if they weren't at all interested in it? Surely not, so what's the real difference? Technically, yeah - the people "pirating" the software are getting some benefits out of using it. But that doesn't change the bottom line. They (for any number of reasons) didn't wish to compensate you financially for that particular piece of code.)

    IMHO, that's all part of the RISK of working for yourself - and it happens in all areas of life. If I open my own company to do people's taxes, maybe I won't have enough customers to remain profitable? I could sit around and complain that programs like TurboTax are stealing my business from me and should be outlawed, right? But that probably wouldn't be a real useful and constructive way to solve my problems.

    If you can't make enough money to live comfortably doing software development, maybe it's time to change careers or find employment where you're guaranteed a regular paycheck for writing the code for that employer?

  85. Need MYOB but not on XP? by Fuzzy+Bo · · Score: 1

    MYOB is available for Mac OS X - I use it myself, and wouldn't be without it/them.

  86. Truth Hurts by Thu25245 · · Score: 1

    *sound of windows user hitting head against wall*

    Mac User: My head hurts much less since I stopped hitting my head aginst the wall

    Windows user: Damned Mac assholes, always making snide comments about how superior they are.

  87. I'll have to have a look at my... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    Mac server and see if I can find these 'exe's.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  88. the first pirates stole people fools ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmmm, I am a software engineer employed by a major major company having worked for an even more major one recently.

    I also share files on p2p networks. Having seen what large slave farm corporate companies do with and too their supposedly 'valuable' employees and what the financial sector (biggest thieves on this planet) does to the software industry - the whole lot would be better if it were not for copyright etc.

    If i have the slighest idea, even while taking a crap, the company owns my intellectual property !

    That makes me nothing more than a slave that gets paid a subsistence wage so i can raise a tiny family to make more slaves for the system. And a single software engineer is no match for a multi-hundred-thousand person strong software company.

    p2p is here to stay and i spend my spare time ensuring it grows and grows and grows.

    The Greeks stole from the Egyptians, the Europeans stole from the Greeks and the US (modern day - not original) stole from the Europeans.

    Stick your copyright and intellectual property stupidity in a pipe and then stick that up your as$ before smoking it.

    I am sick of brainwashed idiots who dont even know they are slaves too.

    Wake the hell up !

    1. Re:the first pirates stole people fools ! by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I am sick of brainwashed idiots who dont even know they are slaves too.

      They aren't aware that they are on a leash because they never tug at it. They are told that pulling on it is evil, so they don't attempt to use their rights. Then, since they don't use them, they don't complain when they are taken away.

      I had a rude awakening by my mother a few weeks ago. I don't know the exact topic, but I think it might have been regarding "fair use" and backup copies, and how those rights have been limited by unconstitutional laws. I explained to her how this directly affected me & others like me. Even after all of that, she basically said "I don't need to back up anything, so what do I care if those rights are taken away. I had no idea what to say. I have come to the conclusion that I must do whatever I feel I must do, without regard to anyone else -- however, if my actions end up helping more people than it hurt, it was probably the right thing to do.

      This says nothing of (il)legality of anything, only how I make some of my decisions. You see, I decide to live my life how I choose, regardless of whether or not someone else agrees with it. Law is an invention of man and not even close to perfect. Assuming one believes in God (I happen not to) man is more perfect individually than the laws they create, and therefore should act like they truly believe they should, not how they are told.

  89. Used to think like you... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
    Till I moved up the food chain and BECAME the admin for a while!!!

    I agree with what you got to say, but a good admin absolutely MUST lock down PCs simply to stay ahead of the game. AS a slashdot reader you should respect that decision and give your admin heads up when you need special programs. Most admins keep such programs on their own machines and could easily help you out... note it's not just security, but licensing, sexual harrassment, company security, etc that admins have to worry about.

    We lock down wallpapers not because we're worried about viruses, but because the guys on the line put up dirty pics and the bosses teen daughter helping out in the office saw them!!! We lock down outside email because somebody bypassed our mail filters and passed around dirty jokes said bosses daughter reported to daddy...not to mention the disgruntled sales guy that exported his contacts/ pricing sheet to his "new" employer!

    As far as AV...do YOU bring any media to work at all from home? You surely scan it at home and at work before you access ANY files ...right... The purpose of scanning every file in memory is because people get sloppy and even 1 time forgetting screws EVERYONE!

    At my shop we try to be accomadating, but it's OUR jobs on the line if YOU screw up... After all, it's not going to be YOU at work for 70 hours [salary no less] cleaning up the mess...is it?

    Seriously, computers are toolboxes just like anything else. IT's job is to give you the tools management says you need...not everything you want. That you need more tools to do your job is MANAGEMENT's fault for not properly documenting the tools of your work... get your manager to document your tools and IT will cheerfully comply in most cases!!!

  90. Re:vlans and other isolation tools are your friend by gujo-odori · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Don't let upper management know that you succeeding, though. They may want to get rid of the monkey.

    Is that "Don't let (upper) management know you're succeeding" as in "Go around replacing the operating systems on your company's servers without permission?"

    I don't know of many faster ways to get fired. I don't know how it is in the shop where you work (if you work in IT or ever have) but in the shops where I worked, I did not own the servers or any of the other equipment. Neither did my boss. Those things were the property of the company, and even in shops where we had incredible leeway over what we did and how we did it, going around and replacing OSes with other ones required at least approval from the CTO. That was in the liberal places. In the conservative places, approval for such things may be higher than that. When customers depend on your systems operating, stability is job one and they aren't going to allow you to take a potentially de-stabilizing action without approval. Even if you succeed in every way, you may still be fired for acting without authorization.

    Now, about this time, some of you might be saying "Well, if it's stability they want, they should get *nix in and Windows out as fast as possible."

    While I couldn't agree (in principle) with that sentiment more, and am glad that in my present position in email security (I miss being an admin, but I sure don't miss carrying a pager!) I am grateful that I have sufficient leeway over my tools that my workstation is one of the handful on our network that is not running Windows (Ubuntu, a Debian-based distro. Quite nice; but I digress). However, the fact remains that in any properly run shop (yes, properly run, as hard as that may be for anyone with little or no experience - especially in big operations - to accept, have controls in place is the proper way to do things), permission is required to go around re-architecting major systems and replacing OSes.

    In smaller networks, the decision may go no higher than the CTO, and if further approval is formally required, whatever the CTO asks for is rubber-stamped.

    In larger shops, such things will typically require a general management decision, requiring the COO, the CEO, and often the CFO (and maybe others) to sign off on it. Why the CFO? These things cost money directly, and if there are failures, those cost money too. Especially if you have SLAs with your customers.

    So yes, we may know a better way (and we do run our hundreds of servers on Linux, thank you), it's not enough to know a better way. If you want to change to it, you have to make the business case, present it professionally, and get approval and support for it. If you go ahead without following these steps, in most shops you're onto a good way to find yourself unemployed.

  91. Re:Treat naive users like threats - don't forget by Graemee · · Score: 1

    Actually this is the first job I've had where I do not have admin rights or "TOTAL Control" of any thing. I don't miss them. I thought I would but you know I didn't really miss them and when people show up to try to circumvent the usual helpdesk, I have to say "I sorry, I can't do that, Dave." We do have a process to get them if I require admin rights to install or change my PC and they can follow it too. As for your time issue. We have no issues like yours here, but we seem to be better run then your site. Maybe we could out source your IT?

  92. Windows "policy" or terms-of-use "policy"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was under the impression that people who were talking about setting "policies" here meant the legal staff should draw up terms-of-use policies to threaten wayward employees with.

    Whether or not that is what they meant, it *is* an idea that would give you something serious to hold over people's heads who might be inclined to do criminally negligent stuff on their office computers. Also, it is something that gives another department something to do without adding to your own workload.

    That scenario might be worth considering, especially since the ramifications of HIPAA mean you can put some serious teeth into your enforcement: "If the CEO's own kid downloads bad software onto daddy's work machine, it puts the entire facility in danger of violating federal HIPAA laws, endangering *everyone's* jobs." How's that for getting attention?

  93. How antivirus can be improved... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may or may not be what you are looking for, but since I spent half a day cleaning off a friend's computer just so I could feel safe[ish] borrowing it for email, I do have an opinion here:

    The AV companies need to try some of the evasion methods that the viruses use, now that viruses are doing so much to prevent AV activity.

    For example, on my friend's machine, viruses had set the hosts file to point to 1.1.1.1 for any of a list of antivirus websites. I was lucky enough to find one that wasn't listed, on www.virusall.com. But the other workaround was to brows thru Symantec's website using IP numbers copied into URLs--I had to get the IP number from an independent lookup source.

    Okay, so how hard would it have been for the companies to set up multiple sites to download from?? And why not move those sites around from time to time?

    And while we are at it, if the viruses learn to inferfere with the running of certain files... Can't the AV's use variations of filenames just like varying the URLs?

    Just my 1/2 cents worth.

  94. Yay for free porches! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess... You're an architect?

    Or you just forgot to run the spellchecker on your own punchline?

    1. Re:Yay for free porches! by eyepeepackets · · Score: 1

      Don't need no stinkin' spellchecker, it's a simple typo I didn't catch when editing. :) I suppose that makes a good argument for the value of spellcheckers, eh?

      Architect, no. Admirer of quality, yes.

      --
      Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!