Slashdot Mirror


Spyware/Adware Prevention In Large Deployments?

foQ writes "I work in the IS department for a ~2000 networked computer environment across 10 locations. As with most people, we have experienced serious problems with spyware/adware. We have SpyBot and Ad-Aware installed on most computers, but this doesn't prevent the computers from getting these programs and only sometimes properly removes all of them. Is there a tool that we could push out to all the PCs to basically do what anti-virus programs do and block these programs from running and clean them from the computer?"

782 comments

  1. Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by erick99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I took a look at enterprise antispyware software for a client and particularly liked Webroot's Spy Sweeper Enterprise product. It provides centralized management and automatic deployment though you can do it manually as well. Definition upgrades as well as version upgrades of the sofware is also automated. Take a look at this page from their website. Lavasoft also has an enterprise product that is pretty good though I think Webroot has a slight edge.

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by SilentChris · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know, I still don't understand why large-scale deployments like this guy need ANY spyware checks. At my company, the first thing we did when we migrated to XP (from 98) was set every user's permission to limited. We haven't had a *single* noteworthy case of spyware, or viruses, because nothing can really get into the meat of the system (Windows\System32 directory, Program Files directory, etc). If anyone has a complaint, tough. They go through us if they want to install X program.

      The only one that I've seen get through (and it's not really spyware) is changing a person's homepage. I'm not sure why IE even allows this. Fortunately, the main reason for switching someone's home page (slamming them with pop-up ads) is kind of diminished with SP2.

      My feeling: the vast majority of administrators don't take advantage of the tools MS has provided. The one complaint I've heard ("We use programs that require special permissions, so we can't have staff run as limited users") is bollocks. Do what we do: take a few hours out during a deployment, contact the original software manufacturer (or figure it out in house) and set all the permissions correctly.

      And it's not just unknown shops. I recently read an article where Kinko's reimages computers after guests pay to use them. This can take 5-10 minutes. What the hell? Just set a limited user and recreate that one folder. What are their administrators thinking?

    2. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by erick99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. When I worked at CellularOne every user was issued a W2K workstation that was locked down squeaky tight. You had to make a very good case to get access to the web and, even then, there was a hellish long list of sites that were blocked. I didn't see any spyware/malware ever. Users were not allowed to install software nor even printers. You go the application suite that your job required and you were mapped to a printer or two. It worked well and nobody was being deprived with the possible exception of folks that like to use their computer to screw off all day.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    3. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You know, I still don't understand why large-scale deployments like this guy need ANY spyware checks. At my company, the first thing we did when we migrated to XP (from 98) was set every user's permission to limited. We haven't had a *single* noteworthy case of spyware, or viruses, because nothing can really get into the meat of the system (Windows\System32 directory, Program Files directory, etc). If anyone has a complaint, tough. They go through us if they want to install X program.

      This is so true. I work for the Air FOrce, and I have to agree. Very few spyware / virus issues. Most normal users simply don't need higher permissions, and really should not be installing their own software anyway. These are work machines for doing work. Whatever software that is on them has to be supported by IT. If they really need or want it, we look at it, and if they do get it, we install it. Everything. As yet in 5 years, no major spyware or virus issues.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    4. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by tonsofpcs · · Score: 1

      You could write a startup script on the machine to reset the home and search pages to a default you specify, to prevent alternate homepages from persisting (and for most, being so annoying).

      ----------
      Amiga will live forever!

    5. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by germanStefan · · Score: 1

      I have recommended to all my clients to ditch IE, and only use it on websites that have activeX or VB on them, other otherwise don't work well with Firefox. This tends to stop most forms of adware/spyware in their tracks. None of the clients use p2p or other freeware programs which might bring them onto the system in the first place. Of course I have ad aware and spybot installed, just in case, but if people really don't use IE, then I find that I usually don't have to clean their pcs.

    6. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by trick-knee · · Score: 5, Informative

      proper permissions usage and implementation is really the best way to lock down a machine when you can't rely on the user to keep from inadvertantly installing junk.

      and doesn't the great grandparent (first) poster read like astroturf?

    7. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 3, Interesting
      At my company, the first thing we did when we migrated to XP (from 98) was set every user's permission to limited.

      Works great, until you run into something like Palm software, which won't cooperate with permissions. I've tried several methods to make it possible to sync a Palm Pilot with Outlook, and none work, if the user doesn't have administrator privileges on the computer. Apparently, some of the Palm conduits try to write to directories that aren't available to mere users, and I haven't been able to track all of them down.

      And it's the executives that have the Palms, so not letting them work isn't a viable option...

    8. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by plierhead · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I agree. When I worked at CellularOne every user was issued a W2K workstation that was locked down squeaky tight. You had to make a very good case to get access to the web and, even then, there was a hellish long list of sites that were blocked. I didn't see any spyware/malware ever. Users were not allowed to install software nor even printers. You go the application suite that your job required and you were mapped to a printer or two. It worked well and nobody was being deprived with the possible exception of folks that like to use their computer to screw off all day.

      I hear completely where you're coming from, but you're only talking about the side that you see.

      Locking people down, while it may well be a desirable solution because of the shite that is MS, very often leads directly to lost productivity that affects many more than just "folks that like to use their computer to screw off all day". In many cases, the problem is made worse by unresponsive IT departments who have an inbuilt superiority complex and think all users are jerks. Well, many users are jerks, but guess what - if they can't do their jobs, they cost their employer money, normally in a way that IS is utterly unaware of (and probably couldn't give a shit anyway).

      Recent examples at our clients (we provide our system as an ASP, not least to avoid the claws of those freaking MS bastards, but as you can see we are still the victims):

      1. Customer A needs to scan and OCR hard copy documents to upload them into our system. Of course they are not allowed to go down and buy a $200 HP scanner with this ability - instead they must wait for IS. IS has set up a $20,000 multi-fucntion scanner, but of course it does not do OCR. Of course there is an OCR program, but of course it is not certified for the current system image. 6 months on, over $30,000 in additional costs incurred - because IS can't provide OCR capability and won't allow a "renegade" install of a $200 HP scanner.
      2. Customer B wants to use our system - its an ASP after all, no software to install - but their procedures for gaining web access are so cumbersome that it is simply impractical to give wide access throughout the business. More lost $$$, to us and them.
      3. Customer C has their image locked down to Office 97 because of various (no doubt valid) MS problems. Users are unable to handle incoming documents written in later versions of Word. IS has no solution apart from waiting until 2006 for a company-wide upgrade. (Yet, strangely enough, the IT dude has Office 2003 on his OWN desktop)
      --

      [x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful

    9. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by permanentE · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The attitude of all you LAN Admins in here really pisses me off, "it's easy, lock 'em down, don't give 'em admin, take away all their PC privilages". It's easy for you to say, you have admin! You can install any software you need.

      I wonder how much productivity you lock-'em-down admins are costing the economy as a whole. You wanna know something? LAN administration isn't the most important part of a company, you aren't making the company any money. Your job is to help us users be more productive in doing our job, it isn't to cause you the least hassle.

      How does it help the company when everytime I need to install some software to do my job I have to call you up and waste a couple of days for it to get aproved by the all-mighty-admin? How does it help the company when I can't immediately respond to a customer!?

      OK, so there are stupid users, but I don't care about them, they don't affect me, I'm just trying doing my job. Leave me alone god damnit!

      /rant

      --
      What was the last law that benefited people but not corporations?
    10. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Mod+Point+Sink · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Back in the mainframe days, they were a priesthood--users could only act with the data through the intercession of them and their terminals. The PC changed all that, and they've spent the last couple of decades stuffing the toothpaste back into the tube.

      Microsoft has greased the wheels with its exploit ridden, high maintenance software, creating security problems of epic proportion that are helping justify the return to the "glass house" in the eyes of management, who worries about things like HIPAA, Sarbanes Oxley, EU privacy directives, Gramm Leach Bliley, and all that--and creating a class of well-paid overseers to manage it.

      The users are mere pawns in the game.

    11. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by silentrob · · Score: 1

      There are many shops where locking the user down is counter productive. Sometimes users need to add USB hardware, which need drivers, which need some local admin rights. Manually doing this yourself for the users in small shops is feasable, but in large enterprises?

      An example would be universities. I have to take my USB drive to the computer labs without restrictions in order to use it. These same computers also have dev software for student use.

      My point is, sometimes being a policy nazi isn't an option. When possible, yes, lock it down, but you can't always do this.

      Oh, and I like your name :D

    12. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Max_W · · Score: 1

      After implementing the strict policy by taking users's rights on XP some software stopped working.

      IT was trying for hours to make it work, but basically the years of labor and experience were lost.

      So IT said: "OK. It does not work. Everybody is happy."

    13. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by ralphus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Different companies have different political environments and different requirements for user permissions. Not everyone can be as locked down as you are because of various business requirements. Business requirements always trump security requirements, political requirements (like CEO "needs" admin rights) often trump security requirements.

      --
      Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
    14. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by m_pll · · Score: 3, Informative
      You could write a startup script on the machine to reset the home and search pages to a default you specify.

      Better yet, use group policy. Go to User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Internet Explorer and enable these policies:

      Disable changing homepage settings
      Search: disable search customization

    15. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, I still don't understand why large-scale deployments like this guy need ANY spyware checks.

      Because not every company is employing a bunch of idiots. Some users actually NEED to do things that are out of the ordinary.

      If anyone has a complaint, tough.

      IT's job is to secure the computers, but not just for the sake of security. It's to secure them so that people can do work. If you only care about one part of your job, that's a really good way to lose the rest of it.

      I recently read an article where Kinko's reimages computers after guests pay to use them. This can take 5-10 minutes. What the hell? Just set a limited user and recreate that one folder. What are their administrators thinking?

      How about this? It's easier to write a script to automaticalls reimage the machines than it is to take support calls from thousands of offices for tens of thousands customers who cant get things done all because you wanted to be an asshole and ride a power trip to show people that you control the machines.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    16. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      What? I've got a bunch of people synching palms in windows 2000. They are domain users and don't even have accts on the local system. try adding the user to the administrators group for the first sync and then removing them.

    17. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by iamacat · · Score: 1

      You are purposly breaking an expensive, useful tool so that it can only do one function, and you are saying it's a good thing? Install Linux already, rate your employees on performance and let those who can get more use out of existing equipment do so. They might even find some productivity improving programs that everyone can adopt. I hear Japanese employees are getting small rewards even for useless inventions or suggestions.

    18. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by revividus · · Score: 3, Informative
      Why is this moderated to zero? The anonymous coward is correct; if you add the user to the admin group, install the Palm Software, and then take user out of the admin group after the first sync, it will continue to work.

      At least, this was my experience after many experiments.

    19. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Nutria · · Score: 1

      These are work machines for doing work. Whatever software that is on them has to be supported by IT. If they really need or want it, we look at it, and if they do get it, we install it.

      This sounds oddly like the timesharing minicomputer systems of "yesteryear"(*).

      You never had adware pop up on your VT-220!
      And the spyware only got to you if the SysAdmin was too lazy to set permissions properly.

      (*) I'm telnetted (via VPN link) into 6 Alpha VMS boxes now, on-call for production database issues...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    20. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Dimensio · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Works great, until you run into something like Palm software, which won't cooperate with permissions.

      This came up in a /. discussion months ago, and I asked my boyfriend -- who administrates WinXP and 2000 machines where he works -- if he had found a solution.

      I'll look through my replies and repost it. He said that it's a bit tricky, but it can be done.

    21. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Nutria · · Score: 1, Funny

      everytime I need to install some software to do my job I have to call you up and waste a couple of days for it to get aproved by the all-mighty-admin?

      Are you so short-sighted that you can't plan ahead?

      "Hey, boss. For this new project, I'm going to need the FudPucker Deluxe database analysis program. Here's a short justification, that I'm getting in early, since we both know how slow those boobs up is LAN Administration are."
      "Thanks, Bobby. That's good foresight on your part. I'll feed it into the Maw Of The Beast today."

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    22. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because not every company is employing a bunch of idiots. Some users actually NEED to do things that are out of the ordinary.

      If they are not idiots, there will be no spyware/adware/virus related problems. In all these years I have yet to see a spyware infecting *my* machine. Is it that hard to

      1. Not run IE
      2. Not install everything you see on download.com

    23. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      y feeling: the vast majority of administrators don't take advantage of the tools MS has provided. The one complaint I've heard ("We use programs that require special permissions, so we can't have staff run as limited users") is bollocks. Do what we do: take a few hours out during a deployment, contact the original software manufacturer (or figure it out in house) and set all the permissions correctly.

      Hear Hear.

      It's simple enough to write a group policy object to be distributed by Active Directory that can set permissions on any file / folder or registry key. One of my pet hates is lazy technicians (of which we have one) who can't be bothered working out why things don't work and their 'solution' is to give the user local admin rights.

      Fortunately Active Directory can control all user groups too... which is amusing when the lazy tech gets confused as to why the user keeps dropping out of the local Administrators or Power Users group.

    24. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Selfbain · · Score: 1

      If that's all you're doing to prevent spyware from getting on your system, I suggest you download ad-aware and scan your computer. You might be surprised.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    25. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Nutria · · Score: 1
      because you wanted to be an asshole and ride a power trip to show people that you control the machines.

      New CIO: Why aren't we spending $200K/year on AV software like everyone else?
      Old LAN Admin: Because we keep the network locked tight as a drum.
      New CIO: Then why aren't the users up in arms?
      Old LAN Admin: Because we try to be responsive, and give a good reason when we have to say "No.".


      Some time later...
      CEO: Why aren't our computers all broken because of that evil Sasser-Z worm, like so many other companies?
      CIO: I insisted that our LAN group lock the network tight as a drum.
      CEO: Good job, Smithers, good job.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    26. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by erick99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I didn't work in the IS department, I worked in marketing. I was one of the user's that got locked down. I am sorry if my post conveyed otherwise. The IS people were in Colorado and I was in a remote office in Frederick, MD. However, I am always curious about IS so I learned what I could by talking them over the phone.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    27. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by io-waiter · · Score: 1

      Because a LOT of software isnt XP compatible and therefore require poweruser rights to work.
      Changing software is not always an option.

    28. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Rohan427 · · Score: 1

      After over a month of research, we (Random Logic Consulting) found that the best combination was Ad-Aware, Spybot, and AVG. There have also been several articles written in several magazines with the same results. Zonealarm can also be installed for added security.

      Regardless of what product (or products) is used, it's important to keep it/them up to date and proper user education is a must. No software can keep up with the rate at which malicious entities try to infiltrate your computer. For this reason users must be educated as to how to avoid such problems.

      As always, the best defense against spyware, adware, viruses, worms, trojans, and crackers is user education and user diligence in keeping their own system clean and safe.

      PGA

    29. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by esbjerg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I work in company where it has taken a while to get the CEO and others to understand the benefits of not having extended rights.
      If you want to make them understand let them manage their own PC. They will get infested and crash a lot (usually). When they ask for help install a fresh version and run a virus check on their files. Do not waste time on restoring there program settings.
      Instead tell them it's the best way to deal with the problem at hand (it is!).
      After losing time on this the CEO will listen to arguments like: "We/you are wasting time and time is money."
      He will ask you what can be done. Tell him he will lose his admin rights and you will manage his PC (add more arguments). When he agrees make sure his PC runs smooth for a long time and when there is a problem you fix it quickly. After a while he will appriciate that he get's his job done and the admin waste less time on reinstalling his PC.
      When the CEO (replace with some head guy) understands why normal users shouldn't have extended rights you can tell him that you would like his backing to take away extended rights from the normal users.
      This is a very short explanation on what to do. The point is to explain to the management why it's a benefit to give up their rights - time/money!

      It is not allways easy to convince the CEO but it's worth the time. You will need the managements blessing to deploy tighter security. Most people don't get it the first time you explain why it's necessary and it will take forever to explain it to a 1000 users. That's why you need the CEO to tell them.

    30. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by irg1231491 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the things that honestly worries me these days is the fact that IT in general, and sysops in particular, have a tendency to assume their users are total bottom-feeding dumbass idiot morons, and do not give the user any credit for a working brain.

      I agree that the default, starting account on most systems should be pretty locked down --- however, once you've been around for a while and you've proved to the world that you're not a complete dipshit, you should be allowed certain freedoms.

      Example: On my Windows PC at home, I use LiteStep. As a shell, it pwns Explorer by an incredible margin. It's been a great boost to my productivity, especially with applications like Rainlendar to help with scheduling and planning.

      However, if I were to ask any sysop with this type of mindset toward users, I would be shot down almost immediately. I understand that ITs have to deal with tons of idiots every day, but it is important to make the distinction that IT is there to aid the users in getting the job done. That's the reason the computers are there, that's the reason the sysops are there, that's the reason everyone is there.

      Another reason that this is a bad idea is because, in large part, the default install at most workplaces sucks. IE for browsing, Microsoft Office for everything else. Period. I understand the necessity of using Microsoft Office, but there is absolutely no reason to force me to use IE on the job (excepting, of course, IE-dependent applications on-job). There are also a myriad of helper and (somewhat) luxury applications, like WinAmp, which could easily be allowed without hurting anything.

      Ultimately, I guess, the ITs need to get off their damn high horse. It's time to stop assuming that every worker is going to take every possible chance to slack off, or screw up the equipment, or whatever else you're afraid of. Seriously. ITs need to remember that, regardless of their personal opinion of the worker in question, they and the users are equals, and need to act accordingly. I have found that using a little respect and guidance works much better than trying to reduce the computer to a meaningless black box.

    31. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      User F downloads Bonzi Buddy with a fancy distributed DOSing system that takes down the entire network for 3 days, or worse, puts critically private information on a public server hosted by hax0rz.jp . Lost money due to network destruction? Usually greater than the overhead to make decisions at an IS level.

      Both decisions have problems. It depends on the intelligence and vigilence of your users, which is the best one.

    32. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are stupid users which do affect you. They're the ones who install a piece of software that brings down the all computers on your network. Then your sysadmins have to deal with fixing a problem that wouldn't have been there in the first place had they not had admin access.

      And you know what, either way you go off and blame the sysadmins.

    33. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by omb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have also worked in a company set up like this

      Ther results were
      (a) a Project Plan needed by the CEO blocked

      (b) An urgent software upgrade blocked

      (c) A senior developer fired, then necessarily
      re-hired as a contractor

      (d) a new CIO

    34. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Kleedrac2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. Customer A needs to scan and OCR hard copy documents to upload them into our system. Of course they are not allowed to go down and buy a $200 HP scanner with this ability - instead they must wait for IS. IS has set up a $20,000 multi-fucntion scanner, but of course it does not do OCR. Of course there is an OCR program, but of course it is not certified for the current system image. 6 months on, over $30,000 in additional costs incurred - because IS can't provide OCR capability and won't allow a "renegade" install of a $200 HP scanner.

      This problem is just lazy IT. If they can't take 5 minutes to add an HP scanner then you've got the wrong guys in IT.

      2. Customer B wants to use our system - its an ASP after all, no software to install - but their procedures for gaining web access are so cumbersome that it is simply impractical to give wide access throughout the business. More lost $$$, to us and them.

      Again bad IT practise ... think of an IT department run by intelligent IT guys not lazy management types like you're describing.

      3. Customer C has their image locked down to Office 97 because of various (no doubt valid) MS problems. Users are unable to handle incoming documents written in later versions of Word. IS has no solution apart from waiting until 2006 for a company-wide upgrade. (Yet, strangely enough, the IT dude has Office 2003 on his OWN desktop)

      And again, if there's a valid reason to upgrade office and it's showing up multiple times perhaps IT should either distribute a newer image w/ Office 2003 or perhaps OO.o, alternatively they could just have a copy of Acrobat on the IT network so any incoming Word documents can be sent to them for conversion to something that can be read by the current image.

      I've administered networks as well as used rather locked-down networks. The problem with locked down networks in my experience happens only when the IT guys are too lazy or stupid to make changes. Any idiot can lock down windows. It takes someone with more intelligence to actually allow the useful while blocking the harmful. As long as the IT department is large/trained well enough for the number of seats it really shouldn't be a problem.

      Kleedrac

      --
      Sure we wang, can.
    35. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't possibly understand why the homepage should matter anyway as you should set that via GPO's to be a set intranet homepage.

      In regards to user rights, again, it shouldn't be an issue, they're users not admins - they get no rights and definately no privledges to install software. If you're letting them do so then more fool you. Normal admins shouldn't have rights to do much more than users anyway as the network should be using a role based admin model & when they want to do stuff, they elevate their rights using run-as.

      XP out of the box isn't too bad anyway as by default, domain users are just that - users. Change your corporate policies and corporate culture & this wont be a problem. I just finished working on a Novell -> Windows 2003 transition and the move from users having rights was a big one, but there really isn't a choice. It certainly isn't one in government departments and large corporations and they're on a much larger scale.

      The second users have admin or power user rights is the time when problems start. Screw all of this namby pamby give them the tools they need and they'll prosper crap, they're users not artists. Each right they have = more headaches for admins and that's a solid fact.

    36. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      You are also not the one who will take the blame when things screw up due to lax security. Laws such as HIPPA and Sarbanes-Oxley come to mind; infractions can cost an admin a *lot* more than his job.

      --
      C|N>K
    37. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Kevertje · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, sometimes you have no choice. I work as an ICT coordinator in a group of schools and we offer several computer courses to our students.
      One of the courses we have is Windows, where we teach unwitting users how to use windows (no fancy stuff, just using it, install software, create files/folders, use the explorer) For this we need to make sure that the computer setup we use at school mimicks the one they have at home (as in only 1 user which can do everything). So we have to run a couple of hundred of computers in this almost completely unprotected mode (virus scanners and a locally managed proxy server and firewall already stop some stuff). These boxes are usually riddled with spyware by the end of a semester. (Isn't it funny how they can't manage to create a folder, but manage too find their way to all major spyware providers without any problems)

      Just to make sure this doesn't affect our other courses (the different office apps, photoshop, autocad, ...) these are run from a separate partition which is in a domain. This is achieved using Powerquest BootMagic.

      In short, I've been looking for such a tool myself because reimaging that many computers at the end of each semester is not my idea of fun...

    38. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Applications like AutoDesk AutoCAD/ADT, and much of the Adobe suite all require "Power User" access to have write-rights to the registry.

      Working in Architectural offices is a nightmare for spyware, as every use has almost complete control over their machine!

    39. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      The only one that I've seen get through (and it's not really spyware) is changing a person's homepage. I'm not sure why IE even allows this.

      This one is easy to avoid - just don't use IE!

      There are plenty of other alternatives, most are even free and none of them allow a website to change the homepage (or anything else) without explicit confirmation.

      I have not used IE for several years now and cannot see why anybody would still be firing up that bugtrap-failure for anything.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    40. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was using 4 different anti-spyware products at one stage ( Adaware, Spybot Search and Destroy,
      Spyware Blaster and the malware capabilities of Kaspersky ) on a XP SP2 system where IE was never used (only Opera with Java turned off).

      I still got spyware.

      I have now solved the problem by switching to Linux.

      I am using the Gentoo distribution and find
      that it is faster that XP SP2 and a great variety of excellent programs are available for it.
      (see http://www.gentoo.org )

      Typing " emerge ProgramName" causes Gentoo
      to automagically download , compile and install the program.

      Try that with a Microsoft program !

    41. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And it's not just unknown shops. I recently read an article where Kinko's reimages computers after guests pay to use them. This can take 5-10 minutes. What the hell? Just set a limited user and recreate that one folder. What are their administrators thinking?
      You appear to be thinking from a Unix mindset. The entire idea of users and user permissions and setting users to lower privledge levels is the norm in Unix, but has only recently (time line wise, remember, win came out way back about '84 or '85 to start with) become an option for the win set. So most win administrators, having never seen anything but win, have only the old win ideas to use as background. And for way too many revisions win had no "user" concept much less a "user permissions" concept. It's a foreign concept to them because they have no basis for comparison, and the blame for it being a foreign concept lays squarely at microsoft's feet for producing an os where the user == root for so many years.

      So they were thinking, only thinking with limited information. The time worn quote of "if all you have is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails" applies big time here. The only idea they can come up with, having no background for comparison, is a reimage/reinstall of the os after a user is finished.

    42. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Mant · · Score: 1

      They aren't taking away your PC privileges becuase it isn't your PC.

      I'm not a LAN admin (although I worked breifly for LAN support years ago), I'm a developer. I need all sorts of non-standard software on my PC, and I have admin rights to do so, everyone does. I'ts handy when I want to install something, but I'm unselfish enough to realise the security implications.

      Keeping machines locked down helps stops the adware, spyware, worms and viruses, that all cost the companies time and money. It also stops illegal copies, something the company is liable for. I'm sure, like every other user, you are convinced you won't mess anything up, aren't stupid, and won't cause trouble with admin rights.

      Know what? All the people who brought problems onto corporate networks probably thought that too. Maybe you would suggest a test to see who should get rights? The "all-mighty-admin" has to approve things to make sure it isn't going to stuff up your machine, or the network. Plus the software isn't free, their are issues of future compatability and support across the company, does the company have an agreement with a vendor etc.

      How often do you need new software to do your job? Why don't you know in advance and have it ready?

      You aren't left alone, beucase going by your post you clearly can't be trusted. You would just stick whatever you thought you needed on your machine without any though of the consequences. That ends up costing much more than your so called lost productivity.

    43. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by estes_grover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This problem is just lazy IT. If they can't take 5 minutes to add an HP scanner then you've got the wrong guys in IT...Again bad IT practise ... think of an IT department run by intelligent IT guys not lazy management types like you're describing.

      These would be true statments should the company in question be small - several hundred employees. It's a whole different deal in a large company. In a large company (thousands or 10's of thousands of emplyees) IT policy is often designed such that the (inadvertant) end result is: slow. The overriding concerns in large-company shops are things like security, audit, documentation, repeatability. In an IT shop supporting a large user base, the CIO is often more of s business type than an IT type. Hence lots of compromises, negotiation, changes in direction. Couple that with in-house development efforts and one often gets re-work and that translates into slow.

      It's darn near impossible to be large and nimble.

    44. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by n4t3 · · Score: 1

      As a LAN admin of a small 50+ machine network in the manufacturing sector (yes, there still are manufacturers in the USA). I have speak up to say that I for one have not locked everyone down as the "network nazis" above have done. Our firm is very creative (engineering heavy) and using and playing with new software is just too much fun. It was far easier to standardize on Mozilla (we started with Netscape back in 1996 but I've stayed on the bleeding edge). We have had only two compromised machines in all this time and both were due to users who *refused* to use Mozilla and went out of their way to install and use IE over my objections. I explained the situation to the boss and its now official company policy to use Mozilla only! (we use it for web/email/in-house IRC). In fact, you can be reprimanded for using IE!

    45. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by shyster · · Score: 1
      And it's not just unknown shops. I recently read an article where Kinko's reimages computers after guests pay to use them. This can take 5-10 minutes. What the hell? Just set a limited user and recreate that one folder. What are their administrators thinking?

      For Kinko's, or other public computer places, reimaging makes a lot of sense. When you rent a PC at Kinko's, you get full admin privileges - meaning you can download and install whatever you need to get the job done. Without that, there probably wouldn't be as much demand.

      I agree, however, that most companies can get by with limited user accounts. Of course, if you're instituting this policy for the first time, expect no end of complaints. Oh, and don't recreate the limited user folder. Set it to a mandatory profile.

    46. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      you do NOt need to go that far.

      I am a "renegade" office in the large megacorp I work for. I Firewall off and proxy myself from the rest of corperate using linux and tools designed for linux.

      it works great no virus outbreak on the corperate side has ever touched my offices in the past 5 years because it can not get to my side. and spyware is not a problem because the squid server is set to filter out all that crap along with ad's.

      I am utterly hated by the IT department, because I do not do things their way, and because no matter how hard they try they can not get me fired, and finally I am pointed to every time they can not get something done as an example. "Lumpy can do it, why cant you?"

      It helps that the main office I manage is the home of the CEO and he spends most of his time here instead of at the main office...

      Mostly because his computer needs are met here and things just work compared to the rest of corperate.

      IT's FIRST job is to meet the needs of it's customers, the users. To make them productive and make the company more money. Any IT department that does not have that as their #1 creedo and mantra is useless and needs to be replaced.

      locking them down DOES have it's uses. I do have some locked down.

      but blocking printer and drive mapping is stupid and only serves to piss off users.

      I can mention many other things done by corperate IT that I do not follow because they are there ONLY to annoy the users and have no real benefit to productivity and security.

      The funny part is that 3 years ago when the big IT layoffs happened, my ofices were untouched. we had no extra fluff to cut and my guys are the best you can absolutely get at these underpaid wages.

      Yet over 60 were let go back at corperate headquarters.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    47. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      You often can't help but run IE, you cannot remove it and lots of programs like to invoke it wether you like it or not.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    48. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is so true. I work for the Air FOrce, and
      > I have to agree. Very few spyware / virus issues.

      You, sir (and I do suspect that people call you "sir" at work) are either ignorant or stupid; although, I strongly suspect that you are both.

      I, too, work with the Air Force and spyware/adware, SPAM and viruses *ARE* a significant problem... and while the problems aren't at the level of the average ISP user base, they are probably above the low-water mark that the UW study represents.

    49. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by shyster · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The attitude of all you LAN Admins in here really pisses me off, "it's easy, lock 'em down, don't give 'em admin, take away all their PC privilages". It's easy for you to say, you have admin! You can install any software you need.

      That's because we know what we're doing. And, if we cause problems, we're the ones that have to fix it.

      How does it help the company when everytime I need to install some software to do my job I have to call you up and waste a couple of days for it to get aproved by the all-mighty-admin? How does it help the company when I can't immediately respond to a customer!?

      Who do you think is responsible for keeping track of the licenses for that software you want to install? Given admin access, how many users do you think will pirate software? (Answer: a lot). How many users will knowingly or unknowingly install spyware? (Answer: a majority) How many will get a virus? (Answer: A few. But those few will impact the entire company.) And, when they do all of this, and it takes 1-2 days to clean up their computer, how many users will understand that it's their fault and not blame the IT department? (Answer: None.)

      Your job is to help us users be more productive in doing our job, it isn't to cause you the least hassle.

      I suppose you feel the same way about your Purchasing Department (Why should I have to get a PO before ordering something? How does it help the company when I can't immediately order something I need?). Our job is not to help you be more productive in your job. It's to help the company be more productive. You're just a tiny little part of the equation.

      OK, so there are stupid users, but I don't care about them, they don't affect me, I'm just trying doing my job.

      If there truly is someone who is (a) knowledgeable of computers, (b) appropiately cautious of installing unknown or unlicensed programs, (c) reasonable enough to not blame IT for all of his computer woes, and (d) wants administrator access (and his manager doesn't care) - then I'll usually give it to them. In most cases, this guy also becomes my go-to guy for the department - which saves me from visiting for little issues.

      If you truly can't do your job because of restrictive policies (note that installing WeatherBug and AIM does not constitute doing your job) then you should explain your situation to your admin, your manager, and your admin's manager. If nothing gets done, then noone thinks you need admin access to do your job. Live with it.

    50. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no...

      You see, the CIO is the one who signs off of risk assesments and security policies. Throw in multiple admins, a common administrative password, documentable managment contraventions of security policy, 1 million plus files spread across several dozen servers, non-covered session protocols (telnet), zero filesystem auditing and you're going to find that there's more than enough wiggle room, plausable denability and outright blame lying elsewhere to get out of any legal action.

      The particular legislation that I'm subject to is HIPAA and *ALL* of the risk assesments and security reviews accomplished by managment have been complete bullshit, money wasting trips to conferences where money was stuffed, wholesale, into stippers gater belts and HIPAA "consultants" pockets. When the shit does hit the fan, it isn't the administative staff that's going down... it's managment.

      for fscks sake, the SOX can't even tell business how long to retain their e-mail!

    51. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by shyster · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Customer A needs to scan and OCR hard copy documents to upload them into our system. Of course they are not allowed to go down and buy a $200 HP scanner with this ability - instead they must wait for IS. IS has set up a $20,000 multi-fucntion scanner, but of course it does not do OCR. Of course there is an OCR program, but of course it is not certified for the current system image. 6 months on, over $30,000 in additional costs incurred - because IS can't provide OCR capability and won't allow a "renegade" install of a $200 HP scanner.

      Why wasn't IT involved in the requirements discussion of your ASP solution? Who did you think was going to be implementing the client side of the solution? A lot of issues could be solved easier if IT was asked for advice before a problem arises. Instead, departments make (sometimes) dumb IT-related decisions, and expect IT to implement them.

      Customer B wants to use our system - its an ASP after all, no software to install - but their procedures for gaining web access are so cumbersome that it is simply impractical to give wide access throughout the business. More lost $$$, to us and them.

      Sounds like a department or group of people within Customer B wanted to use your system. Once again, it doesn't sound like IT was involved at all. Nor does it sound like the company as a whole wanted it - or they would've worked with IT to get access to it.

      Customer C has their image locked down to Office 97 because of various (no doubt valid) MS problems. Users are unable to handle incoming documents written in later versions of Word. IS has no solution apart from waiting until 2006 for a company-wide upgrade. (Yet, strangely enough, the IT dude has Office 2003 on his OWN desktop)

      AFAIK, Word 97-2003 have the same file format. Excepting some possible formatting issues, reading the documents shouldn't be a problem. However, realize that an Office upgrade is a huge expense in terms of both time and money. Expecting IT to jump to fulfill your requirements on their existing budget is a bit unfair.

      Just because you, understandably, see your solution as the greatest thing since sliced bread doesn't mean IT or the company as a whole does. It would seem that IT, and the executive management, were either not made aware of the business need of your solution, or felt it was not worth the impact on IT's budget and responsibilities. Perhaps involving IT in your next client discussion could point out these issues before the ink is dry.

    52. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      I've worked in a worldwide concern that was fairly aggressively taking over other well-known companies whose policies were entirely different. When going for lockdown on these new subsidiaries, their processes were severely interrupted until people and processes changed - which took about a year. I suspect an enterprise wide spy/virus etc. checker would have proved more efficient and would have been rolled out more quickly. Subsequently explaining and training people in the corporate way would have been less disruptive than just imposing our policies.

      --
      Did he inhale?
    53. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by coats · · Score: 4, Informative

      AFAIK, Word 97-2003 have the same file format. Excepting some possible formatting issues, reading the documents shouldn't be a problem...
      Can you say, clueless!?

      There are incompatibilities between the paragraph and character styles and the numbering mechanisms among the versions of Word you talk about (97/2000/XP), and going back and forth among them is a sure way to almost-irremediable document corruption. As a corporate-law attorney, my wife runs into this problem all the time.

      Word can't deal with it; the commercial product for cleaning up the mess runs $5000/seat and many law firms consider it well worth the price. (Or you can use the industrial-strength .doc-parser found in abiword or OpenOffice.org:-) .)

      --
      "My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
    54. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by jallen02 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do believe that is the parent of your posts point. He is looking at it from a B2B perspective. Bad IT practice has directly hurt his company, even though it was not his company's bad practice.

      Jeremy

    55. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinko's reimages computers? That's nothing. The Toronto District School Board runs tens of thousands of computers 24 hours a day (including weekends), in hundreds of empty school buildings, wasting energy at a horrendous rate, reimaging computers in an attempt to keep them running...your tax dollars at work...sigh...

    56. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our Traders found some nice little games on the Internet, and all installed them. By the time we found out, most of them could no longer trade. This cost each of them (as day traders, the opportunistic loss can be significant), and cost the company as a whole too.

      It also meant that IT were rather annoyed, as having been quite conservative with locking things down, we trusted the users to be sensible.

      Now we've locked them down, and they are not happy as they can't play their little games now. Still, they are not as unhappy as when they were out of the market!

      Another point here is that their SuSe Linux trading machines have never had a single problem.....

    57. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by ComputerizedYoga · · Score: 1

      In security, there's the concept of "least privelege". This means: for a given task you employ just enough access to accomplish the task. Many administrators subscribe to this exclusively, saying "in order to maintain security, you can only use the computer in ways I've predefined" -- a rather restrictive belief.

      I don't entirely buy into least privelege, though. As a philosophy, it ends up being draconian and ultimately breeds the sort of animousity that the parent demonstrates. That user is one who's not going to bother with security regardless of what they have, out of sheer spite. Sure, I don't run as root or administrator unless I need root or administrator privs, and nobody else gets full privs on my network... just, there's a very fine line between removing the ability to break the system and removing the ability to use the system freely. I'm definitely more a proponent of "most allowable access" -- deny the users the access they shouldn't have, allow them everything else.

      But before I worked out exactly what to deny users, I had one critical workstation taken out for about 2 days, crippled by about 30 spyware titles that invited each other in over the course of 2 days in the hands of a power user. 2 days of lost productivity for that user because I let him have default "power user" access, so the user could run max and ICQ... but anyway ...

      I think the big key to user happiness in a network environmeent is administrator flexibility. Sometimes IT/IS gets so caught up in its own little world it forgets that it has 2 roles: protect (the company resources) and serve (the users), and it has to balance those. When you forget one of those roles, you make bad policies that ultimately hurt more than they help.

    58. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't an MS issue, it's how major companies work... I work, partially doing hardware standards, in a 8000 desktop UK (and international) financial company, our customers have exactly the same problems that you describe (in fact - you could work for the same company as me - except for the $s rather than £s) so in answer to your points:

      1) you can't just go out and buy a £200 HP scanner because large companies have it sourcing agreements, also certainly in the company that I work for, we have three scanners available to users, one big-assed MFD, one small duplex HP scanner and a non duplex version. This is so that the minimum amount of hardware is installed to make support less expensive. If all users could purcahse their own hardware it would be a support nightmare.

      2) External customers can't get access to the internet for security reasons in most major financial companies - especially if the stated reason for using the internet is to run untested, unauthorised software across it.

      3) We have exactly the same problem here - the customers want office 2k3, but they have somewhere in the region of 500 custom spreadsheet macros which all need to be converted. The "IT guy" has office 2k3 because he is working on the project to upgrade to it.

      As a final point - before I get off my soapbox - /.ers complain about the lack of security for MS systems, the bang on about you shouldn't have to lock them down. What is this about? Granular security is a good thing (tm)

    59. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      On the reimaging if there is any way to get a trojan or other malware on it someone would do it. Reimaging is not a bad option but I'd prefer a diskless workstation.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    60. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Wookie_CD · · Score: 1

      Kinkos PCs operate in a toxic environment. As a sub-sub-sub-contractor to them, every time I perform maintenance I'm surprised the machine doesnt have spyware oozing through the front grille. To their credit, some customers do try to make this happen. But really. Kinkos are a company who do printing. If you think they have better things to do than worry about IT in-house, you'd be right. And if you took a wild guess and thought that perhaps the usual corporate most-bang-for-buck urges resulted in contracting to one of the lower biggers, (I'm guessing) you'd be right. And I have no shortage of anecdotes deriving from that train of thought..

    61. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by RMH101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      bollocks. if you need it, it's already there: this is why we have a standard desktop client that's rocksolid-stable. just because you're pissed off because you can't install webshots, don't assume that there's not a valid and sound reason to lock down clients.

    62. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by RollingThunder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The test is if the loss of productivity due to lockdowns is overall LESS than the loss of productivity due to virus/malware/spyware plus corporate danger due to piracy plus extra admin time to support all kinds of whacked-out PC's.

      If having them locked down costs the company less, then guess what - you get to put in change requests for that software install.

    63. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "You could write a startup script on the machine to reset the home and search pages to a default you specify.
      Better yet, use group policy. Go to User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Internet Explorer and enable these policies:
      Disable changing homepage settings
      Search: disable search customization
      "

      Based on 2 observations:
      1) Everyone with their own computer uses google as the homepage (for them to use)
      2) Every corporate admin sets their company website as the homepage (for other people to use)

      There might be a communication problem to solve at many places, before anyone comes in with the "Disable changing homepage settings" final solution..

    64. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking hell yea. Our management had to go to regular HIPAA meetings/confrences in Puerto Rico, Vegas etc. did they come back with any useful knowledge? NO! Who are they expecting to read all of the security specs? ME! Maybe us lowly admins should have been the ones to go to Puerto Rico.

    65. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by aonaran · · Score: 1


      The only one that I've seen get through (and it's not really spyware) is changing a person's homepage. I'm not sure why IE even allows this. Fortunately, the main reason for switching someone's home page (slamming them with pop-up ads) is kind of diminished with SP2.


      Can't this be solved by setting a company wide policy for the default homepage?

      Check out your windows domain policies, I'm sure that's in there.

    66. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by shyster · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Can you say, clueless!? There are incompatibilities between the paragraph and character styles and the numbering mechanisms among the versions of Word you talk about (97/2000/XP), and going back and forth among them is a sure way to almost-irremediable document corruption. As a corporate-law attorney, my wife runs into this problem all the time.

      I admit to being somewhat clueless, being that Office 2003 is covered under our site license (which is dirt cheap, due to gov't status) and I don't use Word very often. However, the official line is exactly what I stated. Which is that, formatting issues aside, file formats shouldn't be a problem. If it is, then I think that qualifies as a bug - ask PSS about fixing it.

      Of course, most law offices I've worked with use WordPerfect (and have for ages), so I suspect that may be part of your wife's problem.

    67. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How often do you need new software to do your job? Why don't you know in advance and have it ready?

      Maybe because it (was) your job to support the users, and not the other way around? It's just that kind of attitude that causes the backlash you see here. If the software needs to be installed, and its' legal and approved, yours is to just install it, not to tell the user he should have had it ready so you could have done it at your leisure.

      And then these guys wonder why call centers get oursourced. Surly "assistance" isn't all that different with a Hinglish accent.

      ~~~

    68. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      And you know what, either way you go off and blame the sysadmins.

      Not always true. But if you run a concentration-camp style lockdown and project the attitude that "I am mighty Network King, bow before me and I may let you use your machine," you're goddamn right the admins will go down for any security problems. And rightfully so--if you manage my machine and take away admin, then it's your problem, and I as one of those stupid users will happily watch you swing from the gallows.

      ~~~

    69. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by mtgarden · · Score: 1

      It seems that most people posting are approaching from the IT or the User side. But there needs to be a balance. I agree that employees should not be able to install programs. I have seen a situation where a user installed a personal program worth hundreds of dollars. When asked why, he said that his personal computer was unable to handle the software and he needed it for his side business. :-) I have also seen, the users install lots of "free" screen savers.

      IT has been known to heavily lock down systems, and I have helped to do just that. But, I think that this should be the last resort. TO much limitation prevents users from accomplishing their work effectively.

      A company should lock down the system to the minimum amount necessary to protect the user and network. For different companies and different departments, that means different things. There is no simple solution. Both sides have legitimate greivances and reasons for their requests. (I stand in a unique position as not being IT, but being almost IT.)

      All that said, SpywareBlaster does not remove spyware but does block it from being downloaded.

      Enjoy.

    70. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Customer A needs to scan and OCR hard copy documents to upload them into our system. Of course they are not allowed to go down and buy a $200 HP scanner with this ability - instead they must wait for IS. IS has set up a $20,000 multi-fucntion scanner, but of course it does not do OCR. Of course there is an OCR program, but of course it is not certified for the current system image. 6 months on, over $30,000 in additional costs incurred - because IS can't provide OCR capability and won't allow a "renegade" install of a $200 HP scanner.

      But of course....

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    71. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I've tried this in the past - as soon as I remove the users from the admin group, they stop being able to hotsync to Outlook.

      This isn't to say they can't hotsync - Anything they put into the Palm software application works just fine, and the data they grabbed from Outlook on the earlier sync will be backed up, but they can no longer attach to their Outlook data, once their privilege level is reduced to "power user".

      Note that even this proposed solution isn't that great - what if the user has something in their "run once" registry that installs malware, just waiting for them to be elevated to the point where it can do real damage? If you have to make someone an administrator for ANY reason after they've wandered into the wrong sites, you're still very mutch at risk.

    72. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by PositiveG · · Score: 1

      "In fact, you can be reprimanded for using IE! " Who's the network nazi now? Do you have a Firewall, Antivirus and regular patching schedule? Talk about Pot meet Kettle.

    73. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by hey! · · Score: 1
      Well, I think this is due to this fact.

      When it comes IT, you can have any two of the following:

      1. Security
      2. User Productivity
      3. Cheapness


      You can have secure, safe solutions, but you're not going to get it by hiring the smallest number of the cheapest people you can find. You have to hire (a) good attitudes, (b) expertise and (c) enough bodies meetign the previous two criteria.

      I don't think it is too expensive to get good IT support; one good person is worth four or five pieces of deadwood, at less than twice the price.

      But you do need quantity. Every organization, like an organism, tries to preserve itself. If it is staffed at less than what is necessary to deliver services, then it will simply stop delivering services. A sure sign of this is the use of "policies" and "standards" to deny users services that they need to do their job, without any meaningful substitution.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    74. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by midknight32 · · Score: 1

      I'll agree that you can selectively wed through and give permissions to just the keys needed to run some program. In larger organizations it's even worthwhile.

      In dealing with smaller companies with 3-10 users, with as few as one or as many as all 10 or so people using programs like ACT! and Quickbooks, the time required to suss out exactly what set of permissions are required for their version of their program is often far more than it's worth to them. In many cases there's more than one program that needs it, in some oddball combination. And there's always several people who have the owners ear that "can't do what they want" so rather than spend the time required to figure out what's needed

      For them it is not worth the time. Even when you determine that a couple poeple's habits will regularly get crapware on the comp and result in more money in the long haul lost cleaning up after the mess.

    75. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by kabocox · · Score: 1

      3 Customer C has their image locked down to Office 97 because of various (no doubt valid) MS problems. Users are unable to handle incoming documents written in later versions of Word. IS has no solution apart from waiting until 2006 for a company-wide upgrade. (Yet, strangely enough, the IT dude has Office 2003 on his OWN desktop)

      I can tell you why. Here I get e-mails from managers that can't open a doc usually a corel document. I covert it for them. (Our managers all have OfficeXP though so they can all do this themselves. I just get stuck with it.) They all have CDRs and they e-mail 600k powerpoint files to burn to CD.

    76. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Gudlyf · · Score: 1
      " You are also not the one who will take the blame when things screw up due to lax security. "

      I so hear that.

      When I started a job several years ago, I was completely shocked that the previous admin decided we needed to keep telnet open to the outside world in the event we had an engineer somewhere off-site who didn't have access to an SSH client. I immediately took down the telnet access, installed a firewall (they didn't have one!), and told everyone they had to use SSH to get in.

      Well, that made a few of the elders pretty angry, saying it made things too inconvenient for them. A few bitching-out sessions from them to my then boss, and he made me -- against all of my protests -- open telnet back up (I tried to at least make them use OPIE enabled telnet, but that didn't cut it with them.

      Sure enough, we later got attacked through telnet. Luckily I had a lot of alarms pointing to unauthorized telnet access, so as soon as it happened, I locked it down. But you know who was to blame for that attack? The admin. Me. Somehow I didn't warn them enough, and short of quitting my job, there was nothing more I could've done. Luckily later I reported to someone who knew something about technology, and now everything's honkey-dorey in the security department. If an engineer demands something outrageous, I'm not fighting it alone now.

      In the case of allowing users to have unfettered access to their workstations, the immediate threat I can think of is possible disgruntled employee activity, such as installing network scanners (won't do a whole lot on our net anyway), key loggers (for when an admin such as myself needs access to their system directly), or any number of other problematic programs.

      I can't tell you how many times I had to deal with a user installing something on an unrestricted system (yes, there was a time I did this) that inevitably wasted more of both of our time while I cleaned up all the crap off their system and hunted down the problem.

      I dunno, maybe companies need to have some sort of exam for employees to take to prove they know what the hell they're doing on a Windows box before being granted access to install their own programs on a system.

      In the end, the parent post is still correct here. If something happens on your workstation that affects others, such as a virus or rogue program, the admin is full-out to blame no matter who installed the program or what they did to escape detection.

      Sorry for my disjointed rant. Haven't had my coffee yet but for some reason felt the need to add my 2 bits.

      --
      Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    77. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by woulduno · · Score: 1

      Hate to be the barer of bad news, but even with a firewall you can still get spyware installed using IE. You might be able to setup a squid proxy with AV and some limited spy ware checks, but with a very large network you would need one hell of a box to pull that off.. NONE of the patches that MS supplies protects you from spyware being installed from some website. They claim SP2 helps prevent this, but it has yet to be perfect. Which coming from MS I suppose we never expect it to be done right. So the only option is to lock down the systems so users do not have privs. Yes this can be a pain at first. But, in time things get worked out. Of course we are moving more users who do not need Windoze to Linux for the desktop. Being our network is full of engineers and programmers, it has a slightly higher IQ then the standard network.

    78. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by CrazyDwarf · · Score: 1

      3. Customer C has their image locked down to Office 97 because of various (no doubt valid) MS problems. Users are unable to handle incoming documents written in later versions of Word. IS has no solution apart from waiting until 2006 for a company-wide upgrade. (Yet, strangely enough, the IT dude has Office 2003 on his OWN desktop)

      I can see how poor communication between operations and IT could be a big factor, but...
      I was recently in the IT department of a large company much like this. There was an issue with 1 application that about 20% of the administrative personnel used. It was setup in Access 97, and would NOT work with later versions of Access. Now, being the local IT support, I was often the one taking the flak for the programmers in the corporate office not updating the software 2 years after the rest of the company had migrated to office 2k.

      That being said, I think I would agree with previous posters that it is a combination of bad communication from Operations to IT, and lazy/incompetent IT staff/leadership. Just like with any other choice you make in life, you have to decide where the best tradeoff is for you. It sounds like your CIO and upper management do not have the foresight or experience to anticipate and prevent these problems.

      --
      It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
    79. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      I'll take the risk. I run a small business network in two different cities. One part of the city has very little technical understanding, so they rely on me for the most part. My time is extremely valuable, as I am also the Senior Developer, so when I get a call from our satellite office about a workstation running slowly, I have to remote desktop in and diagnose it. Most of the times, it is due to spyware related toolbars that have been installed. That immediately affects my productivity.

      You are right. It should not take a "few days", that is somewhat ridiculous. I usually have the software installed immediately, if it is critically needed.

      OK, so there are stupid users, but I don't care about them, they don't affect me... Right, they affect me. Unfortunately, there are more of them, than there are of you. Selfishness, helps no one.

      --
      Sig it.
    80. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has to be the worst mess of grammar I have ever seen here.

    81. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Glamdrlng · · Score: 1
      The attitude of all you LAN Admins in here really pisses me off, "it's easy, lock 'em down, don't give 'em admin, take away all their PC privilages". It's easy for you to say, you have admin! You can install any software you need.

      I wonder how much productivity you lock-'em-down admins are costing the economy as a whole. You wanna know something? LAN administration isn't the most important part of a company, you aren't making the company any money. Your job is to help us users be more productive in doing our job, it isn't to cause you the least hassle.

      How does it help the company when everytime I need to install some software to do my job I have to call you up and waste a couple of days for it to get aproved by the all-mighty-admin? How does it help the company when I can't immediately respond to a customer!?

      OK, so there are stupid users, but I don't care about them, they don't affect me, I'm just trying doing my job. Leave me alone god damnit!
      Shut the fuck up. It's not your computer and you have no say in its administration.

      Not only are you one of the stupid users, you're among the worst. If you're done whining and thinking like an end user, crack open a book and read up on information security and the principle of least privilege. Just because you lack the planning and communication skills necessary to identify applications you need installed before it becomes an emergency doesn't mean your IT staff should endanger your entire network because of you. And before you open your piehole to argue with me, yes. That's exactly what you're asking them to do.

      Based on your attitude I'd suggest you do yourself and your coworkers a favor: find another line of work. One that doesn't involve technology more complex than sticks and stones.
      --

      Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
    82. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by SteelGator · · Score: 1

      OK, so there are stupid users, but I don't care about them, they don't affect me, I'm just trying doing my job. Leave me alone god damnit!

      I love this strategy! The next time you come to me saying "Help, I can't print" or "Help I can't login" then I'll just follow your instructions and LEAVE YOU ALONE.

      --
      This post has performed an illegal operation.
    83. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Glamdrlng · · Score: 1
      But if you run a concentration-camp style lockdown and project the attitude that "I am mighty Network King, bow before me and I may let you use your machine," you're goddamn right the admins will go down for any security problems.
      It's not your machine, it's your employer's.

      In the scenario you've described, the admins can at least show that they exercised due care and mitigated the security risks as much as they could. If the admins let you administer your machine and you down the network guess what -- they're still responsible.
      --

      Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
    84. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      We ran into an issue where users wanted to change their homepages. Ultimately, we weren't so draconian that we disallowed this. Occcasionally it leads to a homepage changing to a pop-up fest, but very rarely.

    85. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      This sounds oddly like the timesharing minicomputer systems of "yesteryear"(*).

      Timesharing is comming back, note the new interest in server hosted apps and thin-clients...

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    86. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "political requirements (like CEO "needs" admin rights) often trump security requirements"

      Do what we did. Calmly explain to the CEO to look at the past few years, look at no spyware or viruses, and look at 0.0% downtime on the workstations. If that doesn't make enough sense to them bottom-line wise, nothing will.

    87. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "Without that, there probably wouldn't be as much demand."

      Why on earth does a Kinko's user need permissions to install programs? Just put the common ones on (Flash, AIM, etc), lock the machine down, and there would be absolutely no complaints.

    88. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "Can't this be solved by setting a company wide policy for the default homepage?"

      We decided to give the users that freedom. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to "allow user to change home page" while "don't allow site to change home page through IE".

    89. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by PONA-Boy · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much productivity you lock-'em-down admins are costing the economy as a whole. You wanna know something? LAN administration isn't the most important part of a company, you aren't making the company any money. Your job is to help us users be more productive in doing our job, it isn't to cause you the least hassle.


      In the microcosm of my network, it is people who evidence the same ranting as the above-quoted post that inevitably cause the greatest amount of damage to the network.



      Our users have Domain User privileges. That's it. They run the typical bevy of Office apps and run our own in-house app to conduct their business. Un fortunately, they use IE. Fortunately, our HTTP proxy only allows them to pre-approved sites required for their daily duties. No muss, no fuss. Honestly - end-user or no - your workstation at the office is for you to make the company more money...a glorifed typewriter, post office, and calculator.



      Most ranting end-users fail to realize that sysadmins have to balance EVERYone's need with the needs of the network itself. Exactly how much productivity are you going to have when your precious new app you just _had_ to have causes a massive virus infection or malicious intrusion?



      Don't scream at the sysadmin. Don't pelt him with epithets for not agreeing with you. Speak calmly and make your case. Our network, as it stands now, suffers from neither malicious intrusion nor adware/spyware infection due primarily to the level of attention paid to security. Our uptime is high and our users are productive. We, like other IS departments, are a cost center but we also add a great deal of value to the company by providing stability and order to the people that _do_ make the money for the company.

      --
      +that's funny...I don't FEEL tardy.+
    90. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by fubar1971 · · Score: 1

      I am a LAN Admin, and I see your point. I do not lock down my workstations. I have written policies that state that if you install non-work related software on your PC, you will be disciplined. This pretty much has stopped about 85-90 percent of the spyware from being installed. The majority of users are concerned enough to come and ask permission to install software that they feel is important to perform their duties. This in turn makes the IT staff more informed of the environment, and can come up with an ever improving stratedgy for technology deployment and support. Unfotunately, it still cost the organisation money due to the few problem children that require being disciplined multiple times before they are eventually fired. Then the loss of an employee incurrs even more cost due to trying to find a replacement. (You notice I did not mention that a cost would be incurred do to lost productivity because the firing of the employee. 99% of the time this same employee is not very productive to begin with.) No matter how you look at it, locking users workstations, ignoring the problem, or writing policies, computer users cost an organisation money. It all depends upon your organisations corporate philosophies and internal culture on how you want to lose money. The IT staff is usually charged with enforcing the phillosophies of upper management to try and reduce this cost. So as for your statement

      OK, so there are stupid users, but I don't care about them, they don't affect me, I'm just trying doing my job

      Remember, what you do with your computer can and does effect the entire company. You may only see your small piece of it, but the IT staff is suppose to be looking at the entire company not just you. If the corporate culture does not suit your work habits and ethics, maybe you should look into finding another employer.

    91. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Problem is many spyware and ad programs use buffer overflows to install themselves.

      I found out I got my system reineffective just from watching a mpeg of porn.

      The stream was infected and using buffer overflows to execute and install itself in the system registry.

      No problem under FreeBSD since its mpeg libraries are safer with some of the holes fixed.

      Its just insanse what these applets using javascript use to get themselves installed without the user knowing.

      A policy will not prevent the overflows since they bypass NT security.

    92. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by djc6 · · Score: 1

      Whenever I run into an applicaiton that doesn't work as a regular User, windows provides you with some great tools to see what registry keys and directories are being written to. You turn on failed registry/file auditing and see where you need to change the permissions:

      http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/regedit_audit_key.msp x

      http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/en/advanced/h elp/default.asp?url=/windows2000/en/advanced/help/ els_specify_filefolder_audit.htm

    93. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      There's a very simple solution; boot the machine into safe mode every night, update, THEN run the anti spyware/antivirus apps. That way it actually removes everything.

    94. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      If the software needs to be installed, and its' legal and approved, yours is to just install it, not to tell the user he should have had it ready so you could have done it at your leisure.

      Yours is to install it... after verifying that it won't screw anything else up. There's a lot of broken software out there.

    95. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by GeckoX · · Score: 1
      Live with it


      No, I will not.
      And I will not hire you either, so don't bother applying.

      IT nazi's have no place in a properly run business.
      You're right you know, you're so right in fact that people can't stand to be around you. You're god almighty and nobody wants to bow down to you anymore. It's the attitude above all else.

      An IT Admin's job is really to be the liason between technology needed to get work done, and the people that need to do that work. The people are key here, they are without a doubt more important than the technology. The day that all IT Admins understand this, and become advocates and facilitators for the people, things will be much better.

      They are where I work because we've gone to great lengths to hire IT Admins that understand this. That is why you did not get the job. Someday the company that did give you a job will realize this as well.
      --
      No Comment.
    96. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does it help the company when everytime I need to install some software to do my job I have to call you up and waste a couple of days for it to get aproved by the all-mighty-admin?

      I smell bullshit. Exactly how many people need to install new software on a regular basis to do their jobs? And how many people whine that they can't install new software because they want to IM their friends all day/watch movie trailers/play games?

    97. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by k12linux · · Score: 1
      A few bitching-out sessions from them to my then boss, and he made me -- against all of my protests -- open telnet back up (I tried to at least make them use OPIE enabled telnet, but that didn't cut it with them.

      Welcome to CYA school. Class is now in session. Whenever you are forced to do something (or not do it) that you are certain is a security risk, fire off a memo (not an e-mail... a paper memo) and keep a copy for yourself. Send it to your boss informing them about the risks and your concerns as professionally an completely as you can manage.

      Most PHB types will realize that you've now put the responsibility of any compromizes squarely in their lap and will allow the change. If they don't, then continue to do what you can to mitigate the risk and save your copy of the memo for when it's needed.

      such as installing network scanners (won't do a whole lot on our net anyway)

      I'm curious why not. Are you confident you are immune to them because you have a switched network, or do you have other counter-measures in place?

      I dunno, maybe companies need to have some sort of exam for employees to take to prove they know what the hell they're doing on a Windows box before being granted access to install their own programs on a system.

      I hear you there. I honestly would like nothing more than to be able to give every user on our network admin access to their own PC. I'm not kidding. I would much rather spend my time coming up with some new web app that cuts 1/2 of the busywork out of someone's work day than deal with the headaches that restrictions cause. (Non-admins out there who think your PCs are locked down just so you admin can avoid work are completely wrong. Dealing with locked down systems is very often a real PITA.)

      Unfortunately I simply can't do that. I have given some users more access because they claim to be able to manage their own PC and they seemed to be pretty PC-clueful. Half of those users have been set back to restricted permissions after causing network failure (router overload by flood of traffic from their PC) or because a tech had to spend 1/2 day recovering important data on the PC (which was supposed to be on the network) before they could ghost it and make it useable again.

      I suppose if we could double the size of our IT staff we could give everyone full rights and then just lock down users who prove they aren't up to the challenge. But honestly, there are better ways to spend the $.

    98. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by theblacksun · · Score: 1
      If they can't take 5 minutes to add an HP scanner then you've got the wrong guys in IT.

      Because things always work the first time? Don't forget however long it takes to get to the deployment location, the large chance that they haven't taken the scanner out of the box or even made room.

      As long as the IT department is large/trained well enough for the number of seats it really shouldn't be a problem.

      Ever heard of budget limitations? Maybe you should try thinking before you call an IT department lazy. My department works its ass off to get shit done, and if we had to stop by John Q. User's office every time they wanted to install anything we would need at least 50% more staff. That is intolerable so I think we'll just take the occasional infestation. I don't care how well trained you are it simply takes manpower to install stupid programs, and even more when budget limits the speed of the machines.

      --
      Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
    99. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by brainee28 · · Score: 1

      I find it funny how your generalizations of security policy seems to entail everyone, but doesn't seem to fit for anyone.

      I work as the IT Manager/Systems Admin for a company of 100 users or so (fair amount).

      I am it. No other staff, just me.

      Based on your information, I should lock down systems so tightly that users have to get me to come down to their workstations to login users so they can install drives, printers and software.

      I don't have the time to do that. If I had a staff of 3 to 5, then yes, I would lock down systems a bit more, but unfortunately, it's just me doing this, and management agrees that my time is better spent researching new ways to keep us current for IT than running to 50-60 workstations giving temporary access to users to install printers.

      Someone mentioned this earlier, but there are pieces of software (mostly engineering programs; we're a manufacturing/engineering company) that won't run without admin access.

      The software just won't run. Their job is to use the software; my job is to make sure it runs correctly and securely.

      I don't think you've spent enough time looking at your answer from our perspective; your answer indicates you haven't taken a lot of time to think about and respond to this problem with reasonable information.

      If I could place Linux on every desktop, I would. It's not feasible and reasonable at this time.

      Also, management is convinced right now that IE works just fine for them, and won't make the switch to Firefox, even though they've read the CERT warnings and every piece of documentation I've thrown their way.

    100. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How often do you need new software to do your job? Why don't you know in advance and have it ready?

      Maybe because it (was) your job to support the users

      WTF? So the admin should mystically know that you need some piece of non-standard software? (It must be non-standard in your company since otherwise it would be installed on all the PCs already.) I'm glad I'm not a sysadmin since it apparently requires "ESP" as one of the qulifications these days.

      Face it, you are suffering more from a lack of planning or from a lack of justifying your need than from a lack of admin support. If you can't convince your boss that you need some software, why should you get it? Just because you feel you need it? Do you think all software is free?

      Think of software as a tool. Do you think companies routinely buy any and every tool that someone thinks they need? "Boss, I need a jackhammer!" "Why do you need a jackhammer to file papers?" "I just do." "Forget it." "Nazi! You are killing my productivity!!!"

    101. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by paulevans · · Score: 1

      Go into [\\\c$\Program Files] Give the user modify privileges on the [Palm] folder. Now the user will be able to use Palm software as a limited user.

      --
      "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." --leonstryker
    102. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Glad to see this marked up as informative. Another addition would be to add a white list of websites that allowed to be accessed from work. I hate to be that restrictive but in a work place using there computers there is no reason to be going to slashdot. Unless you are like and and have to keep up with all the latest technical and security issues :)

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    103. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      And this the same active directory that quite recently microsoft admitted was simply impossible to secure.. Yeah, we had 4 seperate engineers over from redmond until they admitted they couldn't lock it down to a satisfactory level.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    104. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Stephanie+Daugherty · · Score: 1

      Also worth considering - even if users technically have the tools to do their job, but are locked down so as to create an uncomfortable working enviroment, they will be less productive. An example of such a practice that is common is locking down the Display settings. Well, that seems logical, user's can't waste time installing desktop backgrounds and screensavers that they don't need, right? Well, it seems logical until you end up with a user with poor eyesight. The desktops locked down to 1024 x 768 on a 14" screen. The user can see the screen well enough to do their job, so IT won't do anything. But the user is getting horrible eyestrain headaches. Is this employee really going to be productive? I think not. The key is reasonable policies. Don't just lock down settings because you can. Start with a formal written usage and security policy that includes a monitoring clause. Your electronic policies should be as close as technically possible to that written policy. Where software can't distinguish between permissable use and inappropriate use, rely on monitoring facilities. Is giving Bill the ability to set his screen resolution to 800x600 really a threat to your enterprise? I don't think it is. Are IT administratiors who set draconian policies without considering the consequences a threat? Definantly. If restrictions keep employees from doing thein job, or make them uncomfortable enough that they don't work effectively, then your policy is COSTING more than its saving. Give users enough room to breathe, by matching your restrictions to policies that are backed up by real-world needs and knowledge of real-world threats. If users really have no need to *ever* do something, then its fine to set restrictions.

    105. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Umm ok, sure i will leave you alone. Heck i'll do you one better. Here, have those local admin rights to your pc, but i will have to take you off the network too. The risk of your pc getting infected by some kind of junk just skyrocketed and my job is to protect the network - so the other people like you in the building can do their job. Oh and when your computer becomes unusable because of all the crap you put on there, don't come running to me. By giving you admin rights you effectively take responsibility for your own system ( yes, it's in the company security policy )

      I wonder how much productivity you lock-'em-down admins are costing the economy as a whole.

      At my current job i AM the IT department. One person. The company has over 200 pc's. Before i started, they would be down on average half a day a week. Then a virus got in and they were down for 4 days!!! So they hired me and i cleaned up the network. Then when i implemented the "lock-'em-down" policy everyone complained, but after a couple of months everyone got used to it. The owners are ecstatic, they have not been down for more than 10 minutes in the last 2 months and they started making MORE money because of the INCREASED productivity of their employes.

      OK, so there are stupid users, but I don't care about them, they don't affect me, I'm just trying doing my job.

      I don't believe the users in my company are stupid. They are NOT IT people, therfore they cannot use the system as effectively as i can. For example if they threw me into the finance department, i would be totally clueless - it doesn't mean i'm stupid. They don't expect me to know finance, just how i don't expect them to know the in's and out's of computer systems.

      The difference is that when i go to the finance department i don't pretend i know better than the finance officer - so stop pretending you know how to run the IT infrastructure better than the IT people.
    106. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by operagost · · Score: 1
      They all have CDRs and they e-mail 600k powerpoint files to burn to CD.
      Only 600K? I don't think I've ever seen a presentation that small. Usually they have 25 uncompressed bitmaps in them and total about 55 MB. Then the creator tries to email the file or fit it on a floppy diskette.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    107. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter what permissions are set. Spyware and Adware get through. I have spent many hours researching this and many of you still believe permissions is the answer, its not!
      End of story.

    108. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      My dad was in a silimar situation. He was writing some VB code to test some electrical components. His PC was completely locked down. He couldn't run his programs that he wrote to do his job without having to go through his support desk to get it approved/installed. Got a new version? Had to go through the process again. Does that make sense?

    109. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blah, blah, blah...

      and someday your network will be hosed, because you chose to hire someone who would cheerfully kiss your a**, rather than someone who would go through the trouble of protecting you from yourselves. You know what gives us sysadmins our attitudes? It is sh*t for brains ~lusers like yourself with equally bad attitudes. You are not looking for a cooperative IT environment, you are looking for a "lay down and take it anyway I give it to you" IT environment where the admins just cheerfully do what ever you ask, and equally take the blame for your incompetence.

    110. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Gudlyf · · Score: 1

      I should have mentioned that all of this is documented in emails and printed emails, but they really did no good. The answer I'd get when pointing to my "proof" of warning to them was, "well, you didn't warn me enough." It's never enough, is it?

      --
      Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    111. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every windows issue always comes down to a widespread discussion about wordprocessing suites, for which this argument will never cease, or see resolve. MS office is junk, but maybe the resolution is to educate your users to make use of the RTF file format. Problem solved!

      We have Wordperfect suite 11 coexisting with Office 2000 Pro. The users do RTF to remain compatible.

    112. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Nutria · · Score: 1

      My dad was in a silimar situation. He was writing some VB code to test some electrical components. His PC was completely locked down. He couldn't run his programs that he wrote to do his job

      Are you sure that there's no way your father could write the app without touching "system" areas? I.e.: different APIs, parameters, etc, etc?

      Is there no equivalent of $HOME/bin in Windows that he could test in?

      If there is no equivalent of $HOME/bin in Windows, the solution is: get an off-net PC to do the development on.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    113. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by GreyPoopon · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I don't think you are completely aware of what the budgeting process and political playing field are like for IT resources at most companies. It's generally not a question of laziness, but rather that management wants to reduce IT headcount while at the same time getting even more work out of the department. On the other hand, if you are directing your complaints against upper management (not IT), I'm all with you.

      This problem is just lazy IT. If they can't take 5 minutes to add an HP scanner then you've got the wrong guys in IT.

      Interesting. You attribute following policy to laziness. Since there aren't enough resources to go around installing HP scanners for everyone and supporting the associated software, the department has made the decision to support a single centralized scanning infrastructure. Unfortunately, they made this decision at a time when OCR wasn't an issue. Generally, the $200 HP scanner isn't going to be an isolated case. Once one is deployed, there need to be others. Now the IT department is forced to support several additional devices and new software. Oh, and while they are providing this additional support, the CFO is busy taking three more people out of their headcount. In a situation like this, the proper solution is for the IT department to follow policy and request that the person who has the need escalate through their management. If it's important enough, it will reach the CEO, who will tell IT they need to provide this service. At that point, they can force the CFO and the CEO to sit at the same table and decide whether its more important to provide this piece of hardware or to reduce the IT budget. Now, if IT hadn't locked down the system and employed this practice in the first place, guess what would have happened. The requesting department would go around IT to buy and install the scanner, and IT would have still ended up supporting the thing.

      Again bad IT practise ... think of an IT department run by intelligent IT guys not lazy management types like you're describing.

      Again, you've attributed draconic procedures for gaining web access to laziness. What you are missing is that such decisions rarely come directly from IT, and are instead a direct response to a requirement from the CEO. Just like the previous situation, the issue would have to be escalated. The CEO will either approve, deny, or realize that he needs to change his requirements for IT.

      And again, if there's a valid reason to upgrade office and it's showing up multiple times perhaps IT should either distribute a newer image w/ Office 2003 or perhaps OO.o, alternatively they could just have a copy of Acrobat on the IT network so any incoming Word documents can be sent to them for conversion to something that can be read by the current image.

      Again, somebody has to support this, and most IT budgets are yielding their dollars up to the Marketing budget. Although, I like the idea of a copy of Acrobat because it would then possibly require only one resource within the IT department.

      The problem with locked down networks in my experience happens only when the IT guys are too lazy or stupid to make changes.

      No, most locked down networks happen when the IT department is afraid to make changes. Usually this is because the CEO or CFO puts very heavy restrictions on them. Remember that 80s and 90s buzzword, empowerment? Well, we all laughed back them because we knew it wasn't true. It's obviously not true today either.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    114. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is very well known that it is almost impossible for different versions of Word to coexist. It is equally well known that MS' official line on all software issues is that there is nothing wrong with the software and even if there is, the EULA says that we're not responsible.

    115. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by k12linux · · Score: 1
      Well at least you got a good boss eventually. That alone makes a huge difference dealing with day-to-day issues. It's great to know you'll have backing if you tell a dept. head, "No, we will not do that. I'm sorry. You have to use SSH now instead of telnet. If you need help I can point you to a decent SSH client for your OS."

      Honestly though.. what in the heck was so supposedly inconvienient about using SSH vs Telnet? Just fear of the unknown?

    116. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Normal users don't need root? Maybe you don't get out much. Sure, HR doesn't need Admin rights, but developers and support types actually do need to be able to install software. There are a slew of other IT-relate roles that would be much harder if you can't install or modify the system.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    117. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by meburke · · Score: 1

      As I see it, there are two design flaws at work here: Even though computer spying has been around since the '70's (and maybe before), and even though software and systems designers have known that embedded software would monitor your computer activities, until recently it was not a priority consideration in designing software elements that facilitated computer-to-computer communication. The numerical complexity of interactions in a browser is in the billions, and the only way I can see to limit the complexity is to design in small elements with very well-designed but limited interaction. And I believe this should be addressed in the design phase, not discovered after the major code is written. I have some friends who are on the "Devil's team" at a large oil company. Although they are technically part of the QC operation, they examine all major operations for security holes and try to break it. They insist on UML standards being met, and one of their most fearsome questions is, "What is the state of your system at this point?"

      The other design consideration is the design of the job (what the user is supposed to do). According to Eli Goldratt, MIS only does three things: Scheduling, compliance and "what if". Most MIS functions should be designed to minimize outside interactivity in the first two, and carefully limited in the third. Most of the problems with spyware/malware come from outside MIS where computers are used for production. Since most production is done by people, the jobs should be designed/described to high standards, but there will need to be some flexibility. People have needs outside of their jobs. They need feedback on what and how well they are doing their jobs and need to be pointed back to the standard if they stray too far. (Unless the straying makes good sense, in which case, the standard should be upgraded.)

      What is lacking is feedback on just how spyware/malware gets into the system. I've never had a workstation user get upset if they were made aware of the problem, the scope of the problem, the scope of the solutions and their part in the solution. But I've seen massive resentment when IT lays down policies in a Gestapo-like edict. People will immediately try to find ways around the rules.

      Interestingly enough, I have a customer that distributes ceramic materials internationally, and they actually score their users on how well they keep their tools running. They seem to have very few problems with spyware/malware (except in the Sales department). They have one of the largest collections of informed users I know.

      After the upstream solutions have been designed in, the downstream protection should be evaluated. I've found the free solutions (like Adaware) are slightly less effective than the paid solutions, but users are not aware of the differences and have the same expectations for both. My attitude: If it's important to your operations, then get a good program and keep it updated as close to real-time as possible.

      Something is going to get through anyway. I have increased the logging level on most of the Windows systems to the max, and have been trying to evaluate third-party software that tracks registry access, registry changes, and match them to user activity logs. This allows me to discover (with limited success) where the virus/trojan/spyware came from and what the user was doing at the time. This is not for every installation, but it should be cost-efficient in LANs with a couple of servers and 20+ workstations. BTW, at one customer, the logs are transmitted to a LINUX system drive for added security.

      I haven't found a complete solution yet, but I hope this is useful to others.

      Mike

      --
      "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    118. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by djeshelman · · Score: 1

      I agree- I'd love to be able to do that with my clients- but it's not always possible (politics, etc) to lock down companies with smaller or no support staff on-site. It causes nightmares on a nearly constant basis- some programs still require local administration rights to run (grrr!) and frankly a lot of users don't like being hindered. If you are in the enviable position of being able to tell them "tough!" that's great- but I haven't been in an environment like that in some time :) Now, I can offer some unofficial Kinko's insight- it's all about paranoia. When I last worked with Kinko's (as a field tech) I got the impression that they were stepping up their efforts (though they were still using Windows 2000 and were only four months ago beginning to install OS X). I can't really confirm that the re-imaging process is policy after every guest- the last time I did their re-imaging process it took 3 hours, not 5-10 minutes. But as far as what their administrators are thinking- since I know a few of them, I can 'unofficially' enlighten a bit on this- the delima isn't so much with internet threats so much as it is with keyloggers and other things being installed. Since the scanners, mice, etc that they use are USB- they can't nessisarily lock down USB functions- allowing a good lot of system level access to be possible with the right program. But- my information is a tad out of date- I haven't been in a Kinko's in several months- but the last time I was part of a project built entirely around securing the PCs to disallow physical keyloggers to be installed. Prior to that I was a team lead for the ExpressPay project. I should also mention that I've never worked directly for Kinko's, I've always been a contractor, though I have had a good amount of contact with some very smart people in Dallas. The administrators have the impossible task of keeping functional computers running safely in a difficult-to-secure environment. Now, if only I could convince them to load Firefox in the next CR image...

      --
      I'm the Deej, and I approve this message.
    119. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "Any idiot can lock down windows. It takes someone with more intelligence to actually allow the useful while blocking the harmful. As long as the IT department is large/trained well enough for the number of seats it really shouldn't be a problem."

      How many company's take decide to lock down their computers and networks before realizing the expense of doing so? As you say it is easy (and cheap) to make a system secure, all you need to do is lock the door. It is much more difficult and expensive to introduce a system which can manage change. I think all too many times IT managers are too willing to let upper level management make the mistake of mandating the securing of systems, without realizing the IT costs that will be incurred.

    120. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and going back and forth among them is a sure way to almost-irremediable document corruption.

      This is completely true. "Serious" numbering in Word is completely broken. Word's fine for the occassional numbering chore -- bulleted list, ordered list, or an outline here and there. But if you need to have numbers, and the numbers mean something (such as in a legal or technical document), Word will stick it to ya, every time.

      For an alternative, try Open Office's Master Document and File Versioning features. The Master Document is basically an editable layout template for the whole document. You place individual files in the Master as sequential sections, then set whatever document-wide headers/footers, indices, and TOCs you need.

      People then edit the individual document sections independently. OOo has a File Versioning feature that's built-in, so you never have to save the file under a different name (which means your Master Document layout never gets out of sync.) Each version is marked with a timedate and the name of the author. You can roll forward and back, compare two versions, and do other useful things. Best of all, however, you're NOT editing one gargantuan document, and you're NOT messing up the document-wide styles.

      I've suffered under Word for years and years, and OOo really opened my eyes.

    121. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Bzzzt...wrong!

      Stick another foot in your mouth would you?

      At my office, who ever fucks up takes the blame, NOT the admin. If I want admin rights, and I end up introducing a virus that takes our network down, I'm f'd. Thus I take the rights I need to get my work done. But I am able to define what I need, not you. The only time an IT admin would get shit where I work is if a machine _they_ are responsible for goes down. For example, a server.

      We actively train all our employees how to be safe computer users. We keep people informed. You'd be amazed what kinds of productivity you can gain when people are empowered, and supported in that empowerment.

      --
      No Comment.
    122. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by ananke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you have the power to hire an IT admin, you also have the power to fire this person. You do, right? If so, what's the problem? Hire somebody who will do the job as you would like them to. If not, then you can safely drop the 'I will not hire you' song. Nobody cares, seriously.

      --
      --- d'oh
    123. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by megarich · · Score: 1

      I like that strategy, but what do you do when you have a critical program that needs at least power users set to even run? Finding another program is not an option either. I wish it could be but I don't have that kind of power.

    124. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by megarich · · Score: 1

      is that some sort of weird bug that works out of convenience or is it how its suppose to be?

    125. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by megarich · · Score: 1

      i see some of your point but i don't like your attitude. sure maybe you know some about computers so its ok for you, but if i wanst here along with my other co worker, this company couldnt even function for one day! were just trying to do our job too, and a selfish attitude like you have, on ANYONE'S part, hurts the company more than it does good...... just because I don't make the company money directly, doesnt mean i dont prevent the company from losing money or making as much money as it could. if a server goes down running a client's job, i'm not here to fix it so deadline is missed, the client gets pissed, the company loses some business, has a bad rep now in the eyes of the client and the rest is history.....

    126. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by cwiegand · · Score: 1

      Yes, and when some user clicks "Yes" to the "Do you want to install Gator (or some other program)" in IE, and we have to clean the computer, get your data off (because you didn't save it on the network, did you?), reformat, and then reinstall your apps. Oh, and if it had a virus, then our network is down. So no, if the machines are company owned, then the company gets to decide what you do with it. You can go screw up your home machine all you want.

      (Network Admin of a small company that does occasionally get the ... low-clue content user in as an employee.)

      --
      Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep in a shared include somewhere.
    127. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Also, the latest versions of Spybot have 2 resident utilities for blocking spyware before it gets installed: 1) an "immunize" function that blocks known bad programs from running, and 2) a system monitoring function that requires the user to explicitly authorize modifications to the registry and other system areas. It also takes checkpoints of the registry and system files so you can restore to a known good restart point.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    128. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by growntree · · Score: 1

      The thing about a default install of software on every PC is that if there is a problem with IE or Office, anyone in the support team can fix it. If users are given the access to install alternative software such as Firefox or Wordperfect, everyone on the support team needs to know how to support it when it breaks. It may well be that you know how to configure Firefox (or whatever) to work with all the systems IE would be used for (eg proxy server for internet access), but when other people in your department decide they would prefer to use Firefox as well, will you spend all day configuring them all? Someone will have to and it will probably be dumped on IT to support.

      If a department wants a new piece of software installing, IT has to check that it works with the default software users would have on their PCs (i.e. IE and Office). If users could install whatever they like on their PCs, new software would have to be tested with every piece of software imaginable to avoid IT being blamed because it doesn't work with Netscape because it is designed to run on IE. There are reasons for having standard applications that the whole of the support team can install/configure/fix, rather than having an application (that may be easier to use) that is only known by one support person that happens to be on holiday for two weeks when it breaks. If there is a good case for using a different piece of software then IT really need to know about it before it becomes widespead, so they can have the appropriate training on its use, as it wastes our time and yours having to trawl the internet (or contact the programmers) to figure out how to fix this "unsupported" application.

    129. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by TurboStar · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "This problem is just lazy IT. If they can't take 5 minutes to add an HP scanner then you've got the wrong guys in IT."

      You seem to have a problem with ignorance and stupidity. I'm tired of hearing about lazy IT from the same assholes that think they can install anything on their computer in five minutes and everything will be just fine.

      Here's a clue for you in the scenario of a 5000+ workstation network across several buildings.

      1. User calls IT with need for OCR. Dispatcher enters a ticket. (10 mins)
      2. IT contacts user and says they have a secure and approved solution but the research needs to be finished for OCR. (15 mins)
      3. User says he needs it right away. IT rolls eyes and wonders if user's keyboard is broken. I mean, if it's that important user should be typing and not trying to convince IT his OCR problem is most important. (15 mins)
      4. IT spends an hour with user finding a suitable, though insecure solution. Warns user that $99 OCR is nothing like the full solution they have in the works. (60 mins)
      5. Fill out PO request (and double check everything, because accounting doesn't like mistakes) for HP scanner. (5 mins)
      6. Receiving scanner and dispatching IT installer. (5 mins)
      7. Installation of scanner, including 10 mins walking/travel time. Don't try and play off 5 mins here, you can't even unbox most stuff in less than 5 mins especially with an excited user nipping at your heels. Hell, if you need to reboot that's 5 mins in itself. And yes, many USB devices (especially HP's) seem to need a reboot for some reason. Plus you need to scan at least one page to make sure it works. (30 mins)
      8. Training the end user how to use the scanner and OCR software. Because "IT is here, why should I RTFM?" (30-90 mins)
      9. Documenting the one-off install. (5 mins)
      10. Future support of scanner. Moving, helping new employees with it, repair, etc. (0-999 mins)

      So realistically, we're talking two+ hours of work just for a relatively insecure install. That's more in labor that you can buy most scanners for. If there are firewall ports to unblock for updates or workstation permissions that need to be configured it'll take even longer.

      Running an IT department is not like supporting your Mom's computer she uses for looking up recipes. If things in a business stop working the company loses money and potentially people lose jobs. If your Mom's PC goes down you get mac&cheese for dinner instead of lasagna. Big difference. IT needs to plan on keeping everything working at once, not most things most of the time.

      When you get tired of IT people treating you like crap, stop the attitude and give them the respect they deserve. Maybe then you'll get your needs looked after instead of being tossed into the "he's a little shit" pile.

      -turbo (who runs "four nines" -- trying for five)
    130. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by irg1231491 · · Score: 1

      I agree. One thing that needs to be specified to any user with priveleges to install is that it is not IT's job to support any software that is non-standard. However, that should not prohibit us from using it --- if their is a problem, IT can wipe to a standard install (assuming work-related files are backed up, which they should be anyway) and take away the privileges.

      Of course idiots shouldn't have install permissions on a w2k system -- the problem lies in assuming that everyone's an idiot.

    131. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Robert+The+Coward · · Score: 1

      And you are the reason we have IT hell. Because of software issue we have Windows 98 on most of our stations not likely to be upgraded for a few years. There is no lock down. What do we get for that. Ghost images. We reinstall all the time because users so screw up those stations that they can't be cleaned out anymore they get reinstalled and updated a 2 Hours process. Before we reinstall things like adaware are required to be run before IT gets involded. However I still need to reinstall every system ever month or so just because the build up bad enfoe.

    132. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by nosfucious · · Score: 1

      I can trust everyone one of my users individually. I can't trust them as a group.

      Here's a few words: Legal liability

      Which can be generated by any and all of the following:
      - Unauthorised software installs (Hey Suzi, did you see that new great program my boyfriend downloaded last night. It's right here. Stephanie and Sonia, I can install it for you too!)
      - Sabotage (malicious and accidental) (Lets say Bob in accounts is in debt and gambling. Does he really need access to the new fabrication designs that the nice man in the Casino said he'd pay cash for?)
      - Illegal and/improper usage of materials (warez ftp sites, mp3 repository)
      - Porn (Suzi, did you see what site Bob was surfing. I'm going right to a lawyer and cry 'sexual harassment'. I don't care that it was a link on Slashdot.org)

      Then there's the ever helpful "I know computers too" that for example, installs a rouge DHCP server, mail server and/or WINS server. Also, enables sharing on the PC so that files go the wrong spot. Then he installs printer shares on his PC his little Tommy can make a big poster on the Marketing A1 size plotter.

      My professional arse is on the line here.

      This list is just the beginning ...

      However, it's gross incompetance to ignore legit user requests. There's gotta be a system to get things done. A Helpdesk, Request for Change. If the Admins don't follow it, they should be sacked. If the management ignore it, or don't have one, sack them.

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    133. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another anonymous coward here.
      I am an IT department (not part of it, but the whole thing). After lots of contemplation and frusteration I have decided the only recourse I have is to lock down every new machine that comes in (if I can ever actually get the funding to get new machines for my users).
      The flip side to the lost productivity of lockdowns is the lost productivity of garbled machines that will not run.
      Users also have to realize that the IT admins have a ridiculous workload to handle and that adding to that workload either with lockdown bypass requests or spyware/viruses removal requests is not a cool thing. I regret having to make the lockdown decision, but it will, in the end, increase the productivity of my 700+ users because the uptime of the terminals they rely on will be greater this way.

      For those of you that are not aware there is a company called Faronics that makes a lockdown program that, basically, lets the users do whatever they want, but when they reboot the system is back to the way you had it set. It can, therefore, force users to save their work to the network (which is usually backup while individual workstations are not) as well as prevent malware from sticking to the system. I have been experimenting with it and the only thing I do not like is that on older systems there is no way to get around the "You have not logged onto this computer before, please verify your password" message in windows 98 because the .pwl files are wiped on reboot.

      I hope this information is helpful to someone... especially since I will probably never see any commentary from it... :-)

    134. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Gudlyf · · Score: 1
      "Honestly though.. what in the heck was so supposedly inconvienient about using SSH vs Telnet? Just fear of the unknown?"

      The older folks thought many of our clients wouldn't have SSH clients readlily available for them to use. This was before thumbdrives, mind you, and they didn't want to have to carry a CD or floppy around with them everywhere they went.

      Mostnly everything came with a telnet client, so they wanted telnet access. Later, when I showed people how using RSA keys helped make logging in even easier, it wasn't like pulling teeth to get people to accept SSH.

      --
      Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    135. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by booyah · · Score: 1

      Personally I find it really disturbing that your employed...

      --
      #include sig.h
    136. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that IT guys forget the politics of a corporation.

      If you're going to completely lock down a perfectly good system -- why buy the system? Get a terminal.

      Users migrated from mainframes to desktops for a purpose. Let's not forget the politics of a corporation in our dealings...

    137. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you truly can't do your job because of restrictive policies (note that installing WeatherBug and AIM does not constitute doing your job) then you should explain your situation to your admin, your manager, and your admin's manager. If nothing gets done, then noone thinks you need admin access to do your job. Live with it.

      In the first place, there are departments within most companies where the users really do need admin access. Development shops in particular come to mind: Delphi, Visual Studio, Eclipse or whatever almost certainly are not part of the company standard image (and shouldn't be), and if (Heaven forbid) you're doing ASP development, you probably WILL need to be able to configure, start and stop your local IIS.

      In the second place, believe it or not, there are companies where AIM is required. Yes, that's right, required. Now, as it happens, I hate AIM, and I'd much rather not have it anywhere near my computer -- but, our CTO Commanded from On High that everyone in development, project management and IT operations must install and use AIM. So, yes, it does constitute doing my job.

      I suppose I can (somewhat reluctantly) grant the point, though, that the average worker outside of a development or IT operations group generally doesn't need admin.

    138. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone has a complaint, tough. They go through us if they want to install X program.

      This is fine for normal users (people who do office productivity). I'd bet I'd have you whining within two days running downstairs to set up crap on my developers' machines. Obviously none of those 2000 computers do any development, or you neglected to mention the users that DO have Administrative priveledges. Some people actually need privledges, it's part of their job, luckily for you they are more knowledgable and rarely cause you big problems (unless you try to limit their access).

    139. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1
      Give the user modify privileges on the [Palm] folder. ...

      Are you refering to giving the specific domain user (not a local user) privileges, or does giving privileges to the "Domain user" group supposedly work? So far, I've tried giving "Full control" to the "Domain user" group for the whole Palm directory tree, and also the Chapura directory tree (some users are on the older Palm software, where the Outlook conduits were separated from the main program). As soon as the user is removed from the Administrators group, they're hotsyncs stop talking to Outlook.

    140. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by spir0 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that 99% of customers are complete and utter morons. They install whatever they damn well please, regardless of licenses. Every time an audit happens, who has to pay the fines for all the illegal software? Not the users who have installed them and cracked them to work fully.

      I'm sorry, but even though I'd like to agree with you on principle, experience tells me otherwise. Admins do what they have to do to protect the company. If the higher percentage of users had a clue, maybe more admins would let them have more access.

      Maybe you should target your anger toward the clueless masses of users, not admins. Remember, admins are just doing their jobs. IT Managers get penalised when the network doesn't run smoothly. When the IT Managers get penalised, the admins get penalised.

      --
      The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
    141. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Where did they admit that and what did they say? Can you post a link?

      Satisfactory to whom?

    142. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by shyster · · Score: 1
      In the first place, there are departments within most companies where the users really do need admin access. Development shops in particular come to mind: Delphi, Visual Studio, Eclipse or whatever almost certainly are not part of the company standard image (and shouldn't be), and if (Heaven forbid) you're doing ASP development, you probably WILL need to be able to configure, start and stop your local IIS.

      Visual Studio can be successfully run as a limited user with a smattering of permission changes. I don't know about the other IDEs. Regardless, it's almost a given that developers get admin access to their PC's. It's also almost a given that they'll require a reinstall monthly, so they better learn to use version control!

      In the second place, believe it or not, there are companies where AIM is required. Yes, that's right, required. Now, as it happens, I hate AIM, and I'd much rather not have it anywhere near my computer -- but, our CTO Commanded from On High that everyone in development, project management and IT operations must install and use AIM. So, yes, it does constitute doing my job.

      AC, meet Point. That's him fading off in the distance - you just missed him. If AIM is indeed part of your job, feel free to s/ICQ/AIM.

      I suppose I can (somewhat reluctantly) grant the point, though, that the average worker outside of a development or IT operations group generally doesn't need admin.

      And if an IT guy can't get local admin access to his own PC without my help, then he's not worth his pay. Developers I give a pass to. ;)

    143. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by shyster · · Score: 1
      An IT Admin's job is really to be the liason between technology needed to get work done, and the people that need to do that work.

      And a worker needs to understand that just because they don't understand the reasoning behind a policy, does not mean it's unfair, or the work of Nazis. If you don't work in IT, you have very little understanding of budget concerns, and how it is possible that 3 guys can manage 5,000+ desktops. If you did, you'd know why fitting users into a cookie-cutter is necessary. Every hour an IT tech is dealing with your "special" needs, is an hour he's not doing something company wide. If your needs are truly that different from the rest of the company, then perhaps your department should hire it's own IT staff. Or compensate the IT department for your monopolization of their resources.

    144. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by shyster · · Score: 1
      An IT Admin's job is really to be the liason between technology needed to get work done, and the people that need to do that work.

      Yeah...cause those business guys really drive to Kinko's in the middle of the night and spend $1.50+/minute so they can look at Flash ads and talk with a couple of teenagers on AIM. You really understand the market, don't you?

      Just as an example of when I've used a Kinko's PC. I've downloaded and installed OpenOffice because they did not have a PDF printer. I've often used Putty (requires no installation) to SSH to my home server. Or TightVNC to do the same.

      On Win2000 Kinko's, I need to install Remote Desktop Client - which requires Admin privileges. I've installed .NET SDK, so that I could debug, fix and rebuild an app that I needed the next day. I once bought an external modem at Wal-Mart, hooked it into a Kinko's PC, and commandeered a phone line to dial into a remote network.

      Yeah. If Kinko's didn't let me have admin access, I think I'd start carrying my laptop more often. ;)

      Disclaimer: Not all of the above actually happened at Kinko's. Some were at Mailboxes Etc., or local copy centers with PC rentals. But, the anecdotes are to illustrate the point that Kinko's, and others, would be shooting themselves in the foot if they limited access.

    145. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by paulevans · · Score: 1

      This is what I did: Add the specific user to the local admin group. log in as that user install all of the palm software remove the user from the local admin group add the user to the ACL with modifiy rights on the PALM directory. This has worked fine for me. Make sure that your ACL's are getting inherited down, that'd cause some trouble.

      --
      "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." --leonstryker
    146. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by paulevans · · Score: 1

      And here is a good reason to use the "Preview button" as the website states: (USE THE PREVIEW BUTTON!) Please insert your own puncuation into the bad post above.

      --
      "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." --leonstryker
    147. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Geekbot · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? There's no point in laying the blame at IT for your problems. Opening up all the computers leaves IT supporting dozens to hundreds if not thousands of computers running various combinations of untested software/hardware. Not to mention the threat of BSA liability. And what about malware damaging the computer setup, or even worse, attacking the network. What if a program causes network problems or damages a database? There are reasons why the IT dept of any large company takes reasonable precautions about what software and hardware is used. Those include less problems for the users and a more secure system.
      IT staff have the same problems as any other staff. Typically overworked and asked to do more with fewer resources. They are not going to be there to solve your problems if they have to troubleshoot or install nonstandard equipment/software throughout the userbase. Let's face it, if you want more IT, you need to go to the suits to give IT more money. Isn't that true of getting resources for anything? A company isn't going to give you more IT any more than it will give you anything else unless you make your case for how it will save/make them money.
      You say that IT admins jobs are not to cause themselves the least hassle? When the company spends a lot of money for every IT person, it is absolutely their job to find ways to reduce the load on the IT department. And you can put money on it that they are reminded of that very frequently.

    148. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by JutMan · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with this. We have Webroot working in a 450 node environment. The updates for the console and client are completely seamless with notification in the event of application error. The rollout was done thru SMS. Active scanning workd OK but the scheduled full pc scan is what catches the nasties. I also tested the Lavasoft product and was no impressed. After running Ad-aware then spybot the webroot still picked up more. Something is to be said about a product that does not have a "free" version.

    149. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by SagaLore · · Score: 1

      "This problem is just lazy IT. If they can't take 5 minutes to add an HP scanner then you've got the wrong guys in IT." 500 users, 20 locations, each office about 1 1/2 drive from each other. Only 8 IT Staff. How do you propose we "take 5 minutes" to add an HP scanner? About a dozen different departments, each requiring a different set of software. One department in particular has about 6 different packages. They are all updated at least once a year, one of them is updated every month. Often the user is at a client site connected via dialup or vpn. The updates are time-critical. How do you propose we keep everything updated properly and on time without giving the users full permissions to their local drives? There are a lot of narrow-minded people giving answers here... No solution or IT method is 100% applicable to every network scenario. Some colleges just reimage or use a washing product every night. Some companies use terminal services or citrix for everything. Some companies don't use Microsoft at all. The REAL problem is not lazy IT. It is a limited IT budget, limited IT staff, and an ever changing environment - user needs, software updates, and even windows hotfixes. If our company tried your method, it would take us a year to contact all of the vendors, make the perfect image, reimage everyone's machines after backing up their data - wow, the perfect network - then oops, time to upgrade to Windows NT 6.2 because MS no longer supports XP.

    150. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I don't know all the details as it was several years ago. I do remember him saying that everyone back in the enviromental test labs had the same problem.

    151. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      Our job is not to help you be more productive in your job. It's to help the company be more productive. You're just a tiny little part of the equation.

      Your job is also a tiny little part of the equation. And your job shouldn't be to stop us from doing our job.

      Working as a programmer in several software shops, where the software we sold *was* our income, I've seen your type. You keep us from getting our job done.

    152. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      Shut the fuck up. It's not your computer and you have no say in its administration.

      You sound like a very unprofessional, low level flunky. It isn't your machine, either. Your are some schmoe on the low end of the IT support department, spending most of your time setting up a new machine, installing software, and swapping out bad CD drives or memory to replace whatever died.

    153. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by shyster · · Score: 1
      Your job is also a tiny little part of the equation. And your job shouldn't be to stop us from doing our job.

      You're right - my job is a tiny part of the equation. Of course, when it comes to ensuring the security of the network; the continuing operation of the network, servers, and desktops; enforcement of security and acceptable use policies; etc., then that's my part of the equation. Conversely, I don't expect you to take too seriously my advice on programming - that's not my field.

      Working as a programmer in several software shops, where the software we sold *was* our income, I've seen your type. You keep us from getting our job done.

      And your type* tries to keep me from getting my job done.

      *I'm generalizing users who think that IT exists solely to serve them, and can't grasp the concept that the IT department should make IT related decisions - not the Marketing, Purchasing, or Software Development department.

    154. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this approach is that spyware authors are already catching on. They are starting to design their programs to install under the user's home directory, and only configure themselves to start automatically for this one user. They might not get control of the entire PC, but that doesn't stop them from logging keystrokes.

    155. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just looking for some admins to to some actual work instead of just sitting their butts in meetings talking about future work.

    156. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Glamdrlng · · Score: 1
      You sound like a very unprofessional, low level flunky. It isn't your machine, either. Your are some schmoe on the low end of the IT support department, spending most of your time setting up a new machine, installing software, and swapping out bad CD drives or memory to replace whatever died.
      Nope, just a very opinionated security analyst. I am on the low end of the IT chain I guess, I mean I only handle firewall administration, antivirus, intrusion detection/prevention, patch management, wireless security, rogue AP detection, auditing, and security policy enforcement/investigation. Oh, and I also handle spam blocking too. My network hasn't had a major incident in over a year. It may not be my computer, but it is my ass on the line if a security incident threatens the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of my organization's information resources.

      I'm more professional and user-friendly when I deal with my customers/co-workers, but not by much. I deal with people like you and the parent poster on a regular basis, and they/you tend to have a few traits in common. They're all impatient, and they all have inflated opinions of their technical knowledge and their worth to the organization. Ask yourself which is worse: you being inconvenienced and therefore semi-productive for a few hours to a few days, or an incident that leaves you and your 2000 coworkers non-productive for a few hours to a day? There is no security measure that doesn't in some way inconvenience users, and someone always bitches. But people like you bitch about security emasures, then they bitch even more when a worm knocks your entire network offline.

      Bottom line, if you're not responsible for the security and uptime of your network, you have an obligation to comply with the policies of the people who are. Deal with it.
      --

      Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
    157. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by svallarian · · Score: 1

      Your wife is a lawyer and uses word instead of the lawyer industry standard wordperfect??

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
    158. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Excen · · Score: 0

      I found out I got my system reineffective just from watching a mpeg of porn.

      . . . and that's the closest a /.er has ever gotten to getting an STD.

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    159. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • I wonder how much productivity you lock-'em-down admins are costing the economy as a whole. ... Your job is to help us users be more productive in doing our job, it isn't to cause you the least hassle.
      We don't cause user productivity to go down with policies that don't allow users admin access. In fact, when you really get down to the nitty-gritty, we increase user productivity. You're forgetting/ignoring one very important thing -- your system is stable, it doesn't get slowed down from spyware/adware/viruses/etc. It doesn't crash repeatedly because of damage done by viruses and worms, or even just botched installs/uninstalls. It doesn't popup so many windows when you open IE that the system crashes. It runs great, and you can use it all day long without waiting for us to fix the problems you (or others) have caused it.

      You probably won't believe that but I've seen proof of it myself. At one place I worked all employees had admin access when I arrived. As we upgraded systems from Windows 95/98 to Windows 2000 we also migrated to a Windows domain and login system where employees only had domain user privledges. Before the upgrade I had to go clean a virus off of both the secretary's computers at least once a week. Their systems weren't exactly stable either, what with all the infections and cleaning cycles. Unsurprisingly they were not thrilled with losing admin acess on the new systems, but we made it as painless as possible. We even went as far to let them have Webshots. It took a bit of testing but we made it work with non-admin priveledges.

      After a few months they realized that they were much more productive. Their systems didn't crash regularly (in fact they stayed up for weeks at a time without being rebooted), they got no more viruses, and they got more work done.

      So yes it's IT/IS's job to make sure the users are as productive as possible, but giving you admin access isn't the way to achieve that.

      And frankly I seriously doubt you have that many emergency software needs. At best you might need some software installed once every three months, but I've found that most users need additional software about twice a year at most. Most don't need any at all for years at a time.

      • You wanna know something? LAN administration isn't the most important part of a company, you aren't making the company any money.
      Perhaps it doesn't make money but shall we shutdown the network and see how much work you can get done? Need to print a document? Oops, the network's down so you can't reach the printers to send the job. Need to access a company database? Oops, the network's down, you can't get to it. Need to look up some information on a project? Well hope you have it all filed away to dig through, cause the network's down. You are vastly underestimating the importance of the LAN to businesses nowadays. When that network goes down, for whatever reason, work grinds to a halt company-wide. Until it's back up almost no work gets done. Every minute the company's losing tons of money because they're paying people to sit and stare at their computer instead of working on them. So the next time your feel the need to bitch about IT, remember that they don't have these policies just to make your life miserable. They're there to make sure you can do your job and be productive.

      Of course in your case, as whiny and bitchy as you come across, they probably ARE out to make your life miserable, just to get even for you making theirs miserable. There's three groups of people it's dangerous to piss off in any company. 1) the secretaries, 2) the janitors, and 3) the IT/IS folks. All of them can make your life very miserable very fast. Pissing off all three's probably akin to suicide.

    160. Re:Webroot Spy Sweeper Enterprise and Lavasoft too by Clemensa · · Score: 1

      I work for a company where the bosses want "free Internet access for all". They are uninformed of the risks which is why they have chosen this route. Trying to educate them is pointless as they have made their decision and they don't want to listen - even though our entire network has come down a couple of times due to people opening up attachements in hotmail. Sometimes, you know what the ideal is, however achieving it is nearly impossible when you can't make the people who "matter" listen.

  2. you mean... by maxdamage · · Score: 5, Informative

    besides freezing them?

    1. Re:you mean... by Paralizer · · Score: 1

      I recommend DeepFreeze only as an absolute last resort for business environments.
      It becomes more work than its probably worth to update critical system applications and security patches, as well as creating an aggravating environment for the user.
      A user may require a 3rd party application, in which case they will need to contact the administrator to come and install it for them, which can potentially slow productivity by a significant margin.

      I recommend Norton Ghost http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/ghost_personal/ instead. Ghost will create a "copy" of the harddrive to a disk, and you can use it to revert back at a later time. This solution allows users to install whatever they may need, as well as ease your headache for installing those pesky updates. Revert back machines on regular intervals, or whenever a serious problem arises. This solution also lets you setup a single machine (assuming they are all the same) and use that Ghost image to update all the others -- very handy utility.

  3. Easy solution by IoN_PuLse · · Score: 1, Informative

    Use FireFox instead of Internet Explorer. www.mozilla.org

    1. Re:Easy solution by coolsva · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Noble as your intentions are in spreading the word, Firefox will NOT solve the spyware/adware problems. Much of these malware re installed by the user implicitly by installing other shareware/freeware products. It just so happens that the IE monoculture is making these malware authors to target IE for some of their scripts (to automatically install). Once Firefox reaches a critical mass, it will too have these problems. Remember, malware along with spam is a socual problem, not a technological one, so the solution is also social. for

    2. Re:Easy solution by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 4, Informative

      Use FireFox instead of Internet Explorer. www.mozilla.org

      Though this is a quick way to get a "+5 Informative", it is not a valid solution to most Adware/Spyware/Malware exploits. The majority of this software is installed as part of another application. For instance, the notorious "Internet Optimizer" and "Gator". Running FireFox does nothing to stop an ignorant user from falling for a snappy ad and installing something bad on their workstation.

      I'm not defending IE, I'm just pointing out how it does not apply in this particular case and Mozilla will, by no means, be the end all of web-related tragedies.

    3. Re:Easy solution by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1, Informative

      I am running IE and FireFox (using both). Tonight I run AdAware to find spyware in FireFox and not in IE. The more people use Firefox the more Firefox spywhere there will be. Switching to Firefox does not solve the problem in thed long run.

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    4. Re:Easy solution by garbletext · · Score: 1
      Once Firefox reaches a critical mass, it will too have these problems.


      As of 1.0PR, firefox will only install software from update.mozilla.org. Also, even if malware authors find a way to circumvent this, firefox has an active development team, and is actually devoted to fixing these kind of problems. I believe the next version of IE won't even be available to users of any windows' but XP.
    5. Re:Easy solution by JaseOne · · Score: 1

      Why is a normal user allowed to install programs in the first place?

    6. Re:Easy solution by mrmagos · · Score: 5, Insightful
      As the security administrator of a small liberal arts college, this switch has probably made the largest impact on desktop support issues. Unfortunately, you can't fully remove IE, but removing shortcuts seems to be good enough to prevent most end users from using it. The other consideration is that many sites use IE-specific extensions, which breaks how Firefox renders the page. For example, we use Exchange with the Outlook web client for student email access and web access. The client is useable with Firefox, but some features, like the check name applet, does not work. A desktop url opened in IE is our workaround... I guess my point is that you really need to review which web apps and sites your users want to access to truly weigh the pros and cons. In our case, the benefits were greater, and we made the transition as gracefully as possible. I know the parent means well, but sometimes the solution isn't that easy.

      --
      Never start vast projects with half-vast ideas.
    7. Re:Easy solution by lessthanjakejohn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean you found more cookies in Firefox because you use it more often?

    8. Re:Easy solution by Em+Ellel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why is a normal user allowed to install programs in the first place?

      Because that computer thing is meant to be USEFUL

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    9. Re:Easy solution by IoN_PuLse · · Score: 1

      It's called better design. What are you talking about, "find spyware in FireFox"? That sentance doesn't make any sense. IE's design is it's flaw, and spyware writers have been able to exploit it. Firefox has a much better design, and has been and will actively address issues as they arise. It will be much harder to write spyware that you will get through IE for Firefox.

    10. Re:Easy solution by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      On top of the other comments that tell you "Firefox won't stop users from downloading and installing other programs," one of the problems that the original poster mentioned was that he has to deploy it over a large network. last I heard, Firefox, while wonderful for most users, still is a bit more difficult to deploy across the whole network.

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    11. Re:Easy solution by drumist · · Score: 2, Funny

      You found spyware in Firefox? Maybe you shouldn't have installed that Firefox fr3E v|4GRa extension...

    12. Re:Easy solution by Frogbert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes actualy it does. You see 9 out of 10 "Your computer is not optimised" ads are popups. Therefore Mozilla does a lot for it.

      There are however more issues then this. For example firefox's cache is stored in the wrong directory in your user profile so if you have the standard 50 meg cache and log onto another computer you have to wait whilst it copies across.

    13. Re:Easy solution by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      Because that computer thing is meant to be USEFUL


      What he's saying is that a system administrator is supposed to install software, not end users. These aren't Windows95 boxes at your home, these are powerful business computing devices running Windows XP Professional.

    14. Re:Easy solution by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am so sick of hearing that "once [fill in the blank] reaches critical mass, it will have the same problems." That sidesteps the issue of design, as though all designs are created equal. This viewpoint only works if you view your computer as a magic (black) box with no discernable internal structure or parts.

      Methinks it says much more about the people who utter the phrase than it does about the systems they suggest are inherently equal.

    15. Re:Easy solution by carboncopy79 · · Score: 0

      Don't use Windoze! Even RealPlayer and such programs comes with annoyance wear if not spywear. All the programs want to put themself to start on boot-up. What the hack!

    16. Re:Easy solution by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Funny

      But it's true. Apache eventually won out over IIS, and what happened? 10 apache worms a week, every week for the past 2 years. And don't even get me started on the local exploits. Apache, the worst httpd ever!

      Oh wait. Never mind.

    17. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does it magically prevent people from downloading "The Cute Puppy Screensaver" complete with free URL tracking and home page replacing features?

      Now, no doubt, someone out there is saying "Yeah, just educate the users, and smack them hard when they do it." Good luck on your first round of job interviews once you get out of college, kiddo. Aside from those clueless users needing smacking quite often being your boss, or at least more likely to be on a first name friendly basis with oh, say the CIO or VP in charge of finance, when the spyware becomes an issue, it will be YOUR head on the chopping block if there isn't a "solution" from the IT department. After all, in most people's minds, the computers are YOUR responsibility, not Martha, the chatty legal assistant who likes to coupon collect and shop using "Super PiggySaver" during her lunch break.

      So, by all means, educate users in proper computer use, post acceptable use policies, push for a more secure browser deployment, lock down the computers security policy to prevent as much as possible a user from installing random crap, but also prepare to install what tools you can to correct and deal with problems after they occur.

      And, BTW, in the right (wrong) hands, even Firefox can be used to so load down a computer with crapware and spyware that it doesn't have a spare cycle to do any real work.

      Now, if you don't mind, I just got an urgent support ticket from Martha to attend to.

    18. Re:Easy solution by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      Personally, I would allow the users to use IE and subscribe to an intrusion prevention service for the school. There are a number of companies offering such services, and most offer services which will recognize and block the suspect exploits before reaching your student's browser.

      This allows for compatibility and less worry regarding application level security on your systems.

      If you have a lot of time on your hands, you could run the dev release of snort and do it yourself, but if things get out of hand the professional services are there.

    19. Re:Easy solution by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      this is great except when everyone upgrades their AIM and gets all the spyware that comes bundled with that. or installs some other free software and gets spyware with that. and if people don't like their popups being blocked, they'll get that turned off and get spyware that way as well. sorry to say, but firefox alone can't do it. it's also not easy to get 2000 people to switch from IE to firefox and be happy about it. won't happen. sorry.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    20. Re:Easy solution by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2, Informative
      Our library moved to firefox with similar positive results. In regard to a mail server, our university uses squirrelmail, which is
      a standards-based webmail package written in PHP4. It includes built-in pure PHP support for the IMAP and SMTP protocols, and all pages render in pure HTML 4.0 (with no JavaScript required) for maximum compatibility across browsers. It has very few requirements and is very easy to configure and install. SquirrelMail has all the functionality you would want from an email client, including strong MIME support, address books, and folder manipulation.
    21. Re:Easy solution by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      Most ad/spyware has been installing automagically through IE.

      Everyone I know who uses IE has been infected by spyware/adware.
      This includes competent programmers and techs.

      No one I know who uses Mozilla has been infected.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    22. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows is smart enough to stop non-administrators from running "install.exe" or "setup.exe". The problem is that you can always "install" software just by copying it to any writable part of the hard drive. (Even complex software like MS Office installs this way on the Mac).

      See the other answer about Software Restriction Policy, which restricts program execution based on hashes.

    23. Re:Easy solution by insomnyuk · · Score: 1

      Update to a newer version of OWA. Our school uses Outlook Web Access and we have all the functionality, including check names, its just a little more tedious via FireFox.

    24. Re:Easy solution by mentin · · Score: 1
      I've filed a Mozilla bug three years ago about Mozilla saving internet cache in Application Data folder, instead of Local Settings\Application Data folder. This makes it absolutely impractical to install Mozilla on large office network using Roaming Profiles, since the cache (tens of MBs) is copied over network on every logon/logoff. There are couple of dozens of duplicates, and dozen comments like "I wanted to install Mozilla in my N-thousand office, but this bug does not let me."

      The bug is still active. So I agree with you - Mozilla is hard to use in large office network.

      --
      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
    25. Re:Easy solution by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And, BTW, in the right (wrong) hands, even Firefox can be used to so load down a computer with crapware and spyware that it doesn't have a spare cycle to do any real work.
      Just try downloading a pdf in firefox from a slashdotted site - the browser just locks up solid for minutes.

      You also still have to exit and restart the browser every few days as it tends to get sluggish after a while.

    26. Re:Easy solution by kaaona · · Score: 1

      Actually using Mozilla (and probably Firefox) instead of IE can be a partial solution. After an AdAware SE session I wrote down all the sites that set tracking cookies and added them to Mozilla's list of sites not allowed to store cookies. Now more than a month later my AdAware scans still come up clean. Try doing that with IE.

    27. Re:Easy solution by Alien_Phreak · · Score: 1

      not sure about macs.. but i have a windows network with XP machines.. the only thing a user can write to is their Local Profile.

      They can't modify the registery or run any program that alters files it shouldn't. Hence it's secure.. unless the user needs to run some 3rd party junky app written for win95 which doesn't understand user rights and demands Adminis. privelages, hence circumventing the whole security policy...... that's where deep freeze comes in.

    28. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot possibly be that naive. Your anecdote does nothing for the fact that moz will be compromised someday, and you will have a bitch of a time cleaning it up later on when you have to go back and clean up the mess that this malware will create. I am afraid that the only solution for problems like this in most office environments is simply to restrict internet access to a whitelisted set of sites. If someone needs to go somewhere badly enough, they will bitch about it loud enough to get there in due time. My god I get sick of the zealots saying that firefox is the solution to every problem. Hell, I love mozilla (except for t-bird on OSX), but it is not the end-all, be-all that you people make it out to be. It's like thinking the rhythm method works. Nobody in my small circle of friends has ever become pregnant while using it, but it will fail one of them one day.

    29. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      You mean tracking cookies. Cookies allow you to be tracked by design, it's a "feature" of the Internet, not a bug. Of course, you can always change your cookie settings if you want to restrict sites' ability to do this (like only allowing same-domain cookies by default). This isn't spyware, though most spyware detection programs also detect commonly used tracking cookies - in some cases they even overzealously flag cookies for removal that are probably fine.


      In any case, this has nothing to do with IE or Firefox, the number of cookies you've accumulated is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend using that browser and which sites you go to with it, assuming both browsers are set with the default cookie settings.


      Firefox has had a couple attempts to write malicious XPI malware for it, equivalent to the reams of malicious ActiveX objects out there. Of course, you still had to agree to install it, unlike many of the ActiveX exploits over the years that have allowed spyware to self-install without your permission (no, this shouldn't happen if you have SP2 or the equivalent set of Windows Update security patches for IE6, but many people don't).


      However, the Firefox devs have rapidly moved to squelch this, and with Firefox 1.0PR (or maybe even 0.9x), XPI installation is turned off by default for all but Mozilla's own domains now. You get a small message across the top of the browser window, and have to go through several clicks to activate XPI installation for a domain, THEN approve the installation of the XPI, so no unexpected XPI malware popups anymore (these were most notoriously on astalavista.box.sk, but probably other sites as well).


      In short, for the time being at least, barring complete user stupidity which is entirely "cross-browser", Firefox is far more secure than IE, and there isn't even the possibility of accidentally approving a spyware/malware popup request anymore. If you still get spyware on your computer and use Firefox, it's almost certainly from an app you download. Incidentally, I just run Ad-Aware for the first time in probably 8 months on this PC, and it found absolutely nothing but a bunch of cookies - probably because I never use IE unless I'm going to a site that requires it and that I trust, and because I'm fairly saavy about where I download stuff from and what I run on my PC.

    30. Re:Easy solution by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      You mean you found more cookies in Firefox because you use it more often?

      Surely you got to be kidding.

      If you cannot tell a difference between a cookie and actual spyware you should not be posting here. This was some sort of a browser plugin I never heard of (can check what the name of it was) and I did not install anything so I am guessing this went through a website and found some way around the security in mozilla. Furthermore I have Spybot's Resident software running and it did not catch it.

      -Em

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    31. Re:Easy solution by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      Better or not it was there, executable plugin, and was downloaded via Firefox without my conscent. Yes, I know that Slashdot policy is "if it is Microsoft blame the company if it is Linux/OSS blame the user". Does not make it always right.

      -Em

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    32. Re:Easy solution by IoN_PuLse · · Score: 1

      Where is your proof? What version of Firefox? Have you reported this to the FF developers?

    33. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're confused by the terminology: "Personal" Computer. I guess they ain't so "Personal" anymore huh? Time for a name?

    34. Re:Easy solution by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      NO NOT COOKIES.

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    35. Re:Easy solution by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

      You should try dealing with some of the finance software here in Australia.

      Some of them write put dll and ini files in system32, some in their app dir. We recently even stopped using one that was a DOS application as it wasn't needed by us for up-to-date information - but it is still sold.

      Others will happily write dll's over the top of older ones, even after we've told the company that this happens, the next release wll still break our systems, and have to be re-done manually. *cough* Cafe software from Commonwealth Bank *cough*

      Then there is their web sites that the firewall blocks because their web-programmers couldn't be bothered writing sites that adhere to http related rfc's.

    36. Re:Easy solution by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Install ad-blocker and them ads are no longer avaible to do it.. so yes, yes it is a cure.

      --
      I like muppets.
    37. Re:Easy solution by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      Where is your proof? What version of Firefox? Have you reported this to the FF developers?

      Proof: None other than what Ad-Aware picked up. I happily clicked on delete and that was it. I do not even remember the name of it, just noticed it was an executable and under firefox plugin directory. I found it to be odd enough to note, but not a big deal.

      Version: 0.9.3

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    38. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you're not talking out of your ass. Not that Firefox is perfect, but just what was this "plugin" that was installed without your knowledge?

    39. Re:Easy solution by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      What he's saying is that a system administrator is supposed to install software, not end users. These aren't Windows95 boxes at your home, these are powerful business computing devices running Windows XP Professional.

      Point taken.

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    40. Re:Easy solution by Spoing · · Score: 1
        1. Why is a normal user allowed to install programs in the first place?

        Because that computer thing is meant to be USEFUL

      ERROR: Infinite recursive loop detected!
      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    41. Re:Easy solution by CamMac · · Score: 1

      I recently came from a job where the IT manager and his single lacky had to manage several hundered computers. Each of which had its own use and software requirments. And of course, all of us where banned from Admin access. Longstory short, IT was completely unable to support us, the users. It was not a minor issue, it was so bad that several of us would bring in our personal laptops to get the job done.

      The solution, one that took us a year to convicne the headshed to implement, was that one or two people from each section was given adminstrator access and was responcible for his sections computers. Of course there where problems, but a broken system that could be used is alot better than a pristine system that noone could use.

      Remeber, a systems admins jobs is to keep his system usable. Your network is not a garden to maintaned in a pristine condition.

      --Cam

      --
      All jocks think about is sports. All nerds think about is sex.
    42. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it up, dude, you're a moron.

    43. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use Mac OS X. That's what our office does and I (the sysadmin) never have to deal with any (malware / spyware) issues.

      Dollars to donuts, it's the easiest solution.

    44. Re:Easy solution by will_die · · Score: 1

      What you probably found were cookies, not actual software packages.
      Go into the options menu, under privacy/cookies add thoses cookie address to places that you do allow cookies from and problem solved.

    45. Re:Easy solution by eztiger · · Score: 1

      This is possible (we do it here at my place with around 250 2k machines).

      With a bit of diddling with the registry.dat and user and prefs.js files you can manually force Mozilla (and by proxy I imagine firefox or thunderbird) to look anywhere for user preferences (including cache).

      In our case we point it at the users home directory (mounted under windows as h:\) so all their mozilla stuff is contained in h:\mozilla.

      A couple of domain login scripts / policy edits to make sure certain files are never changed / are copied into new users directorys automagically and you're off.

      I have to give credit to my work mate here who forced me to look into it with him as it turned out to be fairly easy (maybe ~1 day to implement then another week or so of trying to make it break) but the results have been flawless.

      Best bit? if their home drive isn't mounted or there are some other random problems with their mozilla profile we've locked the 'manage profiles' applet down so they can't make their own broken profile or copy their existing one to god knows where.

      Spend a little time on google and it will be worth your while.

      Of course you may already know this and purely be making the point that this should be possible out the box as it were, rather thean hex editing mozilla binary files...which I agree with. But just in case you don't I thought I should speak up!

      Kev

    46. Re:Easy solution by Svennig · · Score: 1

      Yes, but its a fair point, no? I don't have numbers to hand, but I'd imagine that if you looked at the security exploits in the Firefox source code over time, more are being found now than before due to the greater interest in the software? The design of a software product will not save you - coders are human beings and they make mistakes. Thats true of OSS and MS coders. However, it is certainly true that spyware/adware/malware authors can currently spend 99% of their time looking for exploits in IE. Thats due to its prominence (Its still the leader in usage terms and you know it) and its vulnerability. But suppose that IE died tomorrow and Firefox replaced it. Now all the spyware/adware/malware kiddies spend 99% of their time looking at Firefox. Do they find as many bugs? Probably not. But do they find them? Yep! Clean room programming doesnt work, XP was invented to get round this. A particular design won't save you from bugs, it will only assist you in solving them when they're found. Now THIS is where OSS should have a major advantage - the speed of response to major vulnerabilities in code. However, given the number of security vulnerabilities we've seen Mozilla.org sit on in recent months, they need to get their act together. To say that a design is different and will save you from youself is wrong.

    47. Re:Easy solution by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, the fact that, if you have enough clue to know that Mozilla/Firefox even EXIST, odds are good that you have enough clue to know that kazaa, bonzaibuddy, weatherbug, et al... are scumware and shouldn't be installed.

    48. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a VERY easy solution...install Linux :-)

    49. Re:Easy solution by wobblie · · Score: 1

      set the cache to "0" and use a proxy. Problem solved.

      I agree somewhat; but then the real problem is that windows is such that the whole profile needs to get copied across, which is the heart of the problem, right? In unix, the entire $HOME is mounted remotely, completely transparent to the user. This is better design.

    50. Re:Easy solution by BroadwayBlue · · Score: 1

      I found Adobe Reader SpeedUp located at http://www.tnk-bootblock.co.uk/prods/misc/ to help with the slow PDF load issue. It's a bridge until FireFox is fixed; I didn't have a problem with 0.8 loading PDFs.

    51. Re:Easy solution by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but it appears to be Windows software (from looking at the parent directory).

    52. Re:Easy solution by Glamdrlng · · Score: 1

      There are two major problems with Firefox. The first is introperability: Let's face it, there's a lot of crap out there that we have to support that doesn't run on Firefox. Second, Firefox isn't read for enterprise management yet. IE can be configured via group policy and it can be quickly patched via SMS or SUS. How do I patch 2000 machines for a firefox vulnerability overnight with no user interaction?

      --

      Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
    53. Re:Easy solution by KaiserZoze_860 · · Score: 1

      Simple firefox solution for the time being... "View in IE" addon. It adds an item to the right-click menu that says "view this page in IE" which basically does what it says. All desktop references and startmenu IE links have been removed.

      Granted, we will not be IE-free until people get off of their @#$%@#$ and write compliant code instead of proprietary.

      -KS

    54. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just try downloading a pdf in firefox from a slashdotted site - the browser just locks up solid for minutes.
      Moziulla's built-in Download Manager sucks.
      (Under Windoze) I cured this by installing the DownloadWith plug-in and using my GetRight download manager.
      Handing off the operation prevents things from stalling.

      gewg_

    55. Re:Easy solution by josath · · Score: 1

      It is possible to remove Internet Explorer, using third party tools, like XPLite for windows xp:
      http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html
      I personally haven't removed IE, but i've used it to clean out other cruft thats not needed, to slim up the win xp install on my gf's computer.

      --
      sig? uhh, umm, ok
    56. Re:Easy solution by AlbertMarty · · Score: 1

      I've found enabling IE's content advisor at particular levels effectively disables it. OWA can then be granted through the trusted sites controls.

  4. Had to be said... by stevens · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    1. Re:Had to be said... by wrinkledshirt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it does have to be said from time to time. If the problem is a big enough priority, maybe the solution needs to be a bit creative?

      I understand it's not a realistic option for everybody to switch OSes. Just something people might want to keep at the back of their mind, in case this month the problem is AdWare/Spyware, last month the problem was Viruses and Worms, the month before the problem was about software costs, etc.

      --

      --------
      Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...

    2. Re:Had to be said... by SonicBurst · · Score: 1

      See critical mass argument above; also see argument above about how most mal-ware still requires user intervention to install. Put the 2 together and you'll have the same problem no matter the OS.

      --

      Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
    3. Re:Had to be said... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So, the mere possibility of having problems with Linux in the mysterious future is enough of an argument to continue to put up with having problems with Windows now?

      Howzabout you come up with a better excuse, hmm?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Had to be said... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      The critical mass arguement is a strawman arguement. Educating users is a real solution. 50% isn't a passing grade, though, especially when your conclusion drops you down to 1 out of 3 :-)

    5. Re:Had to be said... by senatorpjt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that Microsoft still hasn't gotten around to making the system usable without running it as Adminstrator. Even if it does get to the point where there is spyware, it can't do nearly as much if it can't read/write anywhere to the drive that it wants.

  5. Don't let'em in. by gustgr · · Score: 2, Informative

    What about blocking or filtering the spywares and adwares at your proxy? If it don't get into the network, it will not affect your computers.

    1. Re:Don't let'em in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a good way to block them from entering the network? I'm looking for a good solution for this.

    2. Re:Don't let'em in. by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only half the solution - inevitably, someone will run across a new breed of spyware that the proxy doesn't yet catch. At that point, you need spyware protection on people's computers as well, so that it can be exterminated once the adware database is updated.

      Yes, you could also filter outgoing packages, neatly making the spyware/adware useless, but I've seen spyware that killed a computer's internet connection if it couldn't communicate with its home system (on a user's computer in college, which was a problem since they had to authorize their computer - on a webpage - before they could connect to the outside world.)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    3. Re:Don't let'em in. by gustgr · · Score: 2, Informative

      You may try to filter/block with squid. Try this sites:

      http://www.squid-cache.org/related-software.html

      http://sites.inka.de/sites/bigred/devel/squid-filt er.html

      There is a proxy called Privoxy with some advanced filtering capabilities.

    4. Re:Don't let'em in. by hsidhu · · Score: 2, Informative
      has been before and will say it again a community based /etc/hosts file such as this one work for me. No need to communicate with people that peddle crap.

      Just ignore the crap out there.

  6. Re:It's so EASY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU FAIL IT in large deployments!!!

  7. the newer AV's do by Nate+Fox · · Score: 4, Informative

    I usually dont reccomend upgrading antivirus programs to my clients, but the latest round of 2005 versions basically have adware in with their virus defs. Not sure about the corporate level stuff, but almost all the major consumer AVs do.

    1. Re:the newer AV's do by IoN_PuLse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And it's not very good. The open-source antivirus for windows (Clamwin) seems to detect more viruses and mal/spyware for me, recently.

    2. Re:the newer AV's do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      McAfee Viruscan Enterprise 7.x and 8.0 have features that allow you to block potentially unwanted programs as well as joke programs. This and their E Policy Orchestrator is all I use for my Windows Workstations on my Network.

    3. Re:the newer AV's do by theboyhope · · Score: 1

      Why does this have a zero score? VirusScan Enterprise 8.0/EPO *does* have a new unwanted programs policy. Updates come with the DAT files (just as the virus signatures do) but you can define or exclude your own. It obviously doesn't get everything -- hey, what does? -- but it's a vast improvement on the old version.

    4. Re:the newer AV's do by kjs3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it has a very, very small set of targets, far smaller than the other players. After talking us up on it for the last few months, we we're very disappointed. Perhaps in time it will be better, but right now it's not a comprehensive solution for my 38,000 folks.

    5. Re:the newer AV's do by lee+n.+field · · Score: 1
      but the latest round of 2005 versions basically have adware in with their virus defs.

      Norton AV 2004 detects it, as does 2005. They don't seem to do anything effective with them. Symantec v9 can detect them in a scan, but doesn't in the on-access scan.

      Adaware & Spybot, give them the lecture on how they can do it for themselves, charge for time. Ka-ching!

  8. Linux by Progman3K · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Try it. No spyware.
    Bingo.

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  9. Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously. I am not trolling. It works for me.

    Ever since I have installed SP2, Ad-Aware from Lavasoft has not found one spyware program -- even after installing the worst offending sites - porn sites.

    1. Re:Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh yeah. Use that firewall that comes if XP.

      I would also download ZoneAlarm too.

      We use Symantec at work on the network. Seems to work great.

      Also, all suspicious attachments are not let through (quarantined) because the users are too stupid -- they seem to open them mindlessly.

    2. Re:Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by ryanmfw · · Score: 1

      Probably more of a bug with Ad-Aware than with the spyware. :-)

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    3. Re:Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      even after installing the worst offending sites - porn sites.

      Thank you for taking the risk of testing that so that others won't have to.

    4. Re:Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by psyclo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry to shoot your idea out of the water, but I've had XP with SP2 for a while, and Ad-Aware comes up with plenty of hits, and I don't visit porn sites. I'm just running it now and it already recognized 6 new objects.

      Ahh well, it was a nice theory while it lasted. :-)

      --
      =======================
      Psyclo, the dark night.
      Mike, the computer geek.
    5. Re:Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 6 hits? I usually see 60 or more. And what are they, the usual cookies from doubleclick.net and Red Sherrif? Please, learn what spyware means.

    6. Re:Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      i bet it only found a few more than 6... it find cookies that don't actively do anything to your computer unless you go back to those sites.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    7. Re:Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by Harker · · Score: 1
      Ever since I have installed SP2, Ad-Aware from Lavasoft has not found one spyware program -- even after installing the worst offending sites - porn sites.


      You installed porn sites? Man, I'm a n00b. All I seem to be able to do is browse to them. Where can I download the program for this? It would save a ton of download time.

      --
      When VCR's are outlawed, only outlaws will have VCR's.
    8. Re:Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha...good call...Would save tons of time if you had the whole website installed on your system!...

    9. Re:Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      bash-3.0$ man wget ;)

    10. Re:Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by psyclo · · Score: 1

      It found 36 total. 25 were registry entries and the rest were files. Many looked like valid adware/malware items. I routinely clear cookies, so it wasn't just finding normal stuff.

      --
      =======================
      Psyclo, the dark night.
      Mike, the computer geek.
    11. Re:Windows XP and Serice Pack 2 by Heywood+Yabuzof · · Score: 1

      XPSP2 won't do anything about spyware that already exists, but it does do a much better job of preventing future installs when visiting web pages. It's still possible for a user to install things like nasty ActiveX controls, but at least the new IE security features make the user take a couple of extra steps and be more aware of what's going on. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than the way IE used to work.

  10. Simple Solution by InfinityWpi · · Score: 1, Informative

    Disable write permissions for all users. Roaming profiles, no browser cache whatsoever, no ability to write any file to the drive.

    I never said it was a -good- solution...

    1. Re:Simple Solution by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      Our school has almost that set up, and I haven't had much problems using it.

      Except for the fact that it's Windows...

    2. Re:Simple Solution by TheUnknownOne · · Score: 0

      Horrible Solution. My school is currently set up so that we can not right click, and we can not write to the C: drive we can not change ANYTHING. I do realize this is good for them, but there are other ways. Combined with this, they are also very cheap and have recently purchased new licenses for Turbo C++ (no they havent made a new version in awhile). Every time start up, Turbo complains with about 20 errors and warnings about not being able to create temporary files. (Not warnings as in compiler warnings, but the wonderful, Click OK, with no other option warnings)

    3. Re:Simple Solution by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      Well, we have a network drive we can save to that is split up by user (you can only write/see your own folder on the network drive), and there is a user based registry that is saved on the roaming profile as well, (we can also right click, just can't go to the "Properties" part of the desktop), so it works pretty well. We have space to save on the network for our files, and (even though they don't know it), we can install stuff too because of the userspace registry. So everything works out pretty nicely :).

  11. Symantec by cuteseal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We use Symantec Antivirus and Desktop Firewall - seem to do the trick...

    1. Re:Symantec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      NAV 9 handles both viruses and spyware...

  12. Easy and cheap by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I recommend just sticking a firewall up at the root of your network and blocking all traffic on port 80. It cuts down on web surfing and it puts to death all those stupid ad/spybots that already infest your network.

    If someone needs to access a site, have a system where they can request a site to be opened for access. Of course they will need to have a valid reason and you (as network admin) have final say as to letting them have that access or not.

    The www is something that can be surfed at home on personal time. Work is for work.

    1. Re:Easy and cheap by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1
      Where the hell have you been?

      Anyways, I know it's tongue in cheek, but that's really not a bad idea. Not many will have the chutzpah to say they need Slashdot for work. Those, you promote :).

    2. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...because some IS people just need to exercise every little bit of power they can.

      Others realize that computers are tools and that disabling web access makes them worse tools. They know that their job is not to find ways to make their own jobs easier, it is to make other people's jobs easier.

      Kudos to the story submitter for being one of the type that wants to do his job right.

      Dancin Santa, fuck you and all others like you.

    3. Re:Easy and cheap by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1

      this leads to 2000 requests a day for sites to be opened up...

    4. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And one Perl script to refuse them all.

      It's a brilliant solution.

    5. Re:Easy and cheap by Frennzy · · Score: 1

      sigh.

      So you'd like to have an admin spend his entire day responding to 'open' requests for every web site that needs to be accessed?

      I don't know what you do for a living, or where you work, but the 'www' is NOT just something that 'can be surfed at home on personal time'

      For many folks, having access to internet web pages is a critical part of their job.

      That said, your response is ludicrous. You are going to block outbound requests to port 80? It will take me all of 30 seconds to setup a proxy on my home machine using a different port.

      What's that you say? You're going to block all ports?

      Then why have an internet connection at all? Oh yes, because 'work is for work', and no one could possibly have a valid reason to have access to the internet during work hours.

      Of course, we aren't ALL janitors.

    6. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess -- you have never been in charge of a large number of users. This is the worst suggestion I have ever heard. The web is a necessity for day-to-day business, you cannot take it away from users and expect to maintain a request based whitelist without an uproar and a lot of work on your part.

      How about just blocking .exe filetypes in your proxy, that should take care of most spyware. If you really wanted to make sure, block .msi, .xpi, .cab, and .zip. Create some access lists, so people who do know what they are doing can access these files.

      N\ikka

    7. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that you say? You're generating unauthorized traffic on the network? Well, it's off to the unemployment office for you for attempting to thwart the company network policy at best and maliciously hacking the company network at worst.

      Go ahead, make my day.

    8. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An the guy that takes his laptop home and plug it into his high speed then gets back on your network and everyone now has it.

      He's graciously walked it into your network around your firewall

    9. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please give examples of how having access to porn sites, Slashdot, and pedo chatrooms makes a computer a better tool.

      Filtering network content is practically a mandatory responsibility of any good administrator. Allowing full, free run of the internet is one of the fastest ways to bring your network to a halt or to call down the FBI to scan your logs because some perv in the dev team couldn't wait to get home to download kiddie porn.

    10. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I like to visit other kinds of sites. If that's all you think is out there open your eyes.

      Those who abuse access get disciplined - nothing wrong with reviewing traffic. The rest do their work without having to ask for permission. Filtering network content is NOT something good administrators do - they realize that good employees will not do the wrong thing, smart employees can get around just about any filtering they can think up and that the productivity of all employees suffers when there is incompetent, heavy-handed administration.

    11. Re:Easy and cheap by Frennzy · · Score: 2

      I normally don't respond to AC, but...how the hell do you suppose you'll know when/how/what I'm doing? If a port is open, I can tunnel through it.

      I am the company network engineer. And the Security Officer. If you know how to discern legitimate traffic from 'bad' traffic over an allowed port, please, do enlighten us all.

      And do it as something other than AC. I know all about fingerprinting traffic patterns...but won't take any more crap from someone who says 'make my day', while hiding behind an AC moniker.

    12. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you can't be some dumb as to not know how to automate traffic monitoring on your own network, Security Officer. I simply refuse to believe that someone who attains that position could possibly be unable to know how to do it.

      IHL, because IHBT. Nice work!

    13. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Make my day :)

      Seriously, given that you're the security guy, you know what users would have the need to be moving a bunch of encrypted data that sniffers can't recognize. Anyone else doing it gets fired. It's that simple, really.

    14. Re:Easy and cheap by jayhawk88 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are absolutely correct. And then, board your magical Unicorn for the Leprechan base on the Dark Side of the Moon, where you will eat naught but Space Wine and Space Cheese!

    15. Re:Easy and cheap by Frennzy · · Score: 1

      All right, fucktard, tell me how you can tell the difference between me tunneling company secrets out over an SSH tunnel using port 25 vs making an encrypted SMTP session with a secure mail server?

      I know how to monitor traffic...tell me how you determine what data and purpose that encrypted traffic contains?

    16. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll me once, shame on you.

      Troll me twice, shame on me.

      I told myself I wasn't going to bite...

    17. Re:Easy and cheap by Frennzy · · Score: 1

      mmhmm. So you sure know your stuff. First of all, a sniffer can 'recognize' any traffic, regardless of whether or not it's encrypted. Secondly, are you seriously implying a company should spend the time and money to make exceptions on a user-by-user basis so that that those that need it can have that access?

      Are you advocating firing anyone who even clicks on a link that attempts to open an https connection?

      It's not that simple. I have run networks that had tens of thousands of users, with massive turnover on any given day. Do you really advocate a case-by-case basis? If so, you've obviously never worked in a large scale environment, with real world budgets and productivity goals.

      I'm done feeding this particular troll.

    18. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't tell the difference between an accidental click on an https:// site and megabytes or gigabytes of encrypted data flowing over a persistent connection? Then you're the one that doesn't have the experience to do your job. Call me a troll if you like, but the solution is before your eyes.

    19. Re:Easy and cheap by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      I don't presently even run a proxy server. The business has perfectly good EXISTING ways of detecting abuse by staff, much the same as for excessive personal phone calls.

      To date it simply has not been an issue - folks will use 'net banking, sometimes do a bit of research, or look up something they've been sent (yeah, security, I know...). If they get their jobs done well, nobody cares.

      That said, I'm not 100% against filters, I just think they should be used appropriately and after thinking about what the real problem is. An administrator who uses filters is not automatically incompitent (and in fact is more likely to have been forced into using some product by management).

      I'm also unconvinced that unrestricted 'net access is good for productivity. Some staff really just don't need it. That said, at my work we've decided to simply accept that, expect them to behave responsibly, and deal with it though normal means if they don't.

    20. Re:Easy and cheap by aaza · · Score: 1
      If you know how to discern legitimate traffic from 'bad' traffic over an allowed port, please, do enlighten us all.

      That's easy. Check the evil bit. Discard all packets that have it set.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
      In practice, however, there is.
    21. Re:Easy and cheap by thecorndogofdoom · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, Santa, but internet is a vital part of my workplace. I do .NET apps for Colorado State U, and when your business is providing internet service to users (just like those fellas doing LAN gaming places or net cafes), blocking port 80 is beyond dumb; it fucks up your entire business model. Let's just nuke Level 3 and take out the internet while we're at it...back to BBS? I don't think so.

      Kinda the same thing with guns, cars+alcohol, the US military, or laser pointers...as long as there are idiots out there, we will have problems with these things being misused. In the mean time, they do have legitimate purposes, and you can't just deny everyone their use because a handful of dumbasses abuse them.

      Any business, and ESPECIALLY any IT shop, has to be pretty archaic NOT to need to use the internet often. The solution is to kick those douche-bags who write spyware in the face and secure your network with the solutions mentioned earlier.

      --


      -- Tim
      Asst. Mger - Software Team, CSU College of Business
    22. Re:Easy and cheap by Frennzy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dammit...I had forgotten about the evil bit. Fire me now. Wait...if I promise to adhere to to the 'do not copy' bit, will I be allowed to attend re-education camp? ;)

    23. Re:Easy and cheap by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Finally, an IT person that gets it. I want to work in your office, rather than the kinda place I work in. I hate IT people like Dancin' Santa, and there's a helluva lot of them.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    24. Re:Easy and cheap by gregmac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The www is something that can be surfed at home on personal time. Work is for work.

      Many other people have pointed out the value of being able to surf sites for work-related information (booking hotels, looking at competition, finding reference materials, finding suppliers/products, finding potential customers, posting job listings, ...).

      There are other ways to prevent misuse as well, rather than blocking port 80 - block specific sites (ie, hotmail) and/or use content filtering to stop people from looking at pr0n while at work. Keep in mind that these can be detrimental - at a health care related job, for example, there will be legitimate reasons to look up legitimate sites that will be blocked by content filtering.

      One thing that has been shown (I know I've read articles about this before, unfortunately I can't find referencse) is denying people "personal time" at works leads to an increase in sick days and other time off. Basically, if you don't let someone spend half an hour doing something personal while "at work", then they end up just taking an entire day off to get what they need done. This is my take on the matter, and I don't block any sites on our connection. (and no, I don't consider pr0n to be a legitmate "personal" use of time, but we're also a small company and no one really has much of a private office to use..)

      --
      Speak before you think
    25. Re:Easy and cheap by Mike1024 · · Score: 1

      Dancin Santa, fuck you and all others like you.

      I'm fairly certain Dancin' Santa was trying to be funny.

      You may have noticed earlier posters saying "Lock down all computers so users can't install anything or change any settings, if they want anything installed, let them get you to do it". In other words, make users go through you, inconveniencing them, to increase security.

      Dancin' Santa mocked this stance by extending it to web access - and presenting a situation that is clearly absurd. No serious IT administrator would review web access on a page-by-page basis.

      Here are some other examples of what he might have said:

      Lock down Start menu access to those who can prove they need it. Give them desktop icons for Word and Excel, and if they need anything else, let them call you to thier desk and you can start the program for them.

      or:

      Lock down keyboard access to users who cannot prove they need it. This will cut down on the leaking copy-locked proprietry documents by printscreen, and will stop users tying up company assets when they are not in use with the 'lock workstation' key combination. Locking down Ctrl+Alt+Del cuts down on hard reboots, which can damage the machine. Restricting access to the : key ensures that should users get access to a command prompt, they will not be able to jump between drives all willy-knilly, wreaking havoc with file system organisation.

      Clearly, while both of these stratergies would increase security, they would also be a barrier to employees doing thier jobs. Just as preventing any software installation would be a barrier to employees doing thier jobs.

      In summary, Dancin' Santa was mocking authoritarian IT administrators by extension to absurdity. Clearly, though, his absurdity was not absurd enough since he seems to have evoked almost a dozen angry responses from people who didn't realise he was joking. Which is a sad reflection on how IT administrators are percieved.

      Michael

      --
      "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    26. Re:Easy and cheap by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      What the heck makes you think the AC is an IT person? That sounds more like the mindless rant of a pissed off Luser than an IT guy.

      Unless your job is web datamining, research, etc... you DON'T need web access to do it. It's a privelage.

    27. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they will need to have a valid reason and you (as network admin) have final say as to letting them have that access or not.

      carl is that you? did you get a job after the Director of Sales fired your ass for that same trick here?

    28. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > > this leads to 2000 requests a day for sites to be opened up...

      > And one Perl script to refuse them all.

      $ perl -le 'print "refused" while not $hell->{frozen}'

      > It's a brilliant solution.

      Thank you.

    29. Re:Easy and cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, get rid of all normal users' computers! In fact lock down the department and do a strip search that nobody brings in even a pencil not approved by the IT dept.

    30. Re:Easy and cheap by buysse · · Score: 1
      Thou shalt not connect to other servers. Thy network shall be sacrosanct, and thy packets shall be blessed by the Holy Squid before passage to the Internet shall be permitted. Thou shalt worship no other $DEITY but the Authenticated Proxy.

      For each way around a firewall, there's a more draconian policy that can prevent it. In any company with an IT staff, there would be no reason for you, my profanity-laced friend, to connect to any outside SMTP server unless your machine is the mail server (which it would not be). You would connect to the internal SMTP server, authenticate, and relay your mail that way. Otherwise, any compromised host could start dumping virus-laden messages or UCE, which is bad.

      Of course, the more draconian the security policies become, the more difficult it becomes to do work theoretically the reason that you're using a computer. A balance has to be found, and in most businesses, that balance will be on the side of control.

      All communications must be logged when dealing with financial data under SEC regs. HIPPA has a lot of logging and privacy requirements that hit anything dealing with people's medical records, including a lot of academic reasearch. If you have corporate secrets that you're trying to protect, you're not going to allow unrestricted communication out of your network. You also don't want Claria's software to end up on your desktops and possibly cause an exposure of customer data (and the ensuing spate of lawsuits).

      In cases where you can say there is no "secret" information, and I doubt that there are many of them, logging is still recommended for protection from landsharks. Quite honestly, it's often used to find a reason to fire someone who's been slacking (or doing something else that's bad, like borderline sexual harassment), but not quite enough to prove they aren't doing their jobs well enough to avoid a lawsuit. Or, alternately, used to discipline Peter the Perv after he's caught browsing pr0n on company time, proving that Alice did see boobies on his screen and thus avoiding a lawsuit.

      I'm not advocating hard control -- in fact, I think I'm just feeding a troll -- but there are good reasons to do it. When a company (or university) has one person responsible for a couple hundred or more desktops, that's an extraordinarily hard job if there is no control of the desktop. IT is understaffed to handle people having admin rights. In some cases, it's still understaffed to *not* have users with admin rights, and can't respond effectively to requests.

      The situation would be worse if the desktop was not locked down. It would not be better in those cases where IT is understaffed. If you've done everything possible to prevent fires, and you still don't have enough staff to put out the fires that start anyway, you won't have time to deal with Jane User needing Access installed on her machine to manage a simple database, especially since Joe or Jane is likely to need training or support on using that software.

      --
      -30-
    31. Re:Easy and cheap by AlbertMarty · · Score: 1

      As an IT with relatively low technical skills, I spend a lot of time googling little problems I find and I can only imagine that people in engineering, marketing, or wherever end up doing the same thing pretty often.

      Additionaly, I feel that creating a stable workstation isn't too hard and can be done without pricey software on Win2k machines. I keep my workstations on auto-update, with AV and TeaTimer (part of spybot). Google toolbar makes a great popup blocker. These machines rarely have problems and my network is very stable now compared to where it was when I first started about 2 years ago. We still run NT servers that require a lot of attention, so I understand those of you who have complained about corp. beauracracy. Anyways, I've found that there are only a few (10) workstations (the multi-user stations) that are in need of constant attention and I'm about to load DeepFreeze on those. We have a decent SAN so it won't be a problem.

      I guess one of the main points I'm making here has to do with the fact that I am completely clueless about Windows security policies, yet I've managed to secure and stabilize a network of 120 client computers without doing a hardcore "lock-down". My people can still use AIM and browse porn, and they can still install anything they want, but things are relatively quiet on the battlefront. I manage all of these computers alone, since my boss deals primarily with the ERP and backoffice, and I still have time to give every person one-on-one attention, stay up-to-date on my IT newsletters and recent virus awareness, and install Tribes Vengeance on my own workstation.

      I'm an amatuer compared to you guys, but it sounds like the problem of spyware and viruses is being exagerated to boost some egos. I especially hear a lot of people complaining without offering solutions and this thread has become more of an ethical discussion on a clients bill of rights.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Two words: Death penalty.

    Get spyware, get shot in the head. After two or three pluggings in front of coworkers, NO ONE will get on the net period, or even check e-mail.

    Harsh? Yes. Effective? HELL YES!

    1. Re:Easy by robfoo · · Score: 1

      Death penalty? I wish!

      Do you know how long it's taken me to convince management that public floggings are a good idea?
      I'm going to have to brown-nose for *ages* before I get to shoot people..

    2. Re:Easy by SWTP_OS9 · · Score: 1

      Them and the people that create this junk!

    3. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      death penalty effective ... rotflmao, sheesh as if the death penalty does squat. Duh, sorry to say, but countries using the death penalty have the highest murder rates in the world.

      The death penalty is an immature, irresponsible and vindictive response from the morally incompetent.

    4. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      death penalty effective ... rotflmao, sheesh as if the death penalty does squat.

      You can't deny that it effectively stops that individual from repeating whatever it was. Unless it was something like being ugly and smelling bad, people tend to do that no matter what the penalty is.

      countries using the death penalty have the highest murder rates in the world.

      OTOH, they have a better average sense of humor.

    5. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been reading the IT news lately ??
      Sure harse penalties for spammers/adaware/malware
      people is in order, and is starting to come around.
      The feds have even started jailing spyware freaks.
      The move now is, the spyware/adware/malware
      companies are moving off American soil to other
      countries where there is no US jurisdiction !!
      There doesnt seem to be any one world police
      agency setup, so how do you suggest we impose the
      death penalty ??

    6. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to read dumb ass.

  15. There are solutions by magefile · · Score: 0

    Firefox is one; if you must have IE (or perhaps use it as a backup only), put it in High security mode - or even better, go through the security settings with a finetoothed comb. Use proxies to block known advertisers (doubleclick, tribal, etc) and as you run into spyware, figure out what domain it came from and block that, too.

    My recommendation is that you keep IE around for those sites that need it, but have a name-'n'-shame system - say, post records for how often people use IE as opposed to Firefox (or Opera or whatever) - to discourage it's use.

    1. Re:There are solutions by hazem · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sadly, in my last job, they used Lotus Notes for e-mail. The client was really slow, so it was often much much faster to use the web-based access. Which, even though it's provided by IBM, only works with IE. WTF?!

    2. Re:There are solutions by ryanmfw · · Score: 1

      One thing with the name-'n'-shame system, most people wouldn't be too insulted about using IE. They'd just go, "eh", and get on with their pointless lives. Other than that, you're absolutely correct.

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    3. Re:There are solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, the notes web interface works fine with firefox (at least for email, I don't play with the calendar & such via web).

  16. Obvious solution by glomph · · Score: 2, Informative

    Stop dedicating your life to subsidising Microsoft's hegemony. Move people to a good, maintained Linux Distro. Yes, it is possible.

    1. Re:Obvious solution by Frogbert · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No it is not. There is no Microsoft Word for Linux, Open Office comes close and I love it to death but its just not ready yet.

      There is no god damned Access for Linux either. Heres a newsflash a lot of companies have database frontends that rely on Access, it may not be the best solution but it is the current system and to change it would cost thousands of dollars.

      Like it or Loathe it Visual Basic is used throughout many companies. Please correct me if I am wrong but do any Linux office products work with Visual Basic?

      These are just a few of the many examples why you couldn't just switch to Linux like that. Those are just the software factors too, forget user training, the cost of changing hardware that isn't supported to Linux etc.

      What about thousands of pissed off users because they can't figure out why the hell the start button looks different or why text on the screen doesn't behave as expected.

      I'm not trolling, I like Linux I think it is great for the home and for a hobby but its just not ready for the mainstream. Perhaps in a few years, but not today.

    2. Re:Obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shame on your company for buying into vendor lock-in. A competitor that didn't will eat your lunch while you're still running from desktop to desktop fixing IE infections.

    3. Re:Obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like a capitalist bourgeois running dog to imply that any effective solution must be sold by a vendor. Viva Linux, death to Microsoft!

    4. Re:Obvious solution by whatsit · · Score: 1

      Well, that's one way to go, I guess. It's probably safe to assume that the author is in a Microsoft environment and it is probably also safe to say that Linux wouldn't have the spyware problems that the author describes. However, in a 2000 user environment, it is likely that replacing an investment of thousands of dollars might not be easy to pass by the bosses.

      That said, in our Microsoft-centric environment, we have solved a majority of our spyware and virus problems by only allowing our users to log into their workstations as non-priveleged users. No one can install programs or alter system configurations except our administrative staff. Even ActiveX controls cannot be installed by our employees. They have to call the IT department to get anything installed, configured, or changed on their system.

      You might think that our setup would cause a lot of grief for our helpdesk since users call them to change things and install programs, but when we considered the alternative there isn't any going back. I don't know how long it has been since I got a call like, "...um, yeah. I just keep getting all of these popup ads when I'm in MS Word..." I tell you what, if I never got another one, it would be too soon.

      Anyway, good luck to the author.

      --

      user@host:/usr/bin$ whatis ./java
      java: nothing appropriate.
    5. Re:Obvious solution by strider44 · · Score: 1

      You can't just say "No it is not" or "Yes you can". Though I'm naturally biased towards linux as a linux user, swapping OSs is a decision that has to be specific to the company.

      Firstly, Linux is most definitely ready for the mainstream, it is currently far ahead of Windows XP (which is, after all, 3-4 years old) in technology and definitely usability. There I don't see an issue, and I'm just bringing it up to refute your point, as you obviously haven't used a linux box that's less than three years old. That guess can be proven since, in the last three years (that's a round-down guess) I've installed linux on a variety of computers using a variety of peripherals and I have not had a single hardware problem in that time-frame. Hardware problems are a thing of the past, especially since in a networked environment you don't need to worry about those damned winmodems.

      Other than that, you can't just say that it's impossible to change. You can't just say "why don't you go ahead and change cause it's soooo much better" either. You have to look at the specific company and see if it relies on Windows only products, how feasable it is to change over, how expensive it is to hire people to install the new operating system and programs, and whether the costs of saving microsoft lisenses account for those costs, how much it will cost to train users, or whether in the specific application you actually need to train people to use the software, as well as any other relevant arguments that are specific for your company.

      Please don't be so ingnorant to completely dismiss everything that you haven't used recently or that you're not comfortable, and please "get the facts" before you rush to any conclusions as you have. The exact opposite I think goes to the grandparent poster.

    6. Re:Obvious solution by droleary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No it is not. There is no Microsoft Word for Linux, Open Office comes close and I love it to death but its just not ready yet.

      But there is a Microsoft Word for Mac OS X. Of course, you're really just side-stepping the real issue. Nobody really has a "We need to run Word" problem (except maybe when converting that legacy format to an open format); they have a "We need to create documents" problem. Just about every place I've been that had Word widely installed, 90% of the people used it as a glorified text editor.

      There is no god damned Access for Linux either. Heres a newsflash a lot of companies have database frontends that rely on Access, it may not be the best solution but it is the current system and to change it would cost thousands of dollars.

      The time to complain would have been when the picked Access as their solution, not when they finally figured out that they have vendor lock-in. There are tons of other database solution they could freely choose from. But, again, you're side-stepping. Malware, especially as described for this article, is mainly a user problem. If you have a server running Access, it's unlikely such garbage will be installed on it. This in no way forces you to keep Windows for desktop systems.

      Like it or Loathe it Visual Basic is used throughout many companies. Please correct me if I am wrong but do any Linux office products work with Visual Basic?

      Again, you're pushing a product instead of solving a problem. Please describe how VB is used for custom development that cannot be matched by other tools. Bonus points if you've figured out you can't name lock-in with MS products any further.

      These are just a few of the many examples why you couldn't just switch to Linux like that. Those are just the software factors too, forget user training, the cost of changing hardware that isn't supported to Linux etc.

      Bogus excuses. I've been in environments that had users sitting in front of old NeXT boxes to run in-house apps. Why? Because it got the job done quite well, and the users were more likely to be working than dinking around on the web or with some game they downloaded (or suffering with spyware/adware). MS is the hammer some companies use as their only tool, and it's stupid.

      What about thousands of pissed off users because they can't figure out why the hell the start button looks different or why text on the screen doesn't behave as expected.

      Fire them. If you have to go to the Start button as a major part of getting your work done, your system for doing business is screwed up beyond whatever kind of OS you run. And I'm not sure I even understand your text FUD. How about you describe specific use cases instead of trying to sound ominous while telling your tale of woe?

      I'm not trolling, I like Linux I think it is great for the home and for a hobby but its just not ready for the mainstream. Perhaps in a few years, but not today.

      Linux on the desktop is always seemingly a few years away. For a general desktop, yes, that is true; it's why many geeks have switched to Mac OS X. But for specific desktops, there is no good reason you can't run something other than Windows. I mean, seriously, if you have 200 people who are screwing around on non-work enough to cause you malware headaches, they're clearly people that need to be "refocussed", and Linux probably provides all the good they need to actually do their job without all the bad that comes with crufty ol' Windows.

    7. Re:Obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a travel agency. Our Airline reservation systems doesn't work outside of windows. Nor does our accounting platform. What are we supposed to do? Move to different systems and spend thousands retraining people?

    8. Re:Obvious solution by Svennig · · Score: 1
      Again, you're pushing a product instead of solving a problem. Please describe how VB is used for custom development that cannot be matched by other tools. Bonus points if you've figured out you can't name lock-in with MS products any further

      He's not pushing a product at all, merely pointing out that a great many applications are written in VBA and that this isnt supported on Linux. Its not an advocacy thing, merely pointing out that its not simple to convert all those programs over to Linux!

      Fire them. If you have to go to the Start button as a major part of getting your work done, your system for doing business is screwed up beyond whatever kind of OS you run. And I'm not sure I even understand your text FUD. How about you describe specific use cases instead of trying to sound ominous while telling your tale of woe?

      Thats allmost a troll, but I'll bite. Have you ever worked in the IT industry? With real computer users?

      As part of instructions from the powers that be, we recently upgraded 10 machines in one of the downstairs offices to XP (from 2000). The number of calls that we got because the start button looked different was amazing! Its a familiarity thing. If something looks different, then there's no guarantee that its going to work in the same way.

      Firing them is not an option - many of these people are great people who are very good at their jobs! Just because they use a computer only when they must, does that really mean they should loose their jobs??

    9. Re:Obvious solution by coolcold · · Score: 0
      I do agree switching to linux is not the solution. It involves all the problem with cost, time, compatability etc... I have once asked why doesnt the IT dept to switch all comps to linux. Answer I was given is that

      1/ It is hard to find ppl to maintain
      2/ Those ppl are usually expensive to hire
      3/ Most of the staff would/could not pick up a new system
      4/ Most, if not all, of their "already working" program have to be redone for linux
      5/ Cost to retrain all staff
      6/ If say there are 1000 staff, u pissed off 500 of them, I dont think it would be easy to hire 500 professional to keep the company working not to mention the productivity of the company came to a halt while the system is switching
      7/ Even if the programs are all rewritten, there can and will have loads of bugs and security issue

      So solving spyware problems are alot less than switching system. Also to think if the company really does switched successfully, they wont need as much IT staff anymore since their computers are stable enough (think of losing your job).

      I would suggest to use spyguard/blaster along with firefox as mention above. Using Deepfreeze is another option and it is relatively easy to educate your clients to save their files in THEIR HOME DIRECTORY. If spyware like gator was installed in their computers, dont worry if it wont affect his work or the company. Just do a clean once a week. Write a batch file to do the job.
      --
      I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs :)
    10. Re:Obvious solution by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

      > Nobody really has a "We need to run Word" problem
      > (except maybe when converting that legacy format to
      > an open format); they have a "We need to create
      > documents" problem.

      Lots of people have a "we need to coopererate with people in other institutions who only uses MS Word" problem. We do lots of text with math here, and would be way more productive with LaTeX. But out collaboraters use MS Word, and thus, so do we. We can't even use WordPerfect or OpenOffice, when it comes to math-heavy text, compatibility break down. It also breaks down between versions of MS Word, the MS Monopopoly is really hurting productivity around here.

    11. Re:Obvious solution by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      For you, it might be possible... For me, a there are only two things I need to work that keep me from using Knoppix on my box at work:

      Excel -> OO.o
      Word -> OO.o
      Outlook/Exchange -> ?? (But I'm sure there must be SOMETHING)
      Reflections Telnet Client -> telnet(1) (granted, I lose macro abilities. =()
      HelpTrac -> BZZZT! Stay in windowsland, Linuxboi!!! AIEE!

      Marginally related, does anyone know of a telnet client with client-side scripting? (short of using expect scripts and I/O redirection, which some systems seem to choke on?)

    12. Re:Obvious solution by Mant · · Score: 1

      "We need to create documents" problem.

      Or a "we need to create documents compatable with MS Office problem". Unless you don't deal with other companies who use MS.

      The time to complain would have been when the picked Access as their solution,

      In many cases at my work that was years ago, long before Linux was any sort of viable alternative. If you are talking about a migration you have to live in the real world with what you have, not a hypothetical where you start from scratch. If other companies are like ours, the business often put together Access databases by themselves, without any IT control or imput (they are often badly done too, but that is another matter).

      If you have a server running Access, it's unlikely such garbage will be installed on it. This in no way forces you to keep Windows for desktop systems.

      You clearly haven't suffered with Access, it isn't server based, it runs on the client. It either uses the internal Jet engine database, and a flat file with no sever (although the file may live on a file server) or is a front end to an ODBC database or SQL Server. Even then queries, forms, Macros, VB code modules etc live in Access, and run on the client. It very much forces you to keep Windows (or something that runs Access) on the desktop. It isn't like running Oracle or MySQL where you can change the client apps and OS with ease.

      Where I work we are trying to kill Access and replace it with a server based, web-plug in architecture (Brio), but it is costly and painful. All the client side Access sutff has to be rewritten onto server reports, and it is all horrible custom MS stuff, even the SQL queries.

      Again, you're pushing a product instead of solving a problem. Please describe how VB is used for custom development that cannot be matched by other tools.

      The orginal article poster already has an MS network. If we are talking about moving to Linux you have to consider the costs. Chances are there is lots of custom code in VB around that someone has to re-work into something else if you move away from MS. Not to mention loads of power user types know VB for doing Office macros, even if you have another technology, their is a cost of making up the knowledge.

      I mean, seriously, if you have 200 people who are screwing around on non-work enough to cause you malware headaches, they're clearly people that need to be "refocussed",

      It only takes a few people installing a few programs, or even going to the wrong websites with IE, to get their machines screwed up. Pleny of people work plenty hard, and can still manage to screw their machines up with a bit of browsing, or installing the odd piece of software that looked cool or useful (like Hotbar).

      That doesn't mean you have mass laziness or an office full of slackers.

      Linux probably provides all the good they need to actually do their job without all the bad that comes with crufty ol' Windows.

      If you are starting from scratch, sure. You can probably do as much for less cost, and be more secure with lower maintenance. However, the OP said "Move people to a good, maintained Linux Distro. Yes, it is possible.". Key word here move.

      You seem to want to ignore all the cost involved of moving, and pretend you don't have to worry about being compatable with any other companies using MS (probably true for some companies). Pointing out their are non-MS equivilents doesn't magically remove the costs of moving to them. The move is possible, but the costs of moving may be more than you save by doing it, so it may not be a smart decision, even with the downsides of staying MS.

    13. Re:Obvious solution by droleary · · Score: 1

      Lots of people have a "we need to coopererate with people in other institutions who only uses MS Word" problem.

      But that is at least a real and well-defined problem, and the solution that presents itself doesn't necessarily involve having Windows on every desktop. Why should other people's dependence on Windows affect your entire technology infrastructure? You have a nice border condition that can be solved any number of ways. If your productivity is really that shot, it's beyond me why IS wouldn't take steps to give you want you need to get your job done and assign the interoperability issues to another unit.

    14. Re:Obvious solution by droleary · · Score: 1

      He's not pushing a product at all, merely pointing out that a great many applications are written in VBA and that this isnt supported on Linux. Its not an advocacy thing, merely pointing out that its not simple to convert all those programs over to Linux!

      Read it again. He isn't making any specific claims about how extensively VB is used. He raises a strawman, essentially saying "Oh, no! Someone might use VB!" Unless that is the actual case, it's irrelevant. If it is the case, yes, you'd have to evaluate what being locked into VB gains you and what it costs you.

      Thats allmost a troll, but I'll bite. Have you ever worked in the IT industry? With real computer users?

      Probably longer than you have, User 665498. :-)

      As part of instructions from the powers that be, we recently upgraded 10 machines in one of the downstairs offices to XP (from 2000). The number of calls that we got because the start button looked different was amazing! Its a familiarity thing. If something looks different, then there's no guarantee that its going to work in the same way.

      OK, maybe those kinds of people shouldn't be fired; a bullet to the head seems more appropriate. What do these people do in the real world when there is a detour or a store changes its sign? Hell, my Mailboxes, Etc. drop box got converted to a UPS Store a while back and I didn't skip a beat because everything still operated the same. If your people are fretting over a surface appearance without even using the feature, I'm not sure they're fit to live let alone be employed.

      Firing them is not an option - many of these people are great people who are very good at their jobs! Just because they use a computer only when they must, does that really mean they should loose their jobs??

      Pretty much; welcome to the 21st century. Or maybe the solution is more obvious. Given your qualification of "when they must", it makes me wonder why those people need to use a computer at all. If they do a good job that doesn't involve computers, why force them to use a technology they are overly concerned about? Give them a less technophobic secretary or assistant who can take care of those "when they must" situations. The problem there doesn't even seem to be Windows, but rather one of giving everyone computers for no good reason and just expecting them to be more productive for it.

    15. Re:Obvious solution by droleary · · Score: 1

      I work for a travel agency. Our Airline reservation systems doesn't work outside of windows. Nor does our accounting platform. What are we supposed to do? Move to different systems and spend thousands retraining people?

      Possibly. Why does it somehow make more sense to spend the thousands on keeping malware under control instead? There is nothing about accounting or reservations that requires Windows. Hell, both were done before computers were ubiquitous. If you think about it, what does it say about your staff/company if they need Windows to get their job done? Shades of Fight Club's "The things you own end up owning you."

    16. Re:Obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. I wouldn't use junk like Visual anything if my job depended on it. And I much, MUCH prefer MySQL or PostGreSQL, etc. to Access any day of the week. And I don't seem to have any problems communicating with people using all kinds of Office junk, fools that they are...Go ahead, keep suffering with your studpid decisions, but don't inflict them on others.

    17. Re:Obvious solution by droleary · · Score: 1

      1/ It is hard to find ppl to maintain
      2/ Those ppl are usually expensive to hire

      Flat out lies, and you should have called them on it. Odds are they never even seriously bothered to try finding a Unix admin, or know how to compare their value with Windows admins doing the same job.

      3/ Most of the staff would/could not pick up a new system

      Er, so they admit their Windows admins are too stupid to learn new things? Not exactly something to be bragging about.

      4/ Most, if not all, of their "already working" program have to be redone for linux

      I don't know what that means. It sounds a lot like "our staff is too stupid to do portability, too". Even so, there is no reason to mass convert an entire operation from Windows to something else over night. People who really do need something that isn't immediately available on Unix can be phased over as things get made available. That should in no way prevent people who don't need Windows from using something else.

      5/ Cost to retrain all staff

      Retrain for what? What are these people doing at the OS level? Or maybe a better question is why the staff would be so stupid as to significantly change interface elements at the same time they change OS. I mean, if someone knows how to click an OK button at some point, they should be able to do it on Windows, Mac, Linux, or anything else, right?

      6/ If say there are 1000 staff, u pissed off 500 of them, I dont think it would be easy to hire 500 professional to keep the company working not to mention the productivity of the company came to a halt while the system is switching

      Why assume you're going to piss half the people off? In my experience, Windows is something that is tolerated more than loved. If you were trying to get them to give up a Mac, yeah, I could see some people getting upset. But given the headaches Windows causes (in this specific case, having to deal with malware), you should go in with the assumption that people are actually eager to try something better. And if your staff thinks they need to bring everything to a stop just to start switch over systems, that's just more evidence of their incompetence.

      7/ Even if the programs are all rewritten, there can and will have loads of bugs and security issue

      Are they seriously suggesting that stability and security are the strengths in Windows? Fire them.

      So solving spyware problems are alot less than switching system.

      Spyware is just the Windows exploit du jour. Addressing it is a short term solution. That's fine, so long as you have a long term solution as well. Smart people stop treating symptoms at some point and go looking for a cure.

      Also to think if the company really does switched successfully, they wont need as much IT staff anymore since their computers are stable enough (think of losing your job).

      Which is why the IS department should never have the technology vision for the company. They show every day what their abilities do to damage the company. If malware is a big problem and they can't put a system in place to cure it, management should fire them for using only Windows.

    18. Re:Obvious solution by gd23ka · · Score: 2, Informative
      No it is not. There is no Microsoft Word for Linux, Open Office comes close and I love it to death but its just not ready yet. There is no god dammed Access...

      There is. It's just that these apps still need to be licensed if you absolutely can't switch to OpenOffice or Sun's commercial StarOffice. Many distroes, such as SuSE Linux Desktop use Crossover Office and that will run Microsoft Office.

      With Codeweaver's Crossover Office you get to run:

      Microsoft Office XP, 2000 and 97

      Microsoft Word

      Microsoft Excel

      Microsoft PowerPoint

      Microsoft Outlook

      Microsoft Internet Explorer

      Microsoft Access

      Microsoft Project

      Adobe Photoshop

      Microsoft Visio

      Lotus Notes 5.0 and 6.5.1

      Quicken

      Various Web Browser Plugins

      QuickTime

      Shockwave Director

      Windows Media Player 6.4 though it probably illustrates the power of the API emulation I can't see the value in MSIE and the windows media player.

      I will however admit that Crossover Office / Wine will not run _every_ custom Visual Basic app on the planet... but if you don't have them then there is no technical reason you could not switch to Linux.

      ... [don't] forget user training, the cost of changing hardware that isn't supported to Linux etc. ... Yes, it is true. Your users will need to adjust to the new desktop, but most products I've seen such as SuSE Linux Desktop make Windows users feel right at home.

      I'm not trolling, I like Linux I think it is great for the home and for a hobby but its just not ready for the mainstream. Perhaps in a few years, but not today. I'm not shilling for SuSE or Codeweavers but they do have great products fully capable of blowing Windows off the corporate (and home!) desktop. Btw, you can download a 30 day trial of Crossover Office here. While you're at it, see if it will run your custom VB app too ...

    19. Re:Obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must work IT for an amazingly educated company that runs almost no proprietary software.
      I work for a company that does freelance IT. Many of our clients employees don't have high school diplomas. Many of our clients are small businesses, and we support the owners directly. If the owner can't figure out why the start button looks different, how exactly am I to tell him to fire himself?

      Furthermore, it's not just VB - MANY companies use propreitary apps that are only available on Windows, and have been using them for years. These apps generally are very specialized, have small install bases, and tend to be a hell of a lot more picky and quirky than your average large, well-written app.

      We just moved 20 insurance agents to XP Pro. They needed a wide variety of software that SIMPLY ISN'T AVAILABLE ON LINUX. If we had tried to set it up with Wine? PuLEEZE! Do you think we could've ever gotten support from the software vendor ever again? Write a Linux equivalent? Oh, I'm sorry, AFLAC doesn't have an open protocol, and this company of 20 people can't afford to pay the tens of thousands in development costs for me to reverse engineer this stuff.

      If you're a programmer, you'll probably have no problem working with Linux - there are programming tools out the wazoo. If you're an insurance agent, a mortgage agent, a dentist, an M.D., a liquor store, an appraiser, (I have clients among all of these, and far more than I can think of at the moment) then you've bloody well got software that can't be run on Linux, and no amount of zealotry or "Fire them if they can't deal with the Start Menu" is going to change that.

    20. Re:Obvious solution by Svennig · · Score: 1
      I was concidering writing a concidered response to your post, but I doubt that it would advance the understanding on either side and would probably just turn into a flame war.

      That said, with your attitude to users, I sense the BOFH in you :p

    21. Re:Obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, maybe those kinds of people shouldn't be fired; a bullet to the head seems more appropriate. What do these people do in the real world when there is a detour or a store changes its sign? Hell, my Mailboxes, Etc. drop box got converted to a UPS Store a while back and I didn't skip a beat because everything still operated the same. If your people are fretting over a surface appearance without even using the feature, I'm not sure they're fit to live let alone be employed.

      You are confusing ignorence with stupidity. People who are ignorant about computers are frequently intimidated by them - they've normally been bitten before by things they didn't forsee, so if things aren't as expected they get worried. You obviously have the knowledge to tell the difference between a cosmetic difference and a problem, the vast majority of people don't.

      I don't know anything about large corporate enviroments, but I do make a living selling compuers to people, so I deal with a lot of non-expert users with computer problems. These are not stupid people, they just want their computer to do what they want it to do, while they get on with writing their book, or doing brain surgery or whatever.

    22. Re:Obvious solution by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      Easy explanation for most of the responses you gave: We inherited it and have to support it.

      Please describe how VB is used for custom development.

      Certainly, Most of our main products are written in it. I work in small business. To outsource it == money. To re-write it == money+time.

      Fire them. If you have to go to the Start button as a major part of getting your work done, your system for doing business is screwed up beyond whatever kind of OS you run.

      Um. You're forgetting that a majority of regular enterprise users know only one OS. That is Windows. They know how to use Word/Excel/Access. They've either learned that on their own or through company training. Most companies do NOT have the time/resources to completely re-train their staff to use new tools. Yes, OO and Linux act/function a good deal LIKE Office and Windows...but they are NOT the same. Firing them will probably not resolve the business-use case, as the new batch of users will most likely have the same training (Windows/Office). Like it or not, MS is still holds the top market share for tools and it will not be going away for a while.

      --
      Sig it.
    23. Re:Obvious solution by 3th3rn3t · · Score: 1

      did you consider another side effect: training?

      so okay, you install OpenOffice. Now you have to train 4k ppl to use it. And trust me, in office enviroments, intuition comes by seldomly.

    24. Re:Obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Many companies (including one that I know of personally) rely on VB 6 applications to run their businesses. The one that I used to work at is a Fortune 500 company that makes of $2 Billion (yes, Billion) a year off of a system written in VB 6.

      VB.NET is a whole 'nother story, and it's going to be an even bigger one than VB 6 ever was.

      Your biases are blinding you a bit too much.

    25. Re:Obvious solution by droleary · · Score: 1

      People who are ignorant about computers are frequently intimidated by them - they've normally been bitten before by things they didn't forsee, so if things aren't as expected they get worried.

      But that is stupidity and not ignorance. Computer's don't "bite" people. They're dumb machines that are to be used as tools, and if they are broken it is seldom by something the user did with the keyboard and mouse. If the user doesn't understand what the Start button is, that would be ignorance. If they understand what it is but are totally thrown by a difference in appearance between XP and Win95, so much so that they have to call tech support, that is raw stupidity.

      You obviously have the knowledge to tell the difference between a cosmetic difference and a problem, the vast majority of people don't.

      Bullet to the head, I say! At the very least, I do not want to work with those people. A lot of people bitch about jobs being outsourced overseas, but when you look at the kind of stupidity exuded from American employees, I find it hard to blame management for looking for a better talent pool.

      I don't know anything about large corporate enviroments, but I do make a living selling compuers to people, so I deal with a lot of non-expert users with computer problems. These are not stupid people, they just want their computer to do what they want it to do, while they get on with writing their book, or doing brain surgery or whatever.

      Then you're selling them Macs, right? If not, you're just part of the problem. I think every OS has its own particular strength. There are very few people in this thread who have hit on things that are Windows' strengths. Without that, and with the relative certainty of getting malware and/or otherwise spending effort to keep your box clean, I just couldn't recommend Windows as first-tier desktop.

    26. Re:Obvious solution by droleary · · Score: 1

      You must work IT for an amazingly educated company that runs almost no proprietary software.

      No, I tend to work where custom software is king. However, they must understand that the software itself is not an asset, but what the software does is the real value. If doing it on something other than Windows better solves the problem, you can bet that's what we care about. It's a one-time expense to shift the desktop to another platform, which usually more than makes up for Windows-related problems that are continually hitting the bottom line.

      If the owner can't figure out why the start button looks different, how exactly am I to tell him to fire himself?

      Well, you could drop them as a client. It really depends what the nature of your job with them is. A good consultant sees that kind of question as a missed opportunity in training. Really, why would it be a complete surprise to them that XP does things a bit different? Why didn't you hold a small or one-on-one session to get them familiar with the changes you put in place?

      Furthermore, it's not just VB - MANY companies use propreitary apps that are only available on Windows, and have been using them for years. These apps generally are very specialized, have small install bases, and tend to be a hell of a lot more picky and quirky than your average large, well-written app.

      That's true of any custom software, and that's exactly why a company shouldn't get too attached to one particular tool. A properly run business cares about solving the problem they incorporated to handle, not about making sure MS (and all the third parties that release anti-malware to keep it limping along) keeps getting checks. When I see some people running business on old mainframe or even DOS programs, it always makes me shake my head. There's "don't fix it unless it's broken" and then there's "my company is a blown capacitor away from going under".

      We just moved 20 insurance agents to XP Pro. They needed a wide variety of software that SIMPLY ISN'T AVAILABLE ON LINUX. If we had tried to set it up with Wine? PuLEEZE! Do you think we could've ever gotten support from the software vendor ever again? Write a Linux equivalent? Oh, I'm sorry, AFLAC doesn't have an open protocol, and this company of 20 people can't afford to pay the tens of thousands in development costs for me to reverse engineer this stuff.

      I'm not sure why people keep posting stories like this; you're just making my case for me. Doing thing wrong in the first place costs you money in the long run; that isn't really news. But beyond that, you're ignoring what I said about having specialized desktops for people who have something that absolutely can't be immediately done on another platform. You have something that depends on Access or AFLAC or whatever? Then you limit the Windows box to just that stuff. For reading email or browsing the web, two big vectors of malware infection, nobody really needs Windows.

    27. Re:Obvious solution by droleary · · Score: 1

      Or a "we need to create documents compatable with MS Office problem". Unless you don't deal with other companies who use MS.

      As I noted elsewhere in this thread, that is an edge condition, and an ill-defined one at that. Just because someone else runs a Windows infrastructure doesn't force you to do the same. Many non-proprietary formats are easily read by Word, or you can set up dedicated machines (and I'd suggest Macs) for converting things to the .doc format. You simply don't make a case here for running Windows on every desktop.

      If other companies are like ours, the business often put together Access databases by themselves, without any IT control or imput (they are often badly done too, but that is another matter).

      But it's not; it's the heart of the matter! If the environment is one where just anyone can use anything to throw stuff together, they shouldn't even begin to pretend they can work out a good solution for Windows malware problems. If the environment is one where the business plan does not exist outside the tools, it is in a dangerous place when it comes to long-term viability. If where you work is actually that way, you should polish your resume.

      Where I work we are trying to kill Access and replace it with a server based, web-plug in architecture (Brio), but it is costly and painful. All the client side Access sutff has to be rewritten onto server reports, and it is all horrible custom MS stuff, even the SQL queries.

      You're making my case for me. The business started off on the wrong foot and now you're paying for it, but in the end you'll have a stronger business instead of something that runs ad hoc at the whims of an external corporation. You'll have an asset in that, instead of an expense with a Windows core.

      If we are talking about moving to Linux you have to consider the costs.

      You only have to consider the difference in costs compared to keeping a Windows solution stable. A conversion is a one-time expense, and once done with everyone up to speed, it has usually been the case that non-Windows solutions have lower operating costs than all-Windows solutions.

      It only takes a few people installing a few programs, or even going to the wrong websites with IE, to get their machines screwed up. Pleny of people work plenty hard, and can still manage to screw their machines up with a bit of browsing, or installing the odd piece of software that looked cool or useful (like Hotbar).

      Again, you're making my case for me. For those things, they don't need IE or even Windows. If you don't give them Windows, it's that much more likely they simply won't be exposed to those exploits. Do you think we ever had to worry about people running NeXT desktops visiting a lot of questionable web sites, or how likely it was they'd find NeXT spyware on them? Most didn't even know that OmniWeb was installed or that it was a browser! People being familiar with Windows doesn't necessarily make them more productive at work.

      You seem to want to ignore all the cost involved of moving, and pretend you don't have to worry about being compatable with any other companies using MS (probably true for some companies).

      On the contrary. I don't want to ignore them, I specifically want to calculate them! That's not a job you leave to the IS department, either, because they're going to come back with numbers that show you need 5 MSCEs x $100,000 to maintain the corporate technology when it may well be that one smart Unix admin at $200,000 can not only put a new system in place, but can do it in a way that better and more cheaply meets the needs of the business. People always bring up costs for moving to a new system as though once that system is in place it will be an equal expense. The whole point of moving off Windows is that having to maintain the systems is costing too much! If I could shave $100,000 a year off my budget by running Linux or Mac OS X, why wouldn't I spend $200,000 right now to do it? I do plan on being in business for 2 years, right?

    28. Re:Obvious solution by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

      We don't have a "nice border condition", we collaborate at least as much with people from other institutions, as we do within our organization. And we certainly don't want to pass every draft we send out of the house through an "interoperability unit", that would really hurt productivity.

      Changes are not going to happen from the bottom of the system, we have no option other than use the software everybody else uses. A way out of this mess would have to come from the top.

    29. Re:Obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly am I making a case for you? Company needs to need to run AFLAC software, company needs to run software from inurance vendors X, Y, and Z. Said software runs only on Windows. Said software cannot be rewritten for any reasonable amount of money. Since we don't have the money to rewrite it or support it on Linux, we obviously also don't have the money to create our own X00-million dollar advertising campaign, branding, and develop our own national insurance vendor.

      I suppose next you'll be telling me I should've told them to go into a different BUSINESS 20 years ago, so they could be using Linux now.

    30. Re:Obvious solution by coolcold · · Score: 0
      1/ It is hard to find ppl to maintain 2/ Those ppl are usually expensive to hire Flat out lies, and you should have called them on it. Odds are they never even seriously bothered to try finding a Unix admin, or know how to compare their value with Windows admins doing the same job.
      Well, I am not exactly sure about all those finding people since I am not involved. However, different country do vary with the number of linux admins. Possibly you might be right in your place but it isn't the case for every part of the world
      3/ Most of the staff would/could not pick up a new system Er, so they admit their Windows admins are too stupid to learn new things? Not exactly something to be bragging about.
      Hope you know I am not talking about the computing admins here since they could be rehired, but about the more important ones that actually make money for the company. Examples would be traders in banks, reseachers etc. They wont necessary know or should know linux to have their work done. Nor would they spend their time on it.
      4/ Most, if not all, of their "already working" program have to be redone for linux I don't know what that means. It sounds a lot like "our staff is too stupid to do portability, too". Even so, there is no reason to mass convert an entire operation from Windows to something else over night. People who really do need something that isn't immediately available on Unix can be phased over as things get made available. That should in no way prevent people who don't need Windows from using something else.
      You need resource to conver over, depending on the company and their language base (programming wise). Some might be able to wait but others can't.
      5/ Cost to retrain all staff Retrain for what? What are these people doing at the OS level? Or maybe a better question is why the staff would be so stupid as to significantly change interface elements at the same time they change OS. I mean, if someone knows how to click an OK button at some point, they should be able to do it on Windows, Mac, Linux, or anything else, right?
      again, i am not talking about IT specialists. Ask someone in your support dept and u will know how "stupid" can people be. Do NOT, ever, expect things are easy if they are easy to you.
      6/ If say there are 1000 staff, u pissed off 500 of them, I dont think it would be easy to hire 500 professional to keep the company working not to mention the productivity of the company came to a halt while the system is switching Why assume you're going to piss half the people off? In my experience, Windows is something that is tolerated more than loved. If you were trying to get them to give up a Mac, yeah, I could see some people getting upset. But given the headaches Windows causes (in this specific case, having to deal with malware), you should go in with the assumption that people are actually eager to try something better. And if your staff thinks they need to bring everything to a stop just to start switch over systems, that's just more evidence of their incompetence.
      window, though may be insecure, are very userfriendly. Though I do admit linux is better in most sense, windows have it use. When they are used to a thing, not everyone would like to have it change.
      7/ Even if the programs are all rewritten, there can and will have loads of bugs and security issue Are they seriously suggesting that stability and security are the strengths in Windows? Fire them.
      hope u know that some of the crashes in windows are DUE TO 3rd party program rather than the kernel (kernel does not includes IE!!!)
      --
      I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs :)
  17. Actually by apoplectic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but this doesn't prevent the computers from getting these programs

    I believe Spybot does protect you ("immunize") from around 2000 different pieces of software, if you let it.

    1. Re:Actually by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Immunizing does nothing against spyware #2001. It's better to close the entry-point. (Doing both is the safest approach, of course.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Actually by DrWily · · Score: 1

      I exported the registry keys for the restricted sites that spybot puts in and started putting it in everyone's registry. I also added a few sites to the Trusted zone and reset the zone settings so they don't require https://. I'm going to start looking today for a way to up Internet zone security and add more sites to the trusted zone.

  18. Thin clients, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    terminal services, concentration camp style lockdown. Users are basically stupid, but extremely cunning and bear watching.

    . . .click . . . "slow down cowboy" . . . alt-pgdn . . . click . . . repeat . . . ~~~

  19. Yes... Pest Patrol and Spy Sweeper Enterprise by datastalker · · Score: 1

    See: here for Pest Patrol, and here for Spy Sweeper. There was an article this month in Information Security Magazine.

  20. Some hints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    * Don't let the users work with an admin account
    * Use a proxy
    * Use Firefox instead of IE

    1. Re:Some hints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good points.

      Even better, not all users need to browse, so why let them? Lock them out!

    2. Re:Some hints by Xaoswolf · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, Win9X doesn't have admin accounts, where I used to work, we had hundreds of PC's running 95, and this was in 2003.

      Top bras simply did not want to pay to replace those computers.

      As far as firewalls go, things still slip through, and once they do, what then?

      And firefox only stops most automatic installs, it still won't keep Joe Idiot from downloading Bonzia Buddy...

    3. Re:Some hints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Top bras simply did not want to pay to replace those computers.

      Shucks, I wish my workplace were populated by top bras!

  21. I have it by ryanmfw · · Score: 2, Funny
    Ripoff Technologies-

    We have all of the software you need! Just tell us what you want the software to do, give us the name of open source software that already does the task, and in three weeks we will have a brand new software package *just* for you, for the low low price of $50! Unfortunately, our website is down because of high traffic and hackers. Still, you can view videos of the as-of-yet-non-existant software here.

    --
    Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
  22. Symantec by gustgr · · Score: 1

    You may find this interesting.

  23. Truly a stupid question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Is there a tool that we could push out to all the PCs to basically do what anti-virus programs do and block these programs from running and clean them from the computer?"

    Yes. It's called Linux, kickstart and the variations of tripwire.

    Honestly, why are these people asking these questions on slashdot? I take it there's no one clueful enough at the Microsoft websites.

    1. Re:Truly a stupid question by Frennzy · · Score: 1

      parent modded as insightful? Come on, I know you guys love linux, but be realistic...there are plenty of very smart people running windows networks, as well as posting on the 'Microsoft Websites'.

      Oh...wait..you're AC...which is even more reason to mod the parent post as troll. sigh.

    2. Re:Truly a stupid question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "there are plenty of very smart people running windows networks"

      Now there's a troll.

      Having done consulting for a very long time in Silicon Valley, I get to see how things are done most everywhere. I have yet to see a single smart person running a Windows network. Though I have seen plenty who thought they were.

      They all share a basic lack of knowledge about how the technology works, or how to set up an optimal environment for the Company needs. They do, mostly, know how to point and click.

      This isn't a troll, just the facts.

      And the original point about why Slashdot is now catering to the Windows crowd, instead of the Linux crowd, is quite valid. It seems like it's time to move on to more relevant sites.

    3. Re:Truly a stupid question by ehudokai · · Score: 1
      there are plenty of very smart people running windows networks

      REALLY?

      I have a coworker who used to swear by windows, heck I used to swear by windows (ah the days ...) but as soon as these "very smart people" are introduced to linux/un*x they realize what they have been missing. (Security)

      Now before you go modding me as a troll ... I do concede that Windows is used by people because of the superior interface, but even that is being erroded by the likes of KDE/GNOME/XFCE4 ... I mean I get frustrated when I have to use a windows box because of the LACK of features..., but I know that many smart people do use windows, and I am simply saying it is because they haven't been properly introduced to the alternatives.

      --
      This is just sig!
  24. 14" monitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Every time a user finds spyware on their PC, replace the monitor with a smaller one.
    When a user has to make a decision between h4rdc0r3 p0rn and a 6" monitor, they might be a little more proactive in preventing spyware!

    1. Re:14" monitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if they keep on with the p0rn, they'll end up going blind.

    2. Re:14" monitors by dillee1 · · Score: 0

      Well, people prefer smaller/tighter pussy.
      Giving them a smaller mon(and thus pussy on screen) will just encourage them to surf more.

  25. A few things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1) Network level security. Most spyware can be blocked with a firewall.

    2) Firefox and thunderbird, most spyware needs IE or outlook to sneak in.

    3) Default IE security settings maximized. Despite opinions to the contrary, windows CAN be secure. You just have to crank up the security settings as much as possible. By default its an open book.

    4) Use windows as little as possible. Keep in mind as little as possible might mean every single machine. But if you can manage to phase it out at all it will save you a million headaches.

  26. SpywareBlaster by dropkick69 · · Score: 1

    I use SpywareBlaster and it seems to be decent. http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.htm l

    --
    Get up off your ass and raise up your glass!
  27. Safe sex. by rlmassie · · Score: 1

    I've noticed that prevention is more effective than removal. If you can spare it, wipe the systems, implement some decent settings (pre-install all the Active X you use and then block the rest). Or install firefox.

    For some reason safe sex seems to pop into my head. Mozilla Firefox: condom for the online world.

  28. Mozilla and Norton 2005 by nukem996 · · Score: 1

    I fix computers as an after school job. Both spyboth search and destory are great programs. The best things for prevention is to switch everyone to mozilla and get a version of Norton Internet Security 2005. Mozilla helps alot, keeping spyware out and works better then IE just in general. Norton Internet Security 2004/2005 has spyware detection and removal.

  29. Pestpatrol Corporate works well by UberPfloyd · · Score: 1

    We've had sucess with Pestpatrol Corporate Edition. http://www.pestpatrol.com/Products/PestPatrolCE/

  30. Software Restriction Policy (Windows XP) by yiangouk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can apply what is known as a Software Restriction Policy and enforce it strictly so that only approved software is installed on system computers

    1. Re:Software Restriction Policy (Windows XP) by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      And then every time some legitimate piece of software needs to be installed, you get a phone call. Sounds like fun! And how does that work with interpreters/VM environments like Perl and Java? The executable is the interpreter, and the spyware could run under it. Of course, it is a power-tripping admin's wet dream, though, and will work wonderfully until the CFO tries to upgrade WeatherBug :).

    2. Re:Software Restriction Policy (Windows XP) by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Great if everybody is on windows XP. The problem though is that outlook and IE are probably allowed under whatever software restriction policy gets instituted.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    3. Re:Software Restriction Policy (Windows XP) by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      In most cases, for most people in a work enviornment, the "software that needs to be installed" is installed for you. You want to install software? Tough...not going to happen. You want other choices? Request it, and if approved, it will be installed for you. You don't, and won't, have the access level authority to install software, period.

    4. Re:Software Restriction Policy (Windows XP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I'll have my manager approve a piece of software or two every week, and your techs and I will get to know each other quite well during our chats when he's installing my programs. IT doesn't run the company--it's the other way around, at least in healthy companies, despite the jackbooted ambitions of some admins suffering from delusions of grandeur.

    5. Re:Software Restriction Policy (Windows XP) by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1
      Sure you will until the manager, who unless you're sleeping with him, will start to wonder why you need so many new programs installed.

      While no one was advocating "jackbooted" administration, the fact is that most users don't need to install software. If you want to do IT, go work for IT. There's no room in real business for wannabes mucking up the works.

    6. Re:Software Restriction Policy (Windows XP) by m_pll · · Score: 1
      And how does that work with interpreters/VM environments like Perl and Java? The executable is the interpreter, and the spyware could run under it.

      Windows Scripting Host supports SRPs so you can restrict access to .VBS/.JS files. For Perl and Java it would depend on how the runtime is implemented.

  31. what about restricting use and firefox? by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    Can restricting accounts from administrator to a regular user help at all? I don't know the answer to this question with windows? The windows computers at my school don't allow you to install software, but I don't know if that's feasible in your situation.

    I would start by considering rolling out firefox on everyone's computer. I think that would curtail it substantially.

    And please, no one suggest switching every machine to linux. No spyware problems are definitely a bonus, but I wouldn't take on the tremendous task of switching everyone over just because of spyware. And yes, I run and love linux, but I can't imagine installing it on 2000+ machines.

    1. Re:what about restricting use and firefox? by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      "And yes, I run and love linux, but I can't imagine installing it on 2000+ machines."

      wuss

  32. Spywareblaster by IamGarageGuy+2 · · Score: 1

    Been using it for a few weeks now and seems to stop just about everything coming in. Don't know if i can really vouch for it yet but it seems to stop stuff on the way in which is easier than cleaning up after the fact.

    --
    Stay tuned for new sig...
  33. yeah by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not totally clear on what these machines are used for (custom web apps w/ heavy activeX use? Random surfing?), but assuming you haven't heavily focused on IE with custom software, Mozilla/Firefox plus a proper permissions system that denies access to IE and program installation should prevent 95% of the infections.

    Top it off with a local DNS that nulls known ad sites and spyware supplies, and you should be good to go.

    1. Re:yeah by barzok · · Score: 1
      Top it off with a local DNS that nulls known ad sites and spyware supplies, and you should be good to go.
      Better. Route them to someplace where you can log the activity, and then track down the chronic offenders.
  34. Sounds like the same problem we face by willith · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sounds like the same problem we face--4k client PCs in five locations--and we don't have too good of a solution.

    We're currently taking a two-pronged approach. First, for the big baddies like Gator or Bonzi, we use Altiris Notification Server to find them and block their execution. This works tolerably well, but it's a reactive process--for me to block a spyware app, I have to know about it, and it has to be something of which I can deny exeuction (so, no browser helper objects).

    Second prong is a managed install of Spybot S&D--we're enterprise licensed and maintain our own update server. We stick Spybot S&D in our base loads and force it to run on a schedule, automatically updating itself and running non-interactively. This catches lots, but can sometimes interfere with the users' work.

    There is also an ongoing user education effort, consisting of mandatory training and constant reminders about how spyware works and how one gets infected, but that's about as hopeless as bailing the ocean with a kid's toy bucket. I'm long past the point of hoping that the general user population can learn about how not to get infected with spyware; I'm resigned to spending the rest of my days hearing about how someone in Marketing was hitting the gambling sites at lunch and picked up yet another malware app.

    1. Re:Sounds like the same problem we face by w1r3sp33d · · Score: 1

      Contact your local Cisco office and ask for a SE to do a demo of Cisco Secure Agent (Cisco Security Agent?) It works agains viruses without needing an updated definition file and spyware. I can't remember much about the automated deployments and updates but it is industrial grade software.

    2. Re:Sounds like the same problem we face by BenFranske · · Score: 1

      This is actually becoming a really common problem. I'm a senior in a four year B.S. in IT degree and at my summer job I spent almost the entire summer doing research and testing of various programs for global deployment.

      In the end my recommendation and deployment was Webroot Software's SpySweeper Enterprise. After exhaustive testing it came out on top. DOn't get me wrong it has some problems too,b ut it's far and above better than anything else I could find and test.

      Frankly, I would be surprised if the major corporate antivirus companies didn't jump in this market. The technology for detection and removal is quite similar and the antivirus products are much more mature than the current spyware removal products.

      Remember, Ad-Aware and Spybot may be great for home, but they just don't scale well for global enterprise deployment. There is still time and a real need for a great enterprise spyware control client and server. As companies get other IT problems in order and they start talking to helpdesk employees who spend hours and hours every week removing spyware that's slowing down PCs they come to see this as a big need. It's too bad no one has magic software to fix it yet, but for my money and as of my testing this summer Webroot's SpySweeper enterprise just can't be beat. It's the most anti-virus like solution in terms of management and deployment. As an added bonus the sales and engineering teams at Webroot were more than responsive to our needs and worked with us to improve the product.

    3. Re:Sounds like the same problem we face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lock the users out of their machines. It's what we deal with at work. Strip windows/linux/macos down to the very basics that they need.

      Only add authority for anything if it is trually needed.

    4. Re:Sounds like the same problem we face by jkirby · · Score: 1

      We have a solution that is somewhat unique. We have modified our volume snapshot technology (open file backup stuff at http://www.storagecraft.com/) and flipped it around a bit. When a file system requests to mount a volume, we take a snapshot of that volume and start reading and writing all system I/O to the snapshots. The real disk structure remains untouched and in tack no matter what. We call this shadow mode, but in short, we run from a copy-on-write virtual volume rather than the real volume.

      The product, called ShadowUser at http://www.shadowstor.com/, is very configurable. By default all disk writes are thrown out on reboot. However, we have the ability to allow the user to commit single files and folders to the real disk via a shell extension, we have an auto-commit list that lists files and folders that should auto commit on clean shutdown. We also have a global commit feature that will let you commit the entire virtual volumes changes to the real volume on reboot. In addition to these features, we also support an exclude list. This is a list of files and folders that are to be excluded from protection. Their access is done on the real volume and not on the virtual volume. This is all transparent since we hide the real volume and present the virtual volume as the same drive letter that would be visible as the real volume.

      The user interface is completly configurable; allowing the enableing and disabling of GUI features. It is possible to remove all GUI components from all users except the administrator or any varioation of features from none to all.

      Version 2.5 will release soon with some new and exciting features.

      Although we do not provide a mechanism to track and intercept spyware and adware, we protect the system from permanent damage. A reboot will ensure no infections persist. A bonus is that all internet cookies are tossed, all web track are removed unless these areas are excluded from protection.

      A typicalShadowUser system will exclude only the Documents and Setting Folder allow users to keep all changes to the local configuration for that user. However, registry changes and sysem changes are not saved. Even when malware enters the system, it can cause no permanent damage.

      Another use is to test software. You can install new software when in shadow mode and on reboot, all traces of that softwares install will be gone. Perfect for testing and evaluating software.

      This software works extreamly well in kiosk and public terminal access situations, but it also works very well in the enterprise and in the home. Future plans include an exterprise wide management console.

      Sorry for the sales pitch, but I have many users who are very happy since they have loaded the software. Worst case, they reboot and all things are back to normal.

      --
      Jamey Kirby
    5. Re:Sounds like the same problem we face by upside · · Score: 1

      My guess is IE is the most common entrypoint for malware. Virii are taken care of by filters and AV programs quite easily.

      My suggestion is to convince your CTO to dump IE in favour of an alternative browser like Opera or Firefox.

      My two eurocents.

      --
      I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
  35. Use a proxy by dicepackage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Users are not going to be smart enough to run Firefox and scan for spyware regularly. This stuff should be blocked at the proxy level. Doing it this way will allow for the spyware sites not to be able to communicate and therefor make it harder to install a lot of the spyware out there. If any spyware does get installed this will make it so it can't phone home and give away all your browsing habits. This can also save a considerable amount of bandwidth if done on a large scale.

    1. Re:Use a proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's exactly what BlueCoat does. In fact they announced a solution for blocking spyware today http://www.bluecoat.com/news/index.html.
      This seems to be a better approach than trying to deal with the problem at the client PCs.

    2. Re:Use a proxy by grolschie · · Score: 1

      Is there a generic list somewhere of bad urls to block on a proxy/firewall? Not that it would contain all the urls of known malware, but a good starting point. We have a firewall built into our router that blocks ports, urls, and even filters keywords. The main culprits I see install are searchbars.

    3. Re:Use a proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could start with Mike's Ad Blocking Hosts File (http://www.everythingisnt.com/hosts.html), or a similar one. This resolves many hostnames to 127.0.0.1. Before Firefox 10, I was depending on it to reduce the ads and popups - and serving up my own inoffensive 404 page locally.

  36. Use your directory.... by j3ll0 · · Score: 1


    Based on the apps you named, you're running a Windows environment. Why not use the tools that ship with those products and apply some group policies to restrict what can be run? And by this, I mean a whitelist. The IS dept of a corp that large should already have the automatic deployment mechanisms in place, which means you already know which apps should be running on any given machine

    That, plus some sane ActiveX and script rules in your IE configuration (again, configurable through AD and GP) should tidy up most of your probs.

    Linkable goodness to get you started

  37. Two approaches.. by Whomever · · Score: 1

    to mitigating Spyware that I've had sucess with:

    1) Websense has a category set for Spyware to stop it at the firewall.

    2) Spyware Blaster is an excellent free Spyware prevention program. I've never had a problem with users who run it.

    The best would of course be to convert your enterprise to linux with Firefox. But, if everybody did that, the organized crime that is Spyware would target linux systems. Security through obscurity only works as long as you don't have the market share. However, open source tends to converge on security fixes more quickly anyway. So, even if there were major browser vulnerabilities more often, the fixes would be here faster...

    --


    ----------
    perl -e 'print(pack("H*","646176652e7761676e657240676d6169 6c2e636f6d0a"));'
    1. Re:Two approaches.. by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      I can personally vouch for Websense(1). It's fantastic at blocking both users from downloading spyrware from known sites, and from blocking the traffic.

      But, Websense is expensive. You're paying for best-of-breed though.

      But for a Corporate EIM solution, it's the best.

      --
      (1) ~20,000 users, 20+ locations, Fortune 25 Company

    2. Re:Two approaches.. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Best of breed my eye.

      Somehow, the "humans" who supposedly monitor that database of theirs thinks that my site (mangaschool.com) should be blocked for category "Gambling"

    3. Re:Two approaches.. by Whomever · · Score: 1

      Every time I've had a problem with a miscategorization, I've reported it to websense (online form without a login). It has subsequently been fixed within 24 hours. I've tried half a dozen of the enterprise quality content filters and have found Websense's database the most accurate and complete of any.

      I don't work for Websense and I've had problems in the past with their software. But, I have no complaints about their database.

      --


      ----------
      perl -e 'print(pack("H*","646176652e7761676e657240676d6169 6c2e636f6d0a"));'
    4. Re:Two approaches.. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Well, I wasn't so lucky. I tried this and they ignored my suggestion. Despite that the site is tutorial-based, they decided to mark it as "message boards and clubs" since it uses phpbb.

      Asshats (them, not you).

  38. Win2K or XP Pro, and Limited User Accounts by gfecyk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Proven on two medium-sized networks I maintain for clients. No spyware in two years and I don't even bother with up-to-the-minute patches. Just patch for serious problems or when a service pack comes out.

    Limited User accounts also provide the best AV on Windows, second only to MS Office SP3 and later which block bad e-mail attachments, bad macros, etc by default.

    Finally, stand-alone NAT routers that act as firewalls keep worms out.

    Worried that your software won't work as a limited user? Harass the vendor. Go to their competition. Loosen up security on individual files and folders (hence, suggesting XP Pro instead of XP Home). Test, test, and test some more. You'll save hundreds if not thousands on annual AV subscriptions and catch new threats before the AV vendors (and Spybot / Ad-Aware) can.

    --
    Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
    1. Re:Win2K or XP Pro, and Limited User Accounts by slashdevnull · · Score: 1

      I can't agree more, and have seen this approach work incredibly well in corporate environments. It also works at home. I run my home Windows PC (XP Pro, SP2) with limited user privs, switching to the Administrator user only when I specifically have to apply patches, install new software or change file permissions. In other words, I operate in Windows the way I would under Linux, using 'runas' in place of 'su'.

    2. Re:Win2K or XP Pro, and Limited User Accounts by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

      Or you could just buy them a Mac.

      My tech support staff all use Macs exclusively (with the exception of one advanced tech support who does Remote Desktop connections to test problems on client computers, and she uses a Mac as her primary computer [Remote Desktop Client for Mac OS X]). Our primary application is web-based and we test our software against mozilla/firefox/safari/IE for functionality. We however only support mozilla/firefox/safari if there are problems on the client side. This isn't a problem and it encourages people to try something more reliable. I am a fan of ActiveX but since it isn't cross platform it's kind of pointless.

      I have no idea why any software company would use anything besides the internet for new application development. Maybe really large programs that are processor/IO intensive but for the other 99% web is the way to go. However, development time for web based apps tends to be faster than standard client side applications (executables) but it requires significantly more work on the server side than is ever needed by stand alone apps (redundancy, multi-homed locations (fail-over), not to mention a bunch of other chores).

      OS X Software Update is a blessing for a sysadmin too!

    3. Re:Win2K or XP Pro, and Limited User Accounts by zardor · · Score: 1

      You can run the cacls command in a console window in an admin account on XPHome to set security and access on files and folders (AccessControlLists).
      No need for XPpro!
      I use this at home to allow me to run games in my limited user account, so they don't complain about not having admin access.
      (Still can't get punkbuster running on wolf ET this way though......anybody know how?)

      --
      -- We don't understand software, and sometimes we don't understand hardware, but we can *see* the blinking lights
  39. Pest Patrol by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
    Pest Patrol catches *plenty* of things that neither Ad-Aware nor Spy Bot catch. You have to realize that it is impossible for a few developers to keep up with all the spyware out there, regardless of their dedication -- it takes a large team to download software all day, install it, and look for trouble. And that takes money...

    It's expensive, but its the only thing that will do the job, that and really strict AD policy...

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    1. Re:Pest Patrol by dbCooper0 · · Score: 1
      Agreed. I've nothing but good luck deploying PP on sick machines...but some of them need manual cleaning before I can even get SPPCE on them.

      RE: your handle...were you in a band with a similar name? Bob, is that you? Trying a whois on your domain...

      When you check out my sig, you'll know where I got it from...

      --
      db
      Cig:
      ôô
      /`
    2. Re:Pest Patrol by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no bob here :) Are you telling me theres another band called monkelectric? :(

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    3. Re:Pest Patrol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, you wouldn't happen to be trolling the person who posted 2 minutes prior to you, would you? The one who claims to work for the company that makes Pest Patrol? Thought so :-).

  40. Lots of options by comwiz56 · · Score: 1

    1) Switch from IE to Firefox as prevention. This should stop most spyware/adware.

    2) Filter known spyware/adware at the firewall/proxy level.

    3) Depending on the type of organization, limit user's power's to prevent the spyware from installing itself.

    4) If these are all cloned machines that aren't attached to an individual/all user documents are stored on a central server, consider doing regular formats.

    1. Re:Lots of options by Frennzy · · Score: 1

      A lot of people are recommending firefox/mozilla as a solution.

      How long do you think it will be (if FF/Moz continue with the market uptake they have enjoyed recently) before folks start writing spyware/adware for it? My guess is not long at all.

      Educate your users. Use your NOS to the utmost (AD has some great tools to enforce security policies, and there are extensions even for MAC/Unix now), have strong written (and acknowledged) policies, and, if all else fails, start to make examples of people who just won't listen.

    2. Re:Lots of options by comwiz56 · · Score: 1

      Gotta remember though, the Mozilla team has designed Firefox with security in mind, and obvious signs of prevention of these things are already in place.

    3. Re:Lots of options by Frennzy · · Score: 1

      I'll give you that...but you also haven't had the collective "might" of the asshats..er...blackhats...dedicated to writing this tripe for Moz.

      Trust me...they have enough $$ to hire the talent to focus on the biggest market...which ironically is what will bring them to bear against Moz/FF as its market uptake increases.

    4. Re:Lots of options by Buran · · Score: 1

      There may be more attempts, but with a better security mindset from the beginning, and better attention paid to fixing bugs in a timely fashion, they're not likely to be anywhere near as successful as they are with IE attacks.

      There already have been attempts at hijacking Mozilla with rogue XPI install attempts, and they usually don't work. I haven't heard of any takeovers, really, and as a response to those attempts Firefox now has a whitelist system for XPI installations. (though no matter what I do it keeps blocking update.mozilla.org -- is that just me?)

    5. Re:Lots of options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is completely untrue.

      Firefox allows, hell it practically encourages, users to blindly install plugins of unknown origins. It doens't even bother to tell you what the plugin is for. You just got to a random page, it asks if you want to "Download a plugin to vew this content". Of course the user clicks "ok", BAM, spyware installed. How long before someone comes up with the FireFox Gator Plugin and Firefox users start installing it?

  41. Education by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 1

    I will skip the snide comments saying "Use Linux" (although it is a great solution) imagining that you don't have the authority or resources to migrate 2000 systems.

    The best tool is education. Whatever anti-spyware devices you put on there will be obsolete within a week, but knowledgble users will stay aware for a long time.

    Of course, trying to educate that many users will be dificult, even assuming that the education sticks, but no solution is perfect. However, about 20 minutes explaining how the internet works and what an executable file is, etc. will have some very measurable results.

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    1. Re:Education by bcrowell · · Score: 1
      I agree that education is the solution. However,
      1. The IT department may be understaffed, and therefore they may not have the resources needed for education.
      2. This kind of thing is typically going to happen because users are doing stuff they know is wrong anyway, e.g., using file sharing apps to download Britney Spears MP3's at work, because they don't have broadband at home. And why should they give a flying **** if some computer at work gets infected with adware? It sure beats having your own computer at home infected!
      3. There are also issues of power and control. Users have an unrealistic expectation that they should have complete control over the machine on their desk, without having responsibility for the consequences. Likewise, system admininstrators may make users cynical by exercising control in ways that users know are bogus. For instance, where I work, they have IE set up so that you can't change your home page. (But I can install Firefox, which has no such restriction :-)
      4. Windows, IE, and Outlook are such security disasters that education may not help.
  42. Education and Browser by Slavinski · · Score: 1


    Education is your best tool. Invest in the user
    as they are the weakest link in this fight. Do
    as others have suggested and switch browsers to
    stem the flow.

  43. Spyware Blaster by SwornPacifist · · Score: 1

    Try using Spyware Blaster. I use it in conjunction with Ad-Aware and Spybot S&D, and it works great as a preventative blocker for IE and Firefox to prevent spyware from being installed as people surf.

    I use the free version, so I have to manually update it, but the paid version updates automatically.

    1. Re:Spyware Blaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spyware Blaster is the tool to do the job that this Ask/. is about. Recommended for all windoze systems to install and use to prevent the worst internet sites from installing pr0n spyware thru IE...

      Next job is switching to a better browser, Opera or Firefoxy. Both are secure and Opera is the most standard comliant browser out there with many features that are attractive and practical.

      The third step is putting out a new agreement for computer use that excplicitly mentiones that the installation of P2P software on any company's computers is on the individual's responsibilities. Any spyware installed with such software will be removed at the cost of the individual, not the company.

    2. Re:Spyware Blaster by SwornPacifist · · Score: 1

      I also switched to Firefox shortly after using Spyware Blaster, to further protect myself. But the neat part of SB is that it integrates into FF, which as a longtime user of IE, I must say rocks. The extensions are nothing short of unbelievably awesome, and I only use IE when I have to, but I have an extension to open links in IE.

      Call me converted.

  44. Heretical advice??? by vudufixit · · Score: 3, Informative

    I did some spyware experiments of my own one day, to "ferret out" where some of this stuff came from. I did a clean install of XP on a machine, and carefully documented what I did, and the resulting changes in cookies, commit charge, etc. The results were interesting - I visited a lot of adult porn sites - literally just combining verbs and adjectives, and got very little in the way of spyware. I went to a particularly vicious site - default-homepage-network.com, and instantly got hit with a bunch of popups and three items immediately went into add/remove programs. Then I installed the "standard" kazaa - installing spyware programs was part of the initial installation!!! Commit charge went from about 100 megs right after a bootup, to 212 after installing Kazaa. Then, I wiped the machine out and installed XP and then SP2. The first things I tried - porn sites and default-homepage-network, didn't do anything - only Kazaa resulted in spyware, because installing it yourself is part of the package. When I clean out clients' PCs, I do the following: 1. Safe mode, command prompt - delete everything I recognize as a spyware .dll or .exe, and I rename anything I believe may be a system file. 2. Normal mode, uninstall any program with "rebates" "shopping" "bargain" etc... 3. Install and run Adaware, Spybot, Hijack This, CW Shredder, and Spyware Blaster. 4. Install SP2 if it's a recent machine - SP2 tends to crush PCs that have been running for a while. 5. Scold them for downloading music, and remind them that not only will they have to pay me if their internet habits cause reinfection, but the greedy RIAA bastards may even come knocking one day. I agree that most 2004 and up versions of Symantec and McAfee include anti-spyware protection, as well. Not too impressed with Webroot Spysweeper - it's a rather ponderous product. Firefox is a damn good idea, too. And of course, stay away from "Spyware Stormer"

  45. Ad-Aware Plus/Pro by lwells-au · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The author mentions having Ad-Aware installed, but I assume the s/he is referring to the 'standard' (free) version?

    If you go for the payed version it comes with an app called Ad-Watch which actively monitors your machine for spyware installs. See: http://www.lavasoft.de/software/adwatch/

    1. Re:Ad-Aware Plus/Pro by The+Barking+Dog · · Score: 1

      The free version of Ad-Aware is also not licensed for corporate use. If this is as big an installation as the poster suggests, then they need to be concerned about that.

  46. Ad-Watch by Takara · · Score: 2, Insightful
    With Ad-Aware 6 SE Plus and Professional, there is an application called Ad-watch. It provides realtime protection from registry changes, browser hijacks and blocks suspicious processes.

    It's not free though

  47. Use Linux by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 0, Troll

    No problemo!

  48. Domain policy by PoitNarf · · Score: 1

    If you're computers are in a Windows domain, why not have all domain computers run the spyware program automatically? Pretty sure this could be scheduled utilizing some sort of domain policy. I know spybot has many command line switches, so you could run it everyday without the user noticing. Spybot command line switches

    --

    "0101100101? It's just jibberish. *looks in mirror, gasps* 1010011010@!? AHHHHHH!!"
  49. 3 pronged attack by KenFury · · Score: 1

    Get one to five standard images. All PC's get re-imaged when you get around to it. Every 3 to 6 months. It also makes a reinstall much quicker I can do 20 systems in less than an hour. 10 min for the image and 5 minutes per system for post install setup.

    No Admin rights! assuming they are running either 2000 or XP give them as little rights as you can. They dont need them. If they absoutly need rights give them local rights Only.

    Proxy/Firewall. Even if you block the most obnoxous sites you have saved your self from 1/2 of the work. I use a custom hosts file that has about 1000 entries.

    Some of the more simple and cheap things are; firefox, Spybot with TeaTimer, Google toolbar on IE. Remember you cant stop users but the trick is to slow them down.

    The best thing I have found is to create a cluture that does not tolerate spyware. It take 2 years but is worth it. Training is a godsend. Even if everyother person knows how not to act they will help out the others.

    1. Re:3 pronged attack by Longtime+Lurker · · Score: 1

      I agree this is the best bet. Lock down the user system. Especially if this is a "mission" critical PC. The PC is a tool and is not there for the user's enjoyment. If they can't handle the fact that they can no longer download the next best demo from download.com or some other site to try on their work PC then they don't need to be using it. The work PC is used as a "tool" and needs to be locked down so users can't "infect" it. Its sad but true that you will spend more money educating users then it is to lock out their computers. If the CEO or owner of the company can't see this start showing him statistics from adware/spyware/virus removal your IT department does alone on these computer. That may cause them to open an eye!

    2. Re:3 pronged attack by MrRTFM · · Score: 1

      Hey - Great Idea!

      Let's take this a step furthur and:
      - remove all radios from Company cars (its there to be driven, not for you to listen to your damn rap music!)

      - remove lunch rooms (there's a cafe down the street asswipe)

      - turn off Air Conditioning (what are you a pansy? - put a jumper on for fucks sake!)

      Just think, with all these ideas the company could save a fortune. :)

      --
      You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
    3. Re:3 pronged attack by KenFury · · Score: 1

      The other thing we do is have 50 wyse terminals running XP embedded. Almost all users start on these as a type of training wheel and can get moved back down to them. If the user screws something up. just have them reboot. All setting are stored in ram. They also learn to save thing on the network pretty quickly too. :)

    4. Re:3 pronged attack by Longtime+Lurker · · Score: 1

      But most of those don't take much user interaction or are easily replaceable. Air conditoner who would touch anything on the air conditioner to break it so much that it would put people of work. Unless the heat in the building is so unbearable they can continue to work. Now if someone is waiting for someone else to do work on their computer because they need the file, but there computer is in for repair they have to wait. The computer is a tool in business its not a convenience or a perk. Lunch rooms are their they have minimal maintenance unless someone rams their car through them or breaks down walls. A computer on the other hand is needed for company work. I can do without the lunch room, radio, or air conditioning in a programming enviornment your most important tool is your computer. Then give me a reason why people in a work enviornment should install any program besides the ones they need for work, or to do their job?

  50. FFox by MadEmperor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I love how all the FFox/Mozilla comments get a score of 1.

    The truth of the matter is Mozilla does indeed prevent quite a bit of malware from entering your computer.

    Oh well, I'm sure this will be modded 1 - Redundant

  51. ltsp + citrix + windows servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess this is a major flaw of your architecture.

    Might I suggest some windows servers for desktop applications linked to LTSP servers for user's desktops via citrix? This way the PC's aren't running windows, you have central management of their desktops and you can still run windows apps.

    I guess you could still do the same thing with just citrix servers.

  52. About other IT admins asking for help... by gfecyk · · Score: 0

    I've read a few posts saying they face similar problems. I'm going to brag, boast and strut some more but only to the extent that I can help you, the IT department in your company, stop these things before the fact.

    Please read my journal for theory (limited users, current and patched versions of MS Office, etc). Please ask me directly for experience in this (making misbehaving apps work, recommending alternative apps, etc). I get paid to do this for a living, but I can help you keep your costs down by teaching you what I know. Do consider it. The website is http://www.pan-am.ca/ and you'll find a phone number and a contact address there.

    --
    Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
  53. Tip #0 by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

    DO NOT INSTALL REALPLAYER!!!

  54. pick your poison by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

    No-one said you can win them all...

  55. DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 5, Informative
    Oh my god, I'm surprised it took that long to mention DeepFreeze. I LOVE DEEP FREEZE. I only manage 70 comps at a lan center, but if you think office drones are demanding, try gamers. We used to have the comps locked down as tight as possible (well, as tight as you can get with XP pro and still have games/punkbuster be functional), and we still had to do regular weekly maintenance (AV, spyware removal, etc). With DeepFreeze, you can set up a 2 gig thaw partition that allows people to save any files they might need, they can still save files to a network drive, but the C: drive (or any other fixed drive you want) have a persistant image resident. They can save any files they want, make any changes they want, delete anything they want, but on next boot, everything on a frozen drive is back to the way it was before. They can't permanently install any progs, but honestly, when should a user be installing anything anyway? The best part is, I can go about a month between issues that can't be solved by a reboot.

    --
    A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    1. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh my god, I'm surprised it took that long to mention DeepFreeze."

      that was 2nd post :p

    2. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1

      I know, it still shouldn't have taken that long :)

      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    3. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few caveats -

      In an office environment:
      - users will likely save documents where they shouldn't, and they will be erased on reboot.
      - windows updates get to be a pain, especially with automated services.

      A lan center in this respect is a lot less demanding than an office, where people DO have personalized machines.

    4. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      IN many office environments, it's not suitable. A document saved to the wrong folder ends up erased on reboot - that's no good for end users.

      Automatic Upgrades become a pain in the butt, having to un-freeze everything for them.

      a lan center in this respect is easier, as the machines have a static configuration that is not dependent on the user.

    5. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative
      Windows updates are easy: In the middle of the night, thaw the machine from the console (automated), run the updates (automated - you ARE using SMS right?) and then re-freeze it in the morning before they come in. The problem of users saving documents in the wrong location is still an issue but can be mitigated in many applications by the use of default document save paths.

      A somewhat better way to handle the freeze/thaw thing is to run your updates weekly and cycle the machines on the weekend. If you're really worried about your users losing data you can search their machines (via administrative shares, in an automated fashion) for documents modified in the last week and shovel them into a separate folder on the permanently thawed drive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1
      Actually, Deepfreeze pro & enterprise accounts for updates. You can schedule times & dates for the machines to automatically set themselves to 'thaw', connect to an SUS server of your choice, run batch files/programs/scripts of your choosing, etc. Enterprise edition even comes with a command console to do it remotely on command. Or you could write your own remote console using the DFC commaind line interface that comes with pro, like I did. It's all pretty easy. As for people saving files where they shouldn't, it'll only take once or twice before they learn.

      Trust me, when I have apx 50 games/machine to look after, with an average of 5-6 patches a week to do (that HAVE to be done if my customers want to play online), I know about patches and update cycles. As for personalized machines, you are right - there isn't that much. But there ARE savegames and all that jazz that people want kept (esp the Neverwinter & Final Fantasy guys). We've had to get a little creative with that, but we manage. For things like personalized desktops, bookmarks and such, isn't there a way to map the My Documents folder to a separate partition/drive?

      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    7. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by hazem · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I once set up a similar system using a small linux installation.

      1) set up windows on half the drive
      2) install a small version of linux on the other partition
      3) make an image of the windows drive that is stored on the linux side
      3) I set up some rudimentary scripting that worked with lilo boot options.

      Normal operation is to boot to Linux, then extract the windows image over the windows partition. It then reboots. You can feed lilo an option to override its default boot option and go directly into windows. On next reboot, you go back into linux.

      I even set flags where you can turn off the auto-rebuilding, set it for daily rebuilding only (first boot of the day), or make it strictly manual "your computer is goofy? Okay, reboot, and select rebuild. Get some coffee and come back".

      As another poster said, you do have to turn off all the auto-updates because they'll continually trigger. But it is so nice to not have to tend to the machines until you want to do those updates.

      I don't have the setup on a website, but if you're interested, send an e-mail to username dfrakes at the new google email service. I'd be glad to send my scripts along along.

      We had a lab of win98 boxes - all PII-300's or less that would rebuild their 1.5GB windows image in about 11 minutes. I used tar/gzip for the image, but it can work just as well with dd/gzip and may even go faster. In that case, the smaller your windows drive, the better your performance will be.

      It was great in an academic computer lab where the users shouldn't be messing with things!

    8. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by jkirby · · Score: 1

      If you lie DeepFreeze, you should like ShadowUser. Give it a try.

      --
      Jamey Kirby
    9. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by PeterPumpkin · · Score: 1

      Heh, I was brainstorming on something somewhat similar, although a little more *nix-dependant.

      Say you have some boxes, doesn't matter if they're running linux, BSD, or whatever, as long as they're running the same version of WINE.

      Well, get all the programs people use running in one test setup (IE6,Office 2000,Minesweeper, etc.). Hey, it is possible, just time-consuming. Save the ~/.wine "image" to the server (read-only :).

      Mount the server drive to some arbitrary directory, and link it in to wine as s: or something so people can save their files. Then whip up a generic shell scipt that kills the wineserver, and then automatically replaces the user's .wine directory with a fresh one from the server. Then, link to the script from the desktop, call it "panic button" or whatever. And then a clicky for each program you put on.

      On the downside, WINE is the long pole in the tent here, being fickle and hard to get set up. On the upside, if you put the right progams, like IE6 and Outlook Express, the clueless noobs will be drawn like flies to the glowing blue [light, e]. They'll absolutely obliterate the wine setup on a daily basis (because there aren't many Windows programs to spread their destructive noobidity across) and yet the underlying setup will remain rock solid (aka untouched), cause the regular programs will "look funny".

      The more I think about that setup, the more I like it :D

    10. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by chrispyman · · Score: 1

      There sure is a way to map My Documents to another folder... simply right click it and go to properties. That step seems to be forgotten all too often as you'd think it would be in there with all the other system policies in the registry.

    11. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #1 - They should be saving *anything/everything* they do their home folder one the server (backup, etc)... seems to be a moot point. PC crashes / HD dies, then it complicates file recovery and wastes admining time.
      #2 - I just installed Deep Freeze Enterprise on the LAN tonite at our school... latest version has a admin console that allows you to thaw/freeze/reboot/wake-on lan/schedule maintenance/and on and on from your PC. Quite impressive actually. So you can have it run Window updates automatically (if you are that insane) and ant-vir can update itslef on schedule and machine will auto-freeze afterwards, etc...

      Deep freeze itself has made life sooo much easier, and now with this new enterprise version that allows for scheduling and remote control, it solves the only remaining issues we had with it (ie: virus updates and schedules maintenance).

    12. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by hazem · · Score: 1

      It's me again!

      I got a lot of responses in my e-mail, which is great!

      I realize now that I have not documented how to install the thing very well. I'll get an e-mail out to everyone tomorrow afternoon (I'm in Portland, so that's Pacific Daylight Time).

      To answer a question, I used slackware because it was small, and easy to install just the basics that I needed.

    13. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by maxdamage · · Score: 1

      Thats what my school does, every user has a map drive on the linux server. The nt login script changes my documents to that drive each time the user logs on. deepfreeze also does a good job with upping the win98 security, cant just click cancel to log on, must log on to a specific domain with a correct user/pass that must be changed weekly. Also works fine for xp. Deepfreeze is awsome when it comes to tamper protection, unless you have the thaw password, you cant do anything short of low level formating the hard drive, which defeats the purpose anyway.

    14. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Why not use arconis true image? Press F11 at startup and you can restore the image off a protected partition? Most peecees come with > 40GB of storage space, what's a few gigs for a restore image?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    15. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by hazem · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm going to try posting this and hope the lameness filters don't get me.

      I hope this helps! If you find any mistakes, please feel free to contact me. If you find it really useful, I'd love to hear about it.

      I'd release this under the GPL, but darn, it just doesn't seem like there's enough there to bother. I mean... can you really GPL some config scripts?

      I found it helpful to configure the Linux stuff on one computer, then using a bootable Linux CD (I didn't want the local box slowed down by unnecessary services like networking), I put it on a server, called lin.tgz. I then booted on another machine with the bootable cd, and applied it to the /dev/hda2. If that was mounted to /lin, you'd then need to do a "chroot /lin" and then run /sbin/lilo to get lilo installed.

      Good luck!

      Linux Rebuilder
      By Dale Frakes
      Write-up version 0.1, 19 October 2004, 4:17AM

      This set of tools helps automate the process of keeping a Windows box with a consistent image. It works similarly to "Deep Freeze" by storing an image of the Windows system and all its software on a Linux partition. The computer boots into Linux, which restores this image to the Windows partition (overwriting whatever the user did before). It then reboots into Windows.

      ** Installing/Setup **
      The scripts as I have written them use tar/gzip to make the image of the Windows partition. This is because I was working on Win98 boxes that use FAT32 (which Linux can easily read and write). Linux does not yet reliably write NTFS, so to use this on an NTFS based Windows system, such as Windows 2000, or Windows XP, the scripts will need to be rewritten using dd/gzip rather than tar/gzip.

      Here are the basic steps:
      1) Install Windows on your computer. If you are using one drive, partition that drive in half (or, if you know how much space you'll need, just a little more than that). Install all your applications and customize the Windows "image" so that it is exactly the way you want it to be each time you reboot.
      2) Install some Linux version on the other half. Keep it small, since you won't need networking, X, or much else.
      3) Create a /rebuilder directory and place the following files in that directory: getimage, putimage, rebuilder, win_reboot
      4) Modify /etc/rc.local to point to /rebuilder/rebuilder
      5) Modify /etc/lilo.conf to match the menu options in my lilo.conf. Run lilo.
      6) Create a /images directory to store the image.

      For FAT32 systems using tar/gzip, you'll need to add an entry to your /etc/fstab to mount /dev/hda1 to /win.

      ** Useful Points **
      There are two main keys to why this thing works pretty well. First, lilo can invoke the same kernel with different options. The menu options I place in lilo.conf do this. The other key is contained in the win_reboot file. By invoking lilo with the -R option followed by a boot label, (eg. "lilo -R Windows"), lilo will override its default boot option on the next reboot.

      There are two other nice features that work nicely. The first one is that while the kernel is loading, the keyboard cannot interrupt the process. This is great for keeping someone from hijacking the system. The second is that by putting the line "password=""" in lilo.conf will password protect the boot options that do not have a "bypass" in them. This allows the user to do some things, like boot directly into Windows, or even rebuild the Windows partition, but not make a new image of the Windows partition.

      If you're going to do a dd/gzip option, you'll want to wipe your Windows partition's empty space. From the documentation for g4u, there is a link to a program called nulfile, which will fill up the empty space with 0's. http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/

      (If you like imaging, check out g4

    16. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by Brett+Powell · · Score: 1

      First of all, congratulations on your upcoming wedding rainman_bc. After reading your sig, I wanted to click on your ad however I didn't see any ads to click on. Unless it is in flash of course because I don't look at that sort of stuff unless I have too . . .

    17. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Hahaha thanks man... It's totally helped... $320US so far will buy us some nicer decorations... Very cool...

      There's a redirect after the really lame-ass flash animation I did (deliberately for that stupid cheesy look).

      Redirect points to http://www.costasandsandra.com/index2.php

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    18. Re:DeepFreeze = best. prog. EVER. by WedgeTalon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >>A document saved to the wrong folder ends up erased on reboot - that's no good for end users.

      To that I say "well, sorry 'bout that. Guess you'll save it to the correct place next time, huh?" Now go read some BOFH before you turn into a complete pussy. :p

  56. JavaCool Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some freebies from JavaCool Software, Spyware Blaster is wonderfully simple yet effective, while Spyware Guard is a more "real-time" solution to spyware.

  57. Mike's ad blocking hosts file.... by British · · Score: 1

    ....at the firewall level?

    Instead of blocking port 80 and trying to greenlight thousands of sites that are legit, can one redlight hundreds of spyware sights so no connection can be made to them?

    I mean, I don't see any purpose of seeing ad banners at work. That's bandwidth that's best used elsewhere.

    1. Re:Mike's ad blocking hosts file.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use mike's file on a dnsmasq local dns cache as the alternate hosts file as configured in the dnsmasq config file. Works a treat. Some web pages don't load but that's a small deal. I also redirect to a site local web server and serve a small light green web page instead of the site. That helps by eliminating most script errors.

  58. No imagination required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do your users require that isn't available for Linux? One of the great joys of Linux is that you can completely control what the users do. Data entry clerks don't need to be able to browse the internet. No one needs to be able to play online games. You can make a pretty solid case for using Linux in terms of keeping people focused on the tasks they are paid to do.

  59. Easy and cheap? No, dumb and patronising... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    That's great unless you work for a company where the Internet (or, more specifically, the web) is a vital business tool.

    There are many reasons why someone would need to access the web at work for legitimate reasons. Even in the most technology-sheltered business there will still be a need for, say, ordering office equipment, booking travel and accomodation, checking on the competition or just referencing relevant laws and procedures that the company may need to adhere to.

    I can think of dozens of legitimate reasons why 2,000 employees spread over 10 offices would need to access the web. Expecting them to leave their desks to use a PC elsewhere or requiring them to request site clearances on an ad hoc basis is just plain dumb.

    The former is an unnecessary inconvenience for the sake of it, because you still have to secure those dedicated Internet access PCs. And the latter is just asking for your most probably overworked IT department to get hammered dealing with requests that it doesn't have the time to deal with, with the additional bonus of the requesting employees having to wait around for someone to give them a green light before they can do their own jobs, which will only cause unnecessary frustration and antipathy to both the patronising employer (for treating mature adults like children) and the IT department.

    Now can you see why web access on the desktop is more preferable than your alternatives?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Easy and cheap? No, dumb and patronising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your admins are already overworked, it's because they don't know what they are doing. A good admin has most tasks automated already, so his time is pretty much free.

      If you're paying your admin for his time fixing network problems, you've got a lousy admin. You should be paying him for sitting around and waiting in case a hardware problem occurs. Any other type of problem is indicative of a bad admin.

    2. Re:Easy and cheap? No, dumb and patronising... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because there are never any businesses out there who avoid IT expenditure like it's the plague.

      I can think of several organisations, small and large, that I've come in contact with that had severely underfunded/undermanned IT departments. Is it the fault of the guys that work there if management don't provide them with the proper manpower to do all the work that's necessary?

      Unless they're sitting on their asses all day, the more you ask an IT department to do, the more it will cost you. If they're busy with other tasks - tech support, development, roll-outs and deployments, etc - then asking them to do something else, something that basically equates to checking up on their co-workers, is an unnecessary distraction from what you've hired them to do in the first place.

      Web access in the workplace isn't anything special - it's just a tool, just like a photocopier or a phone - and treating it as something out of the ordinary is unnecessary. If you're that worried about employee abuse then put in procedures that make it clear what's acceptable and what's not and the consequences of any serious infringements. You don't require employees to go to the office manager and request permission and justify themselves every time they need to use the photocopier or the phone so why would you feel the need for them to jump through those hoops to look at a web page?

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  60. The layered onion approach... by urlgrey · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assuming you have to run Windows, first remember there are multiple steps that you'll likely have to take with no silver bullet. Consider these 10 steps as a spring board:

    The first step is to put in place policies (where possible) on domain controllers that prohibit both the installation of BHOs and of other software by anyone other than Administrators. Given that many, many bits of spyware (I'll go out on a limb and say most) work as (so called) "browser helper objects", don't let people install them at all. Other software Administrators can install when needed. It's actually fairly easy to do.

    Second, where possible, deploy W2K or XP, and...

    Then, third, where possible, yank people's admin privs. In virtually all cases, with a bit of good ol' trial-and-error, you can successfully adjust users' permissions to take away admin from most folks. Let's face it, most people SHOULD NOT have the ability to have admin on their own machines.

    Fourth, where possible, dump IE.

    Fifth, do some short SMALL GROUP tutorials about the evils of spyware and how it works. (I found this to be surprisingly useful for teaching users about passwords.)

    Sixth, where possible, dump IE.

    Seventh, consider netbooting the workstations and storing users files on fileservers. That way the OS you give 'em is the OS they get and it's always the same every day. (Tell them to think of it as life imitating art as in "50 First Dates", where they get a fresh start every day....)

    Eighth, where possible, dump IE.

    Ninth, go with something many of the folks here have/will recommend in terms of enterprise-based anti-spyware/anti-virus/anti-?????? software. I used Norton Corporate Edition in a fairly recent gig, and while that particular version didn't check for sypware, there are a number of solutions others are proposing that will. (The Corporate Edition is critical to your sanity--you can manage the AV software on *all* desktops via a central console.)

    Last, and not least: dump IE.

    ------

    --
    Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
    1. Re:The layered onion approach... by the_truk_stop · · Score: 1
      DEFINITELY get rid of admin privileges. I'm working in IT at a health service for a major private university, and all of our users (doctors, nurses, etc) have admin privileges because our mission critial software is poorly designed and requires it for proper functionality.

      Please please please dump IE. That ALONE is the ONLY reason my users have problems. It always ends up being (spy|ad|mal)ware that breaks something (again, our mission-critical app is poorly designed and most anything will break it), and the only way for it to get on the computer is through IE. Period.

      I of course recommend Firefox.

    2. Re:The layered onion approach... by 6.023e23 · · Score: 1
      Having dealt with a round of this recently, I cannot echo my agreement loudly enough. Most malware targets IE, you can't eliminate the malware (but can try to limit it via Ad-Aware, Spybot, et al), so get rid of its major target, i.e IE.

      I personally use Firefox and have also installed it as the primary browser on all user computers I support (including family and friends). The amount of malware has dropped to almost zero, and what little bit does manage to get through it readily dealt with via Ad-Aware, Spybot, etc.

      User education is also important. I've found that to be the case with viruses/worms as well.

      Speaking of viruses/worms, in the same context as before, while IE is the predominant target of web-based malware, the predominant target of mail-based malware is, you guessed it, OE. So, don't use it!

      I've switched to Thunderbird personally, though prior to that I was a solid Eudora user, which is what I have installed for family and friends. Honestly, if users are tied to the OE interface, Thunderbird should work fine for them. What mail-borne malware still makes it through, that's what antivirus is for.

      Finally, look at the other common vectors, including the Windows Messaging service. There are a number of services such as this that should not be on (but are on by default). XP SP2 is highly recommended. Also, if you're on Win2k or XP, check out the benchmark scoring tools and guides available from CISecurity. Some of the recommendations might be too draconian for many locations, but the general advise in the benchmarks is dead on.

    3. Re:The layered onion approach... by Val314 · · Score: 1

      > Last, and not least: dump IE.

      you know firefox (and mozilla) has one huge problem with Windows Domains.
      The Cache is replicated to the Profile store. the default cache is 50 MB, multiply that with 1000 Users. everyone is turning their PC on at 8am which can cause serious bandwith issues ind the morning and Storage issues at your login server
      (Bug 74085)

    4. Re:The layered onion approach... by turnipsatemybaby · · Score: 1

      10. No pooftahs!

    5. Re:The layered onion approach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is FAR LESS COSTLY to properly secure IE on the network and use a proxey filter than to switch to other, also buggy browsers.

  61. Permissions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What every happened to permissions? Maybe if you didn't have 2000 power users / administrators on your 2000 PC's, you wouldn't have this problem.

  62. Spyware Blaster by dpick · · Score: 1

    Install a program called spyware blaster. Ever since I installed it ad-aware and spybot haven't found one bit of spyware on my machine.

  63. It's called Active Directory by Digital+Dharma · · Score: 2, Informative

    Active Directory allows an Administrator complete and total control over his/her domains, up to and including limiting the ability of other administrators to install/remove software. On my last assignment we used a combination of AD, RIS and scripting to monitor the computer states of those with local administrative rights (think executives here who incessantly whine about not being able to control their computers) so that any unauthorized changes to the allowed states were undone every 5 minutes. When I started the assignment the Cisco routers were reporting over a Gb of spyware-related traffic every day. We reduced that to less than 1Mb per month. MS SMS pretty much does the same thing, but if you know anything about scripting and batching you can accomplish just about everything that overpriced product does.

    --
    End of Line.
    1. Re:It's called Active Directory by codepunk · · Score: 1

      Yea and then you got some mcse at work using IE. Guess what it will take less than a second to own and or destroy your entire network because some MCSE admin viewed the wrong page on the internet. AD doesn't mean shit it us just a way to manage privs not the magic bullet you claim.

      --


      Got Code?
    2. Re:It's called Active Directory by Digital+Dharma · · Score: 1

      Olny someone with absolutely no experience working with MS products at an enterprise level would spout such uneducated drivel. IE can be secured, and has been at hundreds of places of buisness. Just as Linux and *BSD take a bit of tinkering to become usable products, so does IE need a bit of tinkering to become a usable product. And AD does a lot more than "just manage privs" as you state. Again, methinks you need to educate yourself on AD before stating what you think it is, or is not, in this case.

      --
      End of Line.
  64. Only one tool to do the job right. by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Is there a tool that we could push out to all the PCs to basically do what anti-virus programs do and block these programs from running and clean them from the computer?"

    Last I heard it's called linux.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  65. Why can they install it? by dirk · · Score: 1

    The best solution is the simplest, why do they have administrator access to install this stuff? While my environemnt isn't as large (only around 350 systems) I have almost no problems with spyware, because the average user doesn't have administrator access. The average user doesn't need administrator access, and if they do, you are doing something wrong.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  66. McAfee VirusScan 8 by rezcore · · Score: 1

    I've deployed but yet to test McAfee VirusScan 8 includes spyware, adware, etc. under "Potentially unwanted program security". I use ePolicy Orchestrator which manages it plus much more.

  67. Block URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One easy remedy is to block the URLs of the most evil sites at the firewall. You could also copy a hosts file to every Windows workstation as described in http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ . This would at least stem the tide while you ponder other more radical solutions.

  68. the tool i use by doktorjayd · · Score: 0

    is called linux ;)

  69. Rinse and repeat 2000 times by bstadil · · Score: 1

    Maybe not the best advise for 2K users.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  70. Not a problem in real enterprise environments by TBone · · Score: 1

    In a truly large user environment, where there are 2000+ users, everyone doesn't have administrative access to their workstation. The admin assistants have their apps pre-installed, the call center people have theirs, all based off of a standard base install. No way could the IT department of a company that size manage to install by hand 2000+ workstations.

    When you aren't allowed to install software on your computer, it's amazing how simple tech calls are...

    User: Yes, I can't install this program my cousin Jeb sent me, can you come install it for me?
    ITHelp: No.
    U: But I don't have admin acce...
    I: No. Installing non-approved software is against company policy.

    Ticket closed, all done.

    When only the techs have access to their computers, and the techs have to fix their own problems or face reformatting and reinstallation of the base image, there's relatively few problems with people actually installing their own software on their own workstations. U: OK.

    --

    This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U

    1. Re:Not a problem in real enterprise environments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about "I can't install this program required to submit transactions for our vendor/partner/supplier/whatever." That, and users are crafty--if you institute a policy like that in an environment in which they aren't already locked down, they'll come up with all kinds of programs that are a business necessity, and get them approved by management, just because they're pissed at being locked down.

    2. Re:Not a problem in real enterprise environments by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1
      they'll come up with all kinds of programs that are a business necessity, and get them approved by management, just because they're pissed at being locked down.

      It depends on who gets to approve software.

      If their management gets to approve software, you're already fucked, and no mere policy will save you.

      If your management has to sign off on new software, you've got a faint hope of being able to manage the network.

    3. Re:Not a problem in real enterprise environments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I am, it'd be their management. Guess we're fucked.

    4. Re:Not a problem in real enterprise environments by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      If you are running a 2000+ workstation environment that isn't already locked down then your pretty well screwed already as whether it is windows or linux users WILL install whatever they like regardless of policy. In a properly run IT department this isn't a big problem. The simple answer is NO, if it isn't approved and tested. If they claim it is needed they have to provide business case and cost justification for testing which stops most garbage getting approved. It is a rigid regime but it works.

    5. Re:Not a problem in real enterprise environments by WoodSmoke · · Score: 1

      Simply removing administrative rights is not enough. In our environment our users are not allowed to have admin, but they still get malware / adware. They are specifically coded not to need it to function. We see it all the time. All the spyware needs for basic functionality is the ability to execute, access to the network and access to either the Run key for the user or the user's Startup folder. You don't have to be admin for any of that. WoodSmoke

  71. Deny IE access to the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Install Norton Firewall or something to deny IE access to the internet. Install Firefox for common use, Maxthon for IE-only activities (updating and whatnot). And run AdAware once every two weeks (yes, two weeks is all that's needed).

    I have done this on my computer and many other's, and I have yet to recieve ANY undesired spam whatsoever. People are amazed with what this accomplishes.

    1. Re:Deny IE access to the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that works.

      I also recommend Spybot: Search and Destroy. Picks up stuff Ad-aware can't see.

  72. Windows might already have what you need. by archen · · Score: 1

    Personally I've started to use a 3 pronged approach.

    1) cut out user permissions on C: and other folders they don't need to access.
    2) group policy (no you don't need active directory for this). You can set IE not to use 3rd party extensions. If the person doesn't need to get on the internet, or only does for a few sites, then set up the IE content control to block all sites. You can also set windows to only execute certain programs through windows explorer - although remember to allow mmc.exe for a backdoor.
    3) Set the permissions on the users profile directory so they can't execute. If I recall correctly, users can still right click and assign the permissions again to execute, but most don't figure that out

    4?) Mozilla Firefox on computers that don't need IE for any specific reason. You can also misconfigure the proxy to limit internet access.

  73. Haven't seen this solution.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just have a program that automatically re-images the computer every night? All important data you store on the network.

    Have 1/4 of these computers "experimental" with an upgraded version of the image used.

    Is this impossible? Would it be too painful to properly implement?

    1. Re:Haven't seen this solution.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-image several thousand machines every night? I think it would cause more hardware failure... better just use a thin-client setup.

  74. don't run as administrator by trulymadlydeeply · · Score: 1

    Your employees probably don't need to install new software to get their work done. Don't let them run as administrator and you'll avoid spyware installations.

  75. Sue your antivirus software company. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make them responsible for fixing the problem. If Norton antivirus, or whoever is not fixing malware, then they aren't doing what they are supposed to do. If we don't pressure the antivii companies to block spyware instead of ignoring it they wont ever do that.

  76. To quote a well known politician... by Dieppe · · Score: 1
    We need to hunt down and kill terrorists where they live.

    Just extend it to spyware writers.. and spammers... ;)

    (Yes, I know spyware is a social issue... someone pays someone money to write spyware... start nuking THOSE companies and maybe we'd see a change...)

  77. Short-term vs. long-term solutions by Teckla · · Score: 1

    Based on the few responses I see so far, you're getting some good short-term advice. However, you might also want to start considering some long-term solutions.

    Switching to MacOS X, Linux, or *BSD would, of course, reduce your risk, since Windows is a much bigger target than all those rest put together. I know this isn't terribly useful advice, but it's worth mentioning since our current software monoculture (the Windows monopoly) is just going to keep getting everyone in trouble.

    Even better, companies should start considering moving away from client-centric computing and back to server-centric computing. High speed networks make "remote GUIs" very usable, and nobody can deny the benefits of only having to administrate a few large systems instead of thousands of small ones. (I'm one of those rare people who thinks companies will wake up to this fact eventually, and we'll see companies like Sun flourish again. Big systems are awfully cost effective when you factor in total cost of ownership.)

    Before the flames begin, I already know my advice isn't useful in the short-term. I'm just trying to plant some seeds.

  78. I'm just a silly software developer, but... by RoadWarriorX · · Score: 1

    couldn't spyware be identified like a virus, quarrantined like a virus, expunged like a virus? So, you do have virus protection right? Are the (anti)-virus companies not providing signatures for them? I would ask them 'why not', then pick the companies that do. Oh, by the way, IANAA (I am not an administrator).

    Just a thought before sleepy-time.

  79. Restrict their rights by agressiv · · Score: 1

    I manage over 4000+ desktops that exclusively run IE. And believe me, we have our share of stupid users.

    Don't give them administrative priveleges.

    We've never had one case of spyware except when a user had admin rights to their workstation. The only cases I've seen were users that somehow convinced the helpdesk that they "needed" admin rights for something, or, ironically enough, a developer, who all have access to their desktops.

    agressiv

  80. Ad Aware's "Ad Watch" Works Wonders by tsu+doh+nimh · · Score: 1

    ...to block bad things from installing themselves in to your system registry without your permission. Most of the nastiest spyware out there today gets its hooks into your system by writing values into your registry that allow it to start up whenever you reboot your computer. Ad Adware is free, but for a well-worth-it $20, Ad-Aware Plus comes with this feature. It has saved my bacon innnumerable times, though it can be a pain if you're installing video software (which loads like 12 different things into your registry, making you confirm each and every one). fyi, I don't have a personal stake in Ad-Aware or anything to gain from this advice, I just wanted to pass on my experience.

    --
    ...because you never know who you're dealing with.
  81. Did you pay for it? by killjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you installed ad aware and spybot on most of 2000 systems. Did you pay the authors of those software any money? Maybe if you paid them some money they could help you roll out massive deployments or modify their software to suit you.

    My guess is that like most companies you installed them without paying because you didn't have to fill out forms or break your budget. Now you are looking to pay somebody else for software after using their products for all this time.

    Just doesn't seem fair.

    --
    evil is as evil does
    1. Re:Did you pay for it? by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, adaware is free only for personal use. Spybot is free for at least some organizational use.

    2. Re:Did you pay for it? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Still, after installing some piece of software on 2000 desktops you'd think they would give the guys the first crack at solving their problem instead of looking at some other piece of software.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  82. Hmmm... by wicka_wicka · · Score: 1

    I'd say killing all your employees would be the best way to get rid of spyware.

    --
    hi
  83. Cisco Security Agent by dougnukem · · Score: 1

    I work for a pretty big company and they've used Cisco Security Agent. It's been kind of a pain in the a** because it monitors all execution on your computer and complains of any suspicious behavior, but they've been able to write some rules to get around that. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps5 057/ It's pretty good because its not really like a virus detector that detects known spyware, it tries to watch for any suspicious behavior.

  84. Re: Consider removing IE completely by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2, Informative
    using tools like LitePC.

    Many vulnerabilities in Windows aren't so much in Windows itself, but in IE (or Outlook, or ...). Some of those flaws can be avoided by not using IE, but some more may be avoided if you have IE not installed at all.

    By default Windows doesn't allow IE to be uninstalled, and MS once claimed it would render Windows unusable. Tools found on above website prove otherwise. You can also use these to remove other unneeded Windows components.

    Fully removing IE may have some drawbacks, but usuallly you can do fine without. If you have doubts, just try the preview version on a couple of boxes. There's a free utility for just removing IE from Windows 98 systems.

    For best results, consider removing Windows as well...

  85. Advanced startup editor... by logos22 · · Score: 1

    I found this startup editor, that happens to be free and allows quick editing of the registry(not for the meek) and access to all start up services and programs.

    --
    ----------
    Why do I always get error code ura:A55h013?
  86. Shut off the Internet by jafiwam · · Score: 1, Troll

    No internet, no spyware.

    It has been my experience that the larger the company, the less likely any individual has the business need to get on the Internet (specifically browsing). So you can stop a whole bunch of the rank and file getting all that stuff if you simply do not let them have access all.

    Using images that do not have Internet Explorer icons visible helps a lot too.

    I work at a small company, so spyware software is easy to update. Public humiliation at company meetings for those that get the stuff works wonders.... "Weather Bug" doesnt get downloaded twice if the perp is named at the meeting and has to go get lunch the next day.

  87. Kill or limit ActiveX by PopHollywood · · Score: 1

    IMO, the best way to kill pop-ups is to get rid of ActiveX (assuming you're running IE).

    As others have/will post, get rid of IE, because other browsers don't have ActiveX.

    If that's not possible, then can you configure IE to block all ActiveX - but that might start a user riot!

    Or perhaps you could create a list of Administrator approved ActiveX components. IE seems to have some tools in the Admin Kit (IEAK) to control this. If the IEAK can't do it, then have a look at this registry entry:

    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Internet Settings\CodeBaseSearchPath

    Notice the keyword CODEBASE. By removing the keyword, you prevent ActiveX components from loading via the CODEBASE= keyword contained in HTML <OBJECT ...> tags.

    A typical value for this string might be:

    CODEBASE;<http://activex.microsoft.com/objects/ocg et.dll>;<http://codecs.microsoft.com/isapi/ocget.d ll>

    By removing CODEBASE; and/or substituting an internal URL maintained by your Admin, you can tightly control the URLs permitted for ActiveX loading.

    I believe these steps could greatly reduce your Spyware problems.

  88. It's called linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah billy bathgates feels pretty good up in there, eh? you actually have routers monitoring spyware. Is this what we've come to as the state of IT?

  89. Is this a company? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it is, the solution is simple:

    - Obnoxious, nazi-like filtering at the proxy level.

    If people want to surf or play games, suggest they seek another job.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  90. Spyware Blaster, Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spyware Blaster is meant to block spyware from entering through IE's Active X (where most of it comes from). It's quite effective, and I reccommend it to anyone who still uses the browser.

    Firefox is a nice alternative, and totally blocking IE and enforcing a Firfox-only rule would help alot, though it may not be a good solution for you.

  91. why do users need install privledges? by CptSkippy · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine that that majority of users would needs anything beyond the ability to run preinstalled software. Just change the policies for most users in Active Directory to revoke their software install privledges. Not only would you see a reduction in Spyware and virus outbreaks, but you'd see a heak of alot less of those stupid puppies running back and forth in the signatures of people's emails.

  92. other tools ... by geraint-nz · · Score: 1

    in addition to ad-aware and spybot we use spywareblaster by javacoolsoftware.com and a hosts file from blackviper.com.

  93. Cisco CSA/Check Point Integrity by MoreBeer · · Score: 1

    So we have about 3000 laptops in our organization. Mostly Win2K Pro, some XP pro. Users only have power user rights, and we're so far behind on patching it's not even funny (can you say SP2 with 1 or 2 hotfixes?). Their machines are so overrun with Spyware that some web apps won't even run.

    Due to our desktop team's negligence in patching (even though we own Altiris), I've been taking a hard look at Cisco's Secure Agent... It's really robust, but it complains about ANYTHING trying to do ANYTHING (think Zonealarm from hell), the Altiris client apparently needs 'self modifying code' to run, KlipFolio tries to make a network connection and all sorts of alarms go off, and most spyware still ends up installing anyway. I've been spending some time with Cisco, and I'm sure I'll be spending more, but this looks like an uphill battle the entire way.

    Another 'solution' I'm looking at is the Check Point Integrity VPN client (Check Point sucked up Zone Labs last year)... Instead of my clients using traditional VPN software, we'd look at deploying an SSL-type-VPN with Integrity. Basically, everytime you make a VPN connection back to our office, your machine gets scanned for spyware (this would hold true for Internet kiosks as well as their home PCs and even corporate PCs)... Depending on how infuckted you are, you can define different access levels (keylogger = no access, normal cookie crap and a couple Browser Helper Objects, you get access to webmail only. You're clean? Congrats, you get the Intranet and network drive shares). It sounds great and all, but I can't say I've had time to see if the rubber meets the road. Read for yourself, more info here and here.

    This is definitely a very interesting 'ask slashdot', and I'll be keeping my eye on the ideas presented.

  94. My favorite anti-spyware solution by nsayer · · Score: 1
    My favorite solution to the problem of spyware is Panther. Though if you don't mind something not so fully featured, there is an alternative.

    1. Re:My favorite anti-spyware solution by strider44 · · Score: 1

      umm let's do the maths. They have 2000 machines. Since you can't install Panther on a windows machine they'd have to buy completely new computers. Lets value those computers at an ultra conservative $1000. Even then that's a cost of $2 000 000. That's gotta be a bit frightening to put on a form for "spyware protection". FreeBSD is a better suggestion, though I still think that to get the best of both worlds as well as a pretty much 0 cost maintainability you should go with a KDE debian linux setup.

  95. Lend me my blaster. by emazing · · Score: 1

    Surprised no one has mentioned Spyware Blaster (http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.ht ml). It may not be able to completely prevent spyware, but it's free and it seems to do a pretty good job.

  96. Re: Those are after the fact solutions. by anakin357 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You need to stop them before they are able to install one peice of code on the system.

    1). You can do a few things, namely locking the computers down using the Microsoft Policy Editor (as I am sure you are aware of it's existance).

    2). Make sure that no user has administrative access, and that downloading / installing programs is not allowed - if they need programs, that is what their roaming profile is for.

    3). Also keeping a image available of every system so that you can restore to a known good working point

    4). Invest in a decent SAN and keep the roaming profiles there, ALL documents should be kept on the SAN / roaming profile so that re-imaging the computers when they do get things on them does not cause valuable work to be lost.

    Perhaps suggest hiring a freelance IT guy who knows how to do such things if you do not, there are plenty here who need the work.

    If you can get to the control panel, display settings, look in the C: drive, change IE options, etc, you're doing things wrong, it's not locked down enough.

    Yes it's a pain for the users, but it does alleviate the potential of corporate espionage (don't beleive it doesn't exist, it most certainly does) and also spyware/adware/etc screwing up your computers.

    These are just the basics but it's worked fine for the company I work for, after some user adjustments it's actually not that bad. The only thing you loose is the storage on the clients, and possibly a big investment in a SAN ranging from 1TB on up, which can be moderately expensive.

    --
    http://www.fsckin.com/
  97. Lock 'em Down by MBCook · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Yes, you can run ad-aware and whatnot, but there is a better way.

    Do all the computers (or even most) really need to be able to install applications and such? Is that really neccessary? Lock them down! Lock them down TIGHT so the users can't install stuff. Lock out all internet access (through a proxy or something) for any computer/user that doesn't need it for their job. Use something like Ghost or DeepFreeze to restore computers nightly/weekly/whever there is a problem. That way, even if something DOES get installed, it will be gone when the computer is re-imaged over the LAN (overnight, perhaps).

    And don't forget the users. Not only do they need to be educated, but put some kind of penalties on them for getting spyware installed. Give them one "warning", then after that start doing things. They lose internet (if possible), they get docked a little pay/vacation time/sick days, something. You'd obviously have to talk to a lawyer to make sure it's legal and such, but when it becomes the user's problem too, they'll care a lot more. Another great suggestion is this. Is there some kind of message of the day or builten board or something? Post the names of repeat offenders on it for a few days after each incedent. That kind of publicity can work too (again, make sure it's worded in a way that can't get you in trouble, check with the law guys).

    Through removing unneccessary premissions, restoring the OS, and just plain old humiliation... you can make your spyware life easier.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Lock 'em Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ah yes, the lock it down tighter than a duck's *ss, the typical refuge of the less-than-competent sys admins (hey, that's how my XP box at home is, I can't be bothered to learn all that crap).

      The only way it works is if it is easy to get funtionality added/changed. Trust me in a corporate environment it isn't. I've clocked up many an hour (and had the mother of all fights with a clueless set of techs & a CIO for back-billing them for that) waiting for the "IT guy" to get over and install some stupid piece of software, or flip a permission bit.

      As many people have pointed out, there are good ways to get 98% protection and still let the users actually *use* the computers. When something goes wrong? rip it off the net and image the computer (and if you're doing that more than once every 3 months, review the above protections, and look at user education).

  98. Securing insecure systems? by cpghost · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can't a posteriori secure systems that have never been designed with security in mind. It's a lost battle, no matter what ingeneous ideas you or your AV vendors may come up with. Get over it.

    Or at least move the more sensitive systems to a heavily firewalled environment within your net. This means: blocking ALL incoming (obvious) AND outgoing (spyware wants to phone, mail, ... home) traffic; effectively isolating the subnets from the rest of the net. It's not always necessary to be hooked to the outside world. If departments can connect to your data center or servers, that's all they need. Nothing more, nothing less.

    ... or switch to more secure operating systems, be they MacOS, *BSD/Linux, Solaris, ..., or whatever else can provide a decent desktop and office apps for your company.

    Good luck!

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:Securing insecure systems? by akboss · · Score: 1

      There are products out there that do a bang up job in securing a workstation. I work at a small college and we use CenturionGuard from centuion technologies http://www.centuriontech.com/ Students and faculty can use the desktop, install software, change settings, and download what they wish. Just a simple reboot of the computer restores it back to your defined configuration without the risk of probable harm.

      --
      "Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
    2. Re:Securing insecure systems? by forkazoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Regarding the choice of OS... I know this is gonna be a bandwagon comment, since this is slashdot, but I say this as a guy who makes his living fixing windows boxen, and is currently applying for an even better paying job fixing windows boxen... I'm typing this from my iBook.

      Whether you choose Mac OS, Linux, BSD, Irix, Solaris, VMS, or the Amiga obviously depends on what sort of apps your users need, but most everything can be done without Windows.

      Some people will tell you that Total Cost of Ownership is total bunk, and that Windows isn't more expensive to run. My paycheck *is* the Windows TCO.

    3. Re:Securing insecure systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well as a matter of fact, Windows and Windows networking IS designed with security in mind. The only problem is, most IT staff don't know how to use it and so don't.

      Windows ACLs, and Group Policies can control virtually anything that any person is allowed to do/not-do, install/not-install, run/not-run that you can imagine. It's considerable more robust flexible and fine grained than the standard Linux user/group permissions.

      Do not become another absent minded /. FUD spreader.

  99. I HAVE MY OWN RESTRICTIONS... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 0, Redundant
    I have an even more strick "Software Restriction" policy than what Microsoft provides.

    Disallow any software that doesn't run on my Powerbook. :)

  100. Thin Clients by fire-eyes · · Score: 2, Informative

    If your users must have windows workstations, set them up with thin clients via PXES. Have them connect to MS terminal servers (2003 ent preferred).

    Single point of control (at least per server). Save insane ammounts of money.

    --
    -- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
  101. Forget it, that costs money (n/t) by Fryth · · Score: 0

    n/t

  102. A combined approach works best by davidwr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rather than answer your question, I'll address the problem.

    You need to attack spyware and unwanted adware from multiple angles.

    Before you begin: If possible, remove the IE icon and remove Outlook and Outlook express and install alternative products that are less of a target. Keep the Windows Update icon or automate this process.

    Next, you need to educate your users. No, this won't stop them, but they'll at least have a clue when your anti-spyware software keeps their favorite new spyware-infested app from running.

    Once your users are educated, you need prevention. This means perimeter firewalls that scan all traffic for known spyware. This might make for unacceptable performance, so this needs to be looked at carefully.
    You need firewall software on each machine that will whitelist or blacklist certain activity, or raise alarms or lock the machine if things look suspicious.
    You need network monitors that monitor internal traffic and raise alarms or isolate computers that are acting suspiciously.
    If your network is of any size, partition it by department or other logical unit so if one person gets infected and it gets past the PC's firewall, the damage is contained to a department or group.

    On each machine, run a realtime spyware-blocker program alongside your antivirus program.

    Now for the cure. Sweep all your machines, particularly user-writable areas of servers, for infections on a regular basis. For volitile areas of servers and write-enabled network shares on workstations, hourly isn't too much, for other areas of servers and for workstations, daily or weekly may be enough. Have a ready-response plan in place in case anyone's computer is acting funky. Be ready to disconnect them from the network remotely or make sure they know how to pull the plug. Even better, if your routers and firewalls can do it, isolate the machine on its own "network" that just has access to "emergency tools" including all the software they need to disinfect their system and/or rebuild it.

    Optionally, get legal involved and have a plan for collecting forensic data that you can turn over to the police. This is NOT optional if you are a bank, gambling site, or other likely target of organized criminals who will blackmail you.

    Now, if you have a relatively small network behind a NAT firewall and block all unneeded external ports, and your users are well educated and don't use IE or Outlook or Outlook Express, these are probably overkill.

    I didn't mention wireless networks and securing parts of networks used by guest users plugging in their laptops. If these apply to you, treat them as "outside the network" and make them come in through a VPN or something similar unless you are ABSOLUTELY certain no unfriendly users can connect. Speaking of VPNs, anyone coming in through a VPN is probably NOT running a box you manage, so they may already be infected. Treat them as such. Worse, they may be clean but be connected to other networks, and may become infected AFTER you've scanned them and found them clean.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  103. Norton Ghost by bataeu · · Score: 1

    I dont know what sort of consistancy you have amongst your pcs but If you have clumps of pcs that are all the same hardware you can always set up images. I love ghost because you can multicast out that image and if you get yourself a schedule to your reimaging you never have to worry about spyware because it tends to take a good solid week to really get to a computer. Of cource this is assuming that you are worried about the proformance issuse with spyware and not the privacy issues. Just my two cents.

  104. Spyware Blaster by Autumnmist · · Score: 1

    Spyware Blaster

    Similar to Spybot S&D's "Immunize" function, but even better and more expansive. (Spybot even mentions Spyware Blaster as a more comprehensive alternative to itself.) Spyware Blaster also sets IE's Security Settings to safer settings.

    --
    --- "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Ben Kenobi, 'Return of the Jedi'
  105. Re: Consider removing IE completely by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
    Fully removing IE may have some drawbacks

    Yeah, no kidding. Unless there's a reasonable way to run Windows Update without IE, then this would be an unacceptable solution.

  106. mod parent -2 +5 -3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -2 troll
    +5 funny
    -3 overrated

  107. xterm by sPaKr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You need central computing. One (or few) big servers that kept clean and well managed. Then make the remote clients dumb, locked down, and netbooted if possible. So basically what you want is xterminals. That run a local citirix client to access winblows apps and your done. This doesnt fix the sales departement laptops, but then again nothing will, its best to put those on a rotating plan where sales guys drop off the laptop ever few weeks for prevenetive maintaince (wipe the machines, and install the latest updates). Also make sure you rotate the laptops, this prevents people sticking their own crap on them. USB keys can work well for storing local stuff, if vpn protected netshares are not available. In the end you will spend man years protecting invididual machines, while protecting one machine is much more feasable. In the 80s we ran away from network computing becouse networks were very unstable, slow. Now that ethernet is more reliable, and 100Mb or faster is the norm, network computing makes much more sense.

  108. Best on an Athlon 64 PC by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

    WinXP SP2 works best on Athlon 64 PCs, since SP2 enables support for the NX (No eXecute) bit, aka Data Execution Prevention, aka buffer overrun protection. Since that's the main vector for autonomous worms (versus the social engineering type), it'll cut your risk of infection quite a bit. Intel doesn't have it (yet) on their x86 CPUs.

    And PowerNOW! power management will cut your company's electric bill quite a bit...

    Just make sure you've dewormed your PC before installing SP2. It's liable to crash on bootup if you didn't, in which case boot in safe mode and kill the critter.

  109. Why Mozilla/Firefox is a good partial solution by leereyno · · Score: 3, Funny

    The reason why ignorant (I'm being kind) users are installing crapware in the first place is because they clicked on a pop-up window that led them to the crapware in the first place.

    Because pop-ups can be disabled in Mozilla/Firefox, said users never see them and therefore are far less likely to install the crap.

    Lets not forget the tradition of there being a new remote exploit discovered for IE every couple of weeks.

    I do IT support in an academic environment and I've found that just hiding IE's presence on a system and replacing it with firefox means that I'm far less likely to have to deal with some security issue on that system again in the future.

    My steps to securing an XP Box:

    0) Optional: Install SP2 if possible/safe

    1) Turn on the firewall
    2) Set the system to auto-update
    3) Install good AV software and set it to auto-update and scan the system each day
    4) Get rid of IE
    5) Get rid of MSN messenger
    6) Cross your fingers
    7) Pray

    Optional:

    8) Sacrifice Chicken

    Lee

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    1. Re:Why Mozilla/Firefox is a good partial solution by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      I just mentioned the Internet Optimizer pop-up as an example. It is not a singular threat, I am speaking of people who install little programs their friends email them, read a banner on a website, and just general non-techie browsing activities.

      You'll never get rid of IE completely. It will come back and haunt you eventually, even with the deleted icon. :)

      I'm a big fan of intrusion prevention. Block the bad stuff before it ever hits the client system. That way, userland can use what it wants resulting in the IT guy being less hated.

    2. Re:Why Mozilla/Firefox is a good partial solution by Fweeky · · Score: 1
      "Install good AV software"

      Recommendations? I'm a bit disappointed with KAV; I keep getting systems to fix which are full of viruses despite even running the performance sucking KAV monitor. Gah.
    3. Re:Why Mozilla/Firefox is a good partial solution by Alien54 · · Score: 1
      Avast.com

      home edition free

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    4. Re:Why Mozilla/Firefox is a good partial solution by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Looks nice; thanks.

    5. Re:Why Mozilla/Firefox is a good partial solution by Llama_STi · · Score: 1

      AVG Antivirus is a good choice as well. I put it on all the machines that I pull from the apocalypse. :P ;D

    6. Re:Why Mozilla/Firefox is a good partial solution by 3D+Lover · · Score: 1

      http://freeav.com

      It's free, and I use it everywhere.

  110. spywareblaster by mpost4 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It selectivly breaks activeX to prevent spyware. I use it on my only windows box. Failling that, I have linux on 2 systems and Mac OS X on the other two. And on my work box which is dual boot I have spywareblaster on the windows part.

  111. Try Spyware Blaster by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    I have no affiliation with them... but it's a great product.

    http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.htm l

    Fast, and it does just that: blocks this crap from ever being installed. It's easy to use too.

    I keep it installed on all my comps. And so far, it's proven to be very effective.

  112. Spyware removal/prevention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could try McAfee VScan 8.0i which includes an "unwanted program" detection facility which is based on signatures that are updated often. Not fool-proof but it will pick up and delete the more regular ones. Also, AdAware has a corporate licence (it should not be deployed to 2000 users without this licence). They do however offer a centralised management and scheduling tool.

    Regards,
    Not an AC, just someone who can't remember their account details... :(

  113. and back again to... by Phucilage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    some kind of proxy helps prevent a lot. Proximitron is an easily configured proxy that helps cut down a LOT of the crap you run into.

    that coupled with something like ad-aware + spybot + spysweeper (yes all three) works relatively well to keep most crap out. I recommend all three specifically because, having to remove spyware from 30ish computers a day as a Geek Squad Agent at Best Buy, I've discovered of the three, with the -1 day defintion updates, you still find things in each one that the other does not.

    You might try finding some other spyware detection apps, NAV 2004/2005 detects and removes SOME (but to be quite honest, not as much as they claim), but the more the merrier. Easier? Less time consuming? Of course not, but removing as much as possible once a week usually leads to having to remove less daily (even in a corporate environment, this could be every 3 days instead of every single day, depending on how many porn/gambling addicts you guys have on your payroll ;>).

    just my two scratched up green pennies.

  114. Privoxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is where Privoxy (http://www.privoxy.org/) comes in; they don't even see those snappy ads!

  115. SpywareBlaster by vorovsky · · Score: 1
    Not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet but SpywareBlaster has worked well for me.

    I use it at my work on a few hundred computers in a school district. For some reason teachers refuse to use anything except IE, so I had to install SpywareBlaster to at least try and prevent it from being installed in the first place. From what I've seen, none of the computers I've installed it on have gotten any spyware.

  116. Just disable ActiveX installers by Ungulate · · Score: 1

    Corporate recently switched us over to an ancient software package that requires administrative access, and it didn't take long before every last machine on the floor was spyware infested.

    Virtually all spyware, in my experience, gets installed via ActiveX installers. People have gotten in the habit of closing popup windows as quickly as possible without even looking at them, and they end up agreeing to those without a moment's cognition.

    I just made a regpatch that disabled ActiveX installers and locked down the security settings so the users couldn't change them. This, coupled with an explicit "DO NOT INSTALL SOFTWARE YOURSELF" policy has put a clamp on our problems.

  117. Re:re-imaging by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative
    Another thing you can do to make the whole restore process quicker is, before creating the original image, write a program to fill up the unused space on the source drive's file system with huge files containing just a bunch of 0x00s (nulls), then, when the file system is full, delete those files.

    Now you're ready to do a dd if=/dev/source_partition of=my_image.img

    When you zip the resultant img, it will compress much more because, instead of random data on the unused parts of the drive, it's just a bunch of nulls.

    When you go to restore, it will also uncompress quicker because, again, the empty space is just a bunch of nulls, instead of random bits.

    This means you could do a quick restore from a compressed image off a cd-rom, even with the cd-rom's lower data transfer rate.

  118. Pest Patrol by jjp5421 · · Score: 1

    I have looked at webroot's product, and PestPatrol. Long story short, pest patrol is easier to deploy, easier to manage, and catches more stuff. The next version is going to be more friendly for larger networks (5,000+) but the current version is easy to manage from one management console.

    My favorite part of the product is that you can clean your network without leaving your rolling chair.

    Spybot and Adaware are great for single machines, but in large WAN/MAN/LAN sites they are to $$$.

    PestPatrol.com also has the best information on the net about pests and on getting rid of scumware (free *as in beer* even if you do not buy the product).

    Good luck!

    ---
    Reader's note:
    (My company sells PestPatrol so please take that into consideration. That being said, I have spent tons of time evaluating both products. They are the best two solutions for the managed network.)

  119. This is hilarious! by Pollux · · Score: 1

    I recommend just sticking a firewall up at the root of your network and blocking all traffic on port 80

    This is hilarious! Oh, and other advice to follow: "Don't drink water because thousands of people drown each year!"

    If someone needs to access a site, have a system where they can request a site to be opened for access. Of course...you (as network admin) have final say.

    Haaaaaa! My gut can hardly take it! Why should the admins waste time on securing the network when the admins can take their whole day manually relaying terabytes of internet data to workers? This is a great joke! I mean, then the admins can actually give permission to some perv at work when he needs to satisfy his daily allotment of porn! Keep the jokes comin!

    Work is for work.

    Wait a sec...you actually sound serious here...you mean...no ..joke?

    HAA HAA HAA! I can't believe someone thinks this is a solution! This is brilliant! Wait, this is more than brilliant! I mean, let's PAY MONEY for an internet connection and then block port 80 at the firewall so that no one can access the internet!

    Oh wait...wait...I got the idea! How 'bout we also remove all the toilets from company bathrooms, so employees don't waste so much time reading the newspaper on the crapper!

  120. Pest Patrol by SamMichaels · · Score: 1

    Well, I would normally recommend Pest Patrol. They're located across the hall from me, I've had lunch with their CEO and co-founder, and it's an all around great product with some talented people behind it.

    Oh wait...CA bought them, the new v5 sucks, and everyone who worked hard to make it great is about to lose their job.

    Ad-Aware :)

  121. you can still play the game by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you want to play hardball, let them approve silly stuff. Make sure there is a paper trail of who approved what, and make sure they take the heat for whatever problems are caused.

    You need the support of your own management, and a evil+political person to prepare the very thorough document describing all the problems caused by $stupid_app. Don't be afraid to estimate costs incurred by the incident.

    If management finds their own nuts in the wringer because of a dumb decision, they might not sign off so quickly next time.

    (If you don't have the support of your own management, of course you're fucked anyway.)

    The companies with hard-ass policies didn't get that way overnight, you need to demonstrate the problem in a way that even senior management can understand.

  122. easiest solution by senatorpjt · · Score: 3, Funny

    When someone's computer gets fucked up, just set a firewall on their IP so they can only access a list of websites, and block their email so they can't receive any executable attachments. That'll teach them.

    There's no reason for most people to need access to the whole internet at work, other than work would really suck if I actually had to work instead of sitting around and reading Slashdot.

  123. YHBT, YHL, HAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, since when has anything similar to a "Security Officer" ever posted on Slashdot? Unless you count all the "Mom's basement Security Officers" you aren't going to find any.

    Please don't feed the trolls.

    1. Re:YHBT, YHL, HAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I figured maybe he was a part-time mall security officer or something. I didn't start the thread, but it's fun to feed them and see how big they get. Kind of like Chia pets :).

  124. mm by opweirdisntit · · Score: 0

    mm sacrificing chicken....anyway firefox is still an important asset when preventing *shit* but norton ghost is usefull too... (oh yea deepfreeze makes a computer slow as hell just to let you know )

  125. the short and the long answer. by ctime · · Score: 1

    format c:

    As for the long answer, The company I've been working for is facing the same issues. We've tried our best to use spybot and adaware, but as explained, they aren't working as well as they used to. We've seriously been sending out bootable cd's which reinstall the entire os and software packages we use. This is the second step. The first is educating the end user on not what to do, what not to click. I think most people are simply pressing 'yes' to just about everything that popsup on their computer screen, obviously contributing to the problem. I think until anti-spyware software improves (the next versions of major antivirus suites are going to help this), educating the end user and then finally just reinstalling everything is one of the only practical solutions.

    Personally, I find the situtation appaling, but understanding the situation from a different prospective, it's actually a good thing. I'd much, much, much rather have commercial companies exploiting these bugs NOW then some 14 y/o or super ninja hax0r from North Korea exploiting these during some massive pearl harbor like attack.

  126. Its called group policy! by Locdonan · · Score: 1

    Don't allow users to download or run activex and such. simple pimple control.

    --
    If I wrote something witty, you would say I stole it from somewhere.
  127. Several things require the internet but not www by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Email, VPN, WAN, etc all require connections to the internet. The www is just one very large part of the internet, likely the least important and least useful part but there you go.

  128. Sweet zombie jesus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I could build my own distro in the same time it takes to set up all the needed "Software Restriction Policies" for MS Windows.

    Seriously, fuck MS and their shitting OS. Get the company to move to GNU/Linux for office drone stations and Macs for everything else. Aren't you tired of constantly fixing the same problems on MS Windows systems yet never have to spend as much time on GNU/Linux or Macs? I work in a mostly RH setting (moving to Userlinux hopefully in a year) and Macs for those that request it (yes, if you want a Mac you can have one) with 20% of the seats running WinXP that take up ~70% of my time with crashes, viruses, spyware, etc. Because of this no one gets a MS Windows box unless they can prove they really need it.

    Use MS' mistakes to free yourself from their torment. MS could care less how much time their mistakes cost you. Use another operating system!

    BTW, this is for the Mac people out there: after two years of use in the office we let people take their Macs home and keep them. They just have to bring them in once a year for two years to confirm they haven't sold them, which they can do after the two year period. Our Mac people really like us. =)

  129. Spyware solution by VampireD · · Score: 0

    Giant Anti-Spyware is a great product as well. It offers spynet distributed network to enhance the service. It also protects from applications from installing services and start up items as well as few other things that really help a lot.

    Pest Patrol is a great product when it comes down to trojans and key loggers, the problem is it doesn't auto update, the program corporate version isn't nearly as nice as the private on as it seems much more clugy, and Computer Associates just bought them out which ussually means it will go down hill.

    Spysweeper is a good product but like most Webroot stuff it is quite buggy when they went to 3.0 version. It also has some unique scanners to protect applications from doing bad bad things.

    Remember the problem is not just spyware, most AV products do not scan key loggers or trojans all that well either.

    I found this site that has 10% off a lot of these products if you guys want it, I have it bookmarked.

    http://algorithmconsulting.com/buysoftware.html

  130. Attachments by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

    Aggressive quarantining is great. I actually quarantine zip files - there's a small false positive rate, but the work caused retrieving the occasional quarantined file is minimal compared to the time and effort saved by blocking them.

    I'm lucky enough to have most of my users either smart enough not to open suspicious attachments, or on computers where it just doesn't matter. The LTSP users, obviously, can do whatever they want - though they're encouraged to follow sensible security rules anyway, both at home and at work. Ditto the MacOS 9 users. For the win98 and XP users, it looks like the message got through on something like the eighteenth try for most of them, and they now tend to act fairly sensibly.

    Given that I have the class of user who will call me and say "my email is broken" when somebody (one person) said they sent a message five minutes ago and it hasn't arrived yet, I wonder at your organisation's choice of staff ;-)

  131. has to be said by zojas · · Score: 1

    get a real Operating System that simply doesn't have these types of vulnerabilities. there must be some tipping point where the costs incurred from handling spyware/viruses/vulnerabilities over the course of YEARS will outweigh the cost of switching to something else. Linux, OS X, *bsd, Hell, even Solaris will eventually cost less than handling spyware. At least with Linux or *bsd (and possibly with Solaris) you can re-use your existing hardware. Seriously, I get so tired of the poor bastards stuck using Windows whining about all the crap they 'have' to put up with. It's just ridiculous.

  132. Re: Those are after the fact solutions. by zaffir · · Score: 1

    Webroot has software the runs in the background and immediately blocks and removes spyware trying to install itself. It does a great job. I've also found that it gets rid of anything AdAware and SpyBot miss. I rarely run those two anymore - one scan w/ webroot is usually enough.

    --
    "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
  133. www.pestpatrol.com by sid+crimson · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pest Patrol. There is a 30 day / 25-user trial available online. Pest Patrol They were recently purchased by Computer Associates, and this product will be rolled into their Secure Content Manager package in a year or so.

    -sid

  134. pest patrol has been working well for me by museumpeace · · Score: 1

    but they got bought by ComputerAssociates so wait and see if CA jacks up the price or screws up the product. I actually pay money for anti spyware and firewalls....the update services get to my cmputer before most new and variant infections do. it effectively removes exe's, reg settings and BHO's. But then I quit using IE a year ago so I don't know if there is much need for all that protection.

    --
    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.
  135. Haven't seen Cisco's Security Agent mentioned yet. by pfleming · · Score: 1

    According to the presentation on security given by Cisco this may be the ultimate tool for larger environments: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps5 057/index.html It's supposed to lock machines down based upon master policies that you set centrally, and when laptop users reconnect after being 'out of the office' they can pull updates right off the central configuration. And it can be hidden from the end user.
    The downside is that it comes from Cisco in a proprietary binary and that you usually have to get it from a channel, but if it works as advertised....

  136. Transparent Proxy With Dans Guardian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  137. Yea you are really safe keep telling yourself that by codepunk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Setting permissions the way you do will help some but IE has enough holes to drive a truck through. It makes absolutely no difference if they are locked down or not. The fact that IE can be used to execute code makes you and your network vulnerable.

    Being the good little MCSE that you are you probably jepordize your network by using IE on your own machine. Now imagine you hitting that nice little web page that joe hacker left on the internet that installs code on your machine and executes it, bingo that's right he has your entire network by the bag.

    --


    Got Code?
  138. You are a moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but you are. You really don't know what you are talking about.

    You don't find spyware IN anything but windows.

    1. Re:You are a moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You don't find spyware IN anything but windows.

      Yeah, Just like you never find viruses and worms in UNIX. And Linux never crashes (that Kernel OOPS message is a figment of OSS community's collective imagination)

      Dodo.

  139. Deny write access to the registry. Whitelist BHOs by Wiseleo · · Score: 5, Informative

    My solution is simple.

    No user can write to the registry in the common spyware places. All access to write to the ares of the registry that is commonly attacked by spyware is removed by GPO. That is - no unapproved shell extensions, no BHO add access, no new Explorer bars, no ability to modify the Winsock32 stack, no install priveleges. All apps are deployed through GPOs. There is a white list of approved ActiveX in general and BHO controls.

    Spyware usually requires BHO access to tap into IE. Removing that access is good. White list enables the ability to provide desirable BHOs, such as Google and Yahoo bars, as well as internally developed apps.

    --
    Leonid S. Knyshov
    Find me on Quora :)
  140. Prevent malware with DNS and other tools by Derge · · Score: 2, Informative

    First off, you are going to have to start off clean. That means spending time at each workstation. There is no magic wand that will get rid of everything your machines have gotten. You got to use the tools that are available to start clean and then focus on prevention. Cleaning: Have someone set down at each workstation. Install and update ad-aware and spybot and start them running, clear temp internet files and cookies. Prevention: You are running a DNS server on your network, right? Put this list domains in your dns pointing to the loopback address: http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt Or, you can install the file on individual machines as a hosts file (as was intended by the authors of the list above) and "lock" the file with this http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/lockhost.bat Install Spybot and during installation, install the updates and use the "immunize" feature. Increase Internet Explorer security settings. Install Mozilla Firefox, make Qute theme the default. Right click on the Firefox icon on the desktop and quick launch bar and change the icon to the famous blue e icon. Change shortcut name from "Mozilla Firefox" to "Web Browser". Install the flash plugin and put the stupid "go" button on the tool bar. Make firefox the default browser when asked and also go into the windows control panel and make it the default again. (Windows Update when lauched from the start menu will still launch in IE.) Tell users not to download and install anything from the internet because it will break their computer. If you don't tell them, they won't know. Good luck!

  141. Troll? It was a joke people lighten up! by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    A poor joke at that..

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Troll? It was a joke people lighten up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU FUKKIN KARMA WHORIN BITCH

  142. IE-Spyad by eam77 · · Score: 0

    We currently use an addon to Internet Explorer called IE-Spyad, which adds a huge list of known offenders to the Restricted Sites list.

    It's an extra thing we do before we push out the images.

    1. Re:IE-Spyad by eam77 · · Score: 0
  143. Re:re-imaging by buttahead · · Score: 1

    Now you're ready to do a dd if=/dev/source_partition of=my_image.img

    When you zip the resultant img, it will compress much more because, instead of random data on the unused parts of the drive, it's just a bunch of nulls.

    When you go to restore, it will also uncompress quicker because, again, the empty space is just a bunch of nulls, instead of random bits.


    no!

    when you say "compress" and "uncompress", yes... gzip or compress will run faster, but dd doesn't do "compress" and "uncompress". It writes all the bytes, no matter what is in them. To speed up the dd, make a smaller image, not a larger one with lots of zeros.

  144. Linux? by Avuton+Olrich · · Score: 1

    You mean like linux?

  145. Re:Sacrifice Chicken by Nf1nk · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have found for most industrial/office application the chicken can be substituted with gas station fried chicken giblets. It is crucial they come from a gas station and not some repudable source for food. The source where you can find the best are along interstate highways in the rural south.
    The optimum cerimony changes involve using the grease form the paper bag in leu of the standard chicken blood and doing all requisit latin chanting with a strong nasal drawl

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  146. Firewall anybody? by TENTH+SHOW+JAM · · Score: 1


    Set up your internet proxy to block executable files. Also scripty files. Whilst you're at it, try getting your mail server to do similar things. Set up a dial up machine in the IT department for such things that are required to do the job. As for deployment between campuses, try setting up a VPN that would ignore the executeable ban.

    I have found such policies to be a good thing in administering a similar sized environment to you. People will bitch and complain that they can't get some stuff, but what they are really blustering about is that they cannot download their favorite internet app. Explain that any work related executable can be downloaded by logging a job with your helpdesk, and that objection goes away, as does a whole bunch of complaints.

    I'd have thought this was obvious.

    --
    A sig is placed here
    To display how futile
    English Haiku is
  147. An alternative by bigberk · · Score: 1

    Now, I'm no Linux zealot (in fact, I develop and sell Windows software) but I have had several years experience admin'ing a student-run computer lab and I have learned a few things about spyware.

    We had Windows 2000 machines installed, and for the longest time keeping them up to date and users locked down to regular user privileges prevented the spread of nasties. Individual accounts got spyware and viruses, but it didn't spread across the machine.

    Then over the past year and a bit I noticed that even though I kept the machine up to date, spyware did seem to "leak" from one user's account to elsewhere on the system. I do keep the systems patched, but sometimes I am as late as a week applying a fix. Let's face it, I have better things to do and I'm not paid to look after the lab.

    But here's what I recently did. We set up our beefy Linux server (which already acted as the primary domain controller for the NT domain, with samba) as an XDMCP capable server. This means that any UNIX (or windows) station can login into the server as a dumb terminal, using XDMCP. This is done easily with Xfree/X.org with the command "X -query hostname"

    So now we still have Windows 2000 and Windows XP stations, which are clean at the moment... but I suspect that the Linux workstations are going to fare better over time. After all, they're dumb terminals to the Linux server. People can still run Mozilla Firefox, OpenOffice which takes care of 99% of our users' activities. People are happy, I am happy, and we're re-using old equipment (graphical terminals) that would otherwise be occupying landfill space.

  148. block spyware on the network, not the client by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way to effectively deal with spyware is to block it across the board on the network. Looking for a clientside software solution is ineffective as it requires installation of what is essentially a personal FW on each computer and becomes a major IT headache to manage.
    Here is one article (WSJ login required) http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109805050471847 505,00.html
    that describes an alternative solution to block spyware in the network and prevents requests from actually being loaded on the client PCs.

    Another related article on where this was done http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?a rticleID=50500086&_loopback=1 but the article doesn't have in details.

  149. Unfortunately it's not always possible by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sometimes management is just clueless and will buckle to user's demands to allow them ot have admin access. Sometimes, they tun specialised programs that will not NOT run properly without admin. Espically in the case of engineering apps, there sometimes is no alternative, this is the only thing that does what it does.

    I agree as a general princliple: Users should have the minimum amount of access they need to do their job. Unfortunately, that is sometimes full administrative access.

    1. Re:Unfortunately it's not always possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, not all apps have the ability to run without admin rights. I had to install Quickbooks for the bookkeeper of a law firm. I spent a few hours trying to get the perms right to allow a limited user account to run the program (most of the hours I was on hold I might add, thank god for speaker phones). The program kept throwing up errors stating it needed admin rights. And when I finally got through to Intuit tech support ... "Oh, well you need to give you bookkeeper an admin account."

      This caused me to give an official recommendation that the company switch to an alternative to Intuit software, which was of course promptly denied.

      But then hey, it's these kind of things that keep us employed, right?

    2. Re:Unfortunately it's not always possible by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Problems like this would ordinarily be solved using some form of sandboxing on Unix systems. Does this sort of mechanism exist for Windows? If so, all such applications could be run in their own sandbox, and prevented from evil tampering with the rest of the system.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    3. Re:Unfortunately it's not always possible by nosfucious · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's gotta be said here: but programmers love to operate, program, debug and test as QSECOFR/admin. I network admin, and I don't run as root on my linux box, have limited domain admin rights on XP normally (like password reset) and use a remote desktop to a domain controller for necessary tasks (about 10 minutes a day).

      First thing that happens when we hire a new developer ... "What's the qsecofr password, what the Administrator password, I need ALLOBJ access, i've written the program using Active-X that needs to be run as an administrator on the local machine" (Pick one or all).

      I'll quite happily give them admin on thier own machine if they need it, but they had better test thier damn program on a lockdown machine before they submit it for deployment.

      Hell, some clueless developer said he was a web developer. The entire page was one giant Active-X control with about three lines of html.

      I'm lucky that the culture of my organisation is slowly waking up to these idiot developers. (We do have some good ones too). Now they actually have to have a development plan that includes testing outside thier own machine. Many times a program doesn't need Admin access to run, but a few specific registry keys or folders need to be opened up, they just don't know or don't document them.

      I'm not surprised that Microsoft has trouble with security, the programmer culture that Microsoft has supported does not lend itself to thinking about it. Where's their new talent pool? Predominately developers that grew up with the MS programming monoculture!

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    4. Re:Unfortunately it's not always possible by AsbestosRush · · Score: 1

      what pisses me off about a lot of things in the Windows world is that many smaller developers assume that the user has admin rights to the machine. I work for a small county sheriff's office, and (unfortunatly) am seldom asked about software purchases and am just told to "make it work". If developers for the windows world would make it a little easier to not have to use admin rights, it would make my life a lot easier.

      From someone who wishes that his desktop wasn't the only linux desktop in the shop. :)

      --
      EveryDNS. Use it. It works.
      AC's need not reply
  150. Steadfast by Jack9 · · Score: 1

    I use steadfast. Sounds a lot like the other solutions, but I like mine best as I can select multiple "unfrozen" directories, which makes it better for programs that get patched a lot. No network overhead.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  151. Don't use Internet Explorer by raider_red · · Score: 1

    It's not a perfect solution, but if you can disable IE on your computers and force your employees to use Firefox or Opera, you'll cut down on a lot of the spyware vulnerability.

    You can also force everyone to store everything on a network drive. That way, if someone's workstation gets too screwed up, you can just replace it and have them keep working.

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    1. Re:Don't use Internet Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. Use firefox or something--IE's security holes are just annoying.
      Talk about bad code...

  152. Re:re-imaging by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    I know dd doesn't do compression - I never said it did.

    If you read the post (since you quoted it), you can see that I then said "When you zip the resultant img....:"

    However, one thing I didn't mention, that also speeds up the whole process, is that the ext3 file system will also handle large files with lots of nulls by NOT recording the large chunks of null bytes, just a marker. I tested this by creating a 1.7T (that's terabyte) file on a 40 gig partition. Lots of space left over.

    My point on the smaller compressed image is that it's quicker to read a smaller image and uncompress it (especially one filled with nulls, which compress nicely), than to read a larger image filled with large stretches of random data.

    Remember how stacker was able to do this way back when and actually increased performance? Still holds true today.

  153. EnCase Enterprise by funk49 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Depending on your budget, try Encase Enterprise by Guidance Software. EnCase is the forensic program/application used by the US Govt and also by most of local and foreign law enforcement investigators as well.

    The Enterprise version takes forsensics a step further, utlizing a client listener app which runs on the desktop and after establishing a baseline of permitted apps, can be used to detect and counter malicious apps running on the LAN and WAN as well as imaging drives realtime for investigative purposes.

    Investigations have been performed from halfway around the world with the click of a button. Another selling point to the PHB's is that it can be used for HR investigations as well, making it an easy ROI for most companies.

    http://www.encase.com/

    1. Re:EnCase Enterprise by VampireD · · Score: 0

      I would be very careful with this, due to the new law passed it is now illegal to install any spy related software like key loggers and such unless 1) Law enforcement 2) Goverment 3) Court Order

    2. Re:EnCase Enterprise by funk49 · · Score: 1

      This is much different than a keylogger. It's a client/listener app that allows the Enterprise Server to connect and run investigative processes. You have an working baseline of all allowed processes and programs that are hashed with an md5. If the server detects a client with a prog running that isn't part of the md5, it signals an alarm to an admin to further investigate. This is only one function that it perfroms.

      In regards to spyware not being allowed...employers are free to fully search and seize an employees computer if the 4th amendment is waived via employee policy that is signed during the HR employment signup. Most corporations are smart enough to include this in their policy, otherwise they have no rights to employee's machines and the subsequent right to search. This would leave them pretty much defenseless in subjecting an employee to a meaningful internal investigation.

    3. Re:EnCase Enterprise by VampireD · · Score: 0

      The way I read the note, it said anything that spies on a user is considered illegal unless backed by FBI, Law Enforcement, or Court Order. Since encase can be used to image a machine from anywhere if your set it up that way, silent to the user, this borderlines on spyware. I am not 100% sure of how the new law is written, but I would be very careful and review it carefully.

  154. Re:Yea you are really safe keep telling yourself t by moby · · Score: 0

    Got Code ... Got Dictionary?

    why don't you try out jeopardize instead ?

  155. windows admins by codepunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of the bright windows admins on here are going to tell you to use permissions to lock down the workstations and take machine admin rights from the users. Now you have to sit back and ask yourself is that really going to help? Yes it is probably going to help but they are really luring themselves into a false sense of security. Now ask yourself how many of the windows admins that you know use IE? That right most if not all of them use IE. So now ask yourself what does that got to do with anything? Well if IE can execute code easily at user level privs then what happens when that stupid windows admin browses to a page containing malicious code? That's right the worm, virus, trojan has full admin privs.

    What do you do to avoid catching the flu? That's right you get a flu shot. So do yourself a favor and get a flu shot, install mozilla on the clients everyone will thank you for it anyhow.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:windows admins by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Your first mistake: you assume that the admins are logged in to their workstation as a user with admin privileges.

      A good admin does not do that. For one, it is usually not necessary. Furthermore, by logging in as an ordinary user during the day, he knows what limitations ordinary users can hit (and do not report) so it is much easier for him to tune the system.

  156. expect the worst by dogeatshouse · · Score: 0

    and prepare to deal with it... LAN TECH and we have a standard image that we use for ALL of our computers which we can reload on a computer within 20 minutes at worst (10 minutes best), including the single required reboot. Network Computing wants us to use their SMS imaging which requires hours for base image without packages plus 8 reboots - so we use Novell imaging. Other than that, we have our own Windows Update Server - when you can't get to Microsoft, mcafee enterprise antivirus - pushing the updates, Ad-Aware (cleans at bootup), Spybot (when problems do arise), and Pest Patrol (cleanup hitter), as well as a network folder of nothing but specific anti trojan, anti spyware, repair tools. We use group policy to limit specific programs, but for troublesome users we turn their computers into kiosks - nothing can be changed and nothing to do but their jobs. We use VNC to provide immediate "hands on" response and zenworks to push rollout applications/updates (without Novell client installed) or kixtart scripts.

    I also make sure that all of my users get information on the latest threats as soon as I can. We do have other levels of security available from the network and email teams, but my users do not need to depend on them. Now if I could just get them to quit giving out their work email addresses to spammers...

  157. Easy and cheap-Mandatory access. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Others realize that computers are tools and that disabling web access makes them worse tools. They know that their job is not to find ways to make their own jobs easier, it is to make other people's jobs easier."

    Um, no. First of all, just because it's a computer doesn't make internet access mandatory.

    Second computers are for making the bottom line easier. No were in that is "make my job easier" mandated.

    Desirable, yes, but you're not the one running the company.

    1. Re:Easy and cheap-Mandatory access. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just an idiot continuing an argument that you started on the wrong side and are attempting to save face.

      The bottom line becomes better when users are more productive. That's simple to understand.

      Nobody can deny that the staggering amount of information available to internet users makes them more productive than without. Not even the sheltered workshop you inhabit would be using paper phone books and encyclopaedias any more unless it's due to a lack of funding.

      p.s. starting an argument with "Um" just proves you're an idiot.

  158. More Prevention then detection? by gofugu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The best way is always prevention, 1. If they have to use IE we make the default ZONE setting for Internet High and Medium for everything else including local zone and trusted. We have yet to find (Business) applications that this breaks. Yet no pop-ups no spyware - works as well as firefox minus tabs. They will have to add banking and other ActiveX/Java/Download type application sites to the trusted zone. Any MS box I use this is the first thing I setup. (assumming I can't install Firefox) 2. Patch Management (Many Spyware and tojens use exploits to install.) Patchlink is good multi-platform choice. www.patchlink.com but there are many others. 3. Web Scanning solution. (e.g, ISS, Mcafee, others?) Scan for ActiveX and Java Exploits on Web traffic. 4. PestPatrol now has a solution that does not require a client. I asume others will have simular solutions soon if they already don't

  159. Welcome to the real world... by ktakki · · Score: 1

    I work for a company that provides system and network adminsitration for small- to medium-sized businesses (5 to 50 workstations): law firms, accountants, car dealerships, home design shops, retail, food service...

    Whenever possible, I try to suggest alternatives (OS X or Linux, especially on the server side). Invariably, there is some application that is integral to the operation of the business that can only run on Win32 platforms.

    For the law firms, it's scheduling and time billing applications like Amicus, Abacus Law, Time and Chaos, and Timeslips. For the design shops, it's their specialized CAD programs. The car dealerships could have transitioned to Linux/BSD/OS X, since 75% of their business computing applications are run over terminal sessions to an ADP server, but the rest of their business apps are web based (ActiveX and Adobe Acrobat being the dealbreakers).

    For just about all, the books are kept on Quickbooks/Quicken or Peachtree, and they have to maintain compatibility with their outside accounting firms (which means no GNUCash, even if it was a feature-for-feature match).

    I'd love to get the car salesmen (who are bored and spend too much time surfing pr0n sites) off of Win32 and on to a less vulnerable platform, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

    As for the Microsoft hegemony, the ISVs are willing accomplices (does Intuit have a Linux product?). Quoth the monkeyboy: "Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers!".

    k.

    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
  160. bah, stop using IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I own an ISP/consulting firm. We switched our users to firefox and...I'll be damed, spy/adware damn near stopped completely. Instead of spending money on things that you don't need to, how about just stop using stuff that causes your problem in the first place.

    Reminds me of a little story. At the dawn of the space race, we found that while weightless our astronauts couldn't write because the ink wouldn't flow to the ball. So several million dollars later, we had a pen that would write in space. The russian CCCP had the same problem.....they used a pencil.

    Morale: Stop over thinking the problem. It doesn't cost alot to resolve an issue if you think to stop the cause, not clean up after.

    1. Re:bah, stop using IE by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      Myth Myth Myth Myth

      The Space Pen (gas pressurized ballpoint) was developed by Fisher at their own expense and later sold to NASA for $2.95 a piece. Both NASA and the Russians have used it ever since.

      Moral - Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  161. Because people need to work.... by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If businesses used your logic, there would be no PCs. We would still all be running green screens off of mainframes. It is those terrible users that found they could do thier job 5 times faster by going around IT and running apps on a 'toy' (PC) that has gotten us as far as we are. At least 2/3 of the Administrators that I have run into are not competent, and are simply not well versed enough in business or technology to determine what software is necessary and what is not. The comment about Kinko's is a perfect example. Remember the 'Shatter' attack? If you had access to the machine as any user, you could get admin access. The Kinko's Admins are probably thinking that they don't want the huge PR problem that happens the next time a similar hole is found, and some script kiddie grabs copies of confidential documents for weeks or months before the attack is made public and a fix is released. SNL's 'Nick Burns' is not far from reality.

    1. Re:Because people need to work.... by masklinn · · Score: 1
      If businesses used your logic, there would be no PCs. We would still all be running green screens off of mainframes.
      isn't it what running Citrix Metaframes systems is?
      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  162. Time for a Name Change, All Hail CC's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole problem (and many more to come no doubt) can be avoided in part by changing the dang name of these things.

    Corporate users are confused by the terminology: "Personal" Computer. [Yes I know, they're supposed to be confused, they're supposed to think they want the same thing at home as they have at work, it's a marketing advantage for Wintel]

    Face it though, these things ain't Personal at all. They belong to the companies they work for, not them. Man there's some screwy things going on in the software industry. What the heck other product do you use at work that calls itself "Personal" for goodness sake. Let's start calling them what they are Corporate Computers and as has been mentioned all over the thread lock 'em down properly.

  163. What we do is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Use the hosts file from www.mvps.org
    2) Run peer guardian (you may need to customise the block list)
    3) Nothing.... as this seems to work. Best of all it's all freeware

    T

  164. All this talk of locking down users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Maybe I'm just new to this game, but we tried locking down users and ran into so many problems going to users machines to fix issues and having to log out and back in as Admin, fix a simple issue, log out of Admin and back into the user that it became more of a hastle than dealing with the spyware.

    Why doesn't Windows have a quick "root" solution? Why can't you quickly and easily elevate a user to admin to fix problems and then demote them back to normal users. Am I missing something?

    P.S. I know people are going to ask...give us an example. Well, I had a user we locked down (because this user LOVES smiley face cursors) and we had nothing but problems with her printer. We tried regular user (which locks down printer adjustments) and we even tried Power User which allows a user to manage their printers, both created a lot of issues with printing. Sometimes it would print just one page, other times it wouldn't print anything. When we gave the user full admin rights, all the printing problems went away. We've had similar experiences with network issues and troubleshooting. And quite frankly, regardless of the problem, not being able to go into control panel, or internet explorer options or the registry to make adjustments, or remote control a users machine, all make our job more of a headache than leaving them with admin rights. Correct me where I'm wrong here folks. If there was a "root" option where we could just elevate to admin, make changes and fixes, and demote I could handle working through all the various problems we have had with locking down machines.

    1. Re:All this talk of locking down users... by kylegordon · · Score: 1

      You're probably wanting the 'RunAs' feature. On most apps, you can hold down shift and right click on the app. The contex tmenu will then have a RunAs option. You can either run as a local user, or as a domain user by prefixing the username with domain/ ie, domainname/username You can also run this from the command line, simple as runas \user domain/user app.exe Yeah, Windows sucks but sometimes we have to make do with what we've got.

  165. I don't see the problem. by macguys · · Score: 1

    In analyzing the problem, start at the source. As a consultant, I support an equally large user base. While there are a few machines running the MicrosoftOS, the majority of my installed base are running MacOS or some other version of *NIX. Execpt for those few Windows boxes, I rarely see any sort of major problem resulting from web browsing. Email is an entirely different story.

    --
    wherever I go, there I am.
  166. Easy solution-Give in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry. Did you just say you ran the company?

    I realize this crowd's rather full of themselves, and their "rights". However a business isn't a democracy. You get a vote if that's the way managment wants it to be. But don't walk in the door expecting you can demand whatever you want.

    It's the job of managment's representatives (IT among other departments) to decide what's USEFUL in the context of the bottom line. They may ask for your input in making this decision (and it's generally considered wise). However don't expect that you can TELL THEM what they should and shouldn't do with THEIR equipment.

    If you choose to ignore all the advice given, then I suggest you get use to this; "I'm sorry since you can't be a team player, we're going to have to let you go." Then they will replace you with someone who does follow the rules, and doesn't think that the company equipment is theirs to do with as they wish.

    Maybe you'll then have the opportunity to run your own business, were the employees can be as freewheeling as you are.

    1. Re:Easy solution-Give in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry. Did you just say you ran the company?

      Actually, yes.

      If you cannot trust your employees, you should not have hired them.

      As a professional employee you are paid for your professional opinion among other things. If your opinion does not matter, your company is wasting its money.

  167. New default gateway... by tickticker · · Score: 1

    127.0.0.1

  168. Squid-Patches and ban of Internet-Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I work at a medium sized company in europe (<50 users) and after three incidents of adware we decided to:
    • ban the internet explorer
    • enforce proxy usage (transparent proxy)
    • forbit download of (exe, zip, ...)

    by patches on the squid proxy to work as a content filter (some existing patches with some custom filter modules). By disallowing the User-Agent "MSIE" we could very easy identify evil traffic (hinding behind that browser). By forbidding downloads of problematic content we could find one remaining gator instance. Some perl scripts crawl over the filter logs and pipe cought traffic to a virus scanner for thread analysis. Since then we did not have any further incident nor any left network anomaly.

    If a user has to make downloads that the filter rejects he can ssh/telnet to a box and use wget to manually download stuff.

    Some domains (windowsupdate...) are not filtered to allow online updates.

    If anybody is interested I can make the patches public available (but it's working ontop of existing patches, I only inserted the exe/zip filters).

    Cheers

  169. How 'bout one of them "alternative" OSes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, like MacOS X or Linux...OSes which aren't plagued by myriad security problems, malware or viruses? Have you heard of them at all?

    I know what you're thinking:

    1) MacOS X requires all new hardware. Fair enough. but face facts...how much are you going to spend securing the system you've got? And you're going to have to go through it all again in two years because you're going to upgrade all your systems about then. And don't lie to me and tell me you won't.

    You invest the time and yes, money in Macs today and you'll have two benefits: First, you don't have to upgrade every two years-more like every four. Second, you don't have to waste 90% of your time worrying about security or viruses or trojans.

    2) Linux has a pretty steep learning curve, true enough, but there are versions which mimic Windows pretty well. You don't say what your desktops are doing, but I'm going to guess it's mostly word processing for a large office. Set up your systems with Linspire or Xandros and a copy of OpenOffice (and solitaire...gotta have solitaire) and a web browser and those secretarial drones will never know the difference.

    Yes, either option requires a lot of work. But anything worth doing is worth doing RIGHT, wouldn't you agree? And what's more worthwhile than securing your systems against malware? And what better way to do that than to use OSes which aren't nearly as susceptible to malware as Windows?

    Or I guess you could load up some av software and call it a day. Your call.

  170. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  171. The application exists, AV. by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

    A normal antivirus application will do the job just fine. Since spyware and worms is essentially the same beasts an antivirus application already has the mechanism for discovering and removing the spyware and the register keys.

    There is a reason as to why the Antivirus programs dont include av definitions for spyware. The insane US court system has the vendors sitting on their hands in fear of getting sued out of the map by some greedy SCO-like spyware vendor. Because some spyware is "legit" (as in the user clicked on something before the install) this is a misty area legally.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
    1. Re:The application exists, AV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be surprised how wrong you are. Viruses don't install new network stacks, set up funky regkeys (well, some, but it's rare), and imbed themselves so deeply into MSIE that it might as well have come with the computer.

      I work at an AV firm, and believe me, we're working on this right now. Some of our best people are working on nothing else. The new version of Norton AV, for example, already does spyware removal. As of right now, it can only remove a few types of spyware, but more definitions are being released every day.

  172. I don't know about you... by rincebrain · · Score: 1

    I've thrown Knoppix in many machines, as experiments, and found the users more than willing to use it, and even able, usually.

    You claim there is no Microsoft Word for Linux. Go look at Abiword or KWord, in KOffice; they work perfectly for me.

    You claim there is no Access for Linux. Google for mdbtools, you'll find all the tools you need for moving from MDB to a reasonable database format.

    You claim Visual Basic does not work under Linux. First, why the hell are you using Visual Basic on production systems? Second, WINE does Visual Basic rather well, last I checked, given the various VB controls.

    You claim the cost of changing hardware is too high. I have never had to replace any of my hardware because it was not supported under Linux. Never. Whenever a machine did not have a driver, it was always because the hardware was new, and within a month or two, drivers appeared.

    I've never seen any users go ballistic about how the text or "start" buttons look under Linux.

    I don't know what environment you're in, but in my world, all Linux needs is to be given a chance.

    --
    It's only an insult if it's not true.
  173. Spyware? What spyware? by Ballresin · · Score: 1

    You know guys... you wouldn't have jobs figuring out shit like: "I need a solution to out Company X Spyware/Adware/Virus problems." if you all had Macs. Or even Linux of one variant or the other. I'm just saying that you all should be glad you still have stuck-up and ignorant/arrogant bosses that are still brain-fried into thinking that Windows is the answer.

    Folks create irritating things like spyware because there's a market for it because MS allows holes to exist.

    I personally don't let any of my computers cater to advertisements short of banner ads.

    Corporations need to see that there is a huge amount of gain to be had from NOT running windows on every fucking workstation from here to the server closet. The amount of money and time saved would blow most CEOs away.

    Computers are not the problem at all. It's Microsoft.

    --
    I got nothin'.
    1. Re:Spyware? What spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think there are as many holes in *NIX/Macs??? Thats a bit ignorant... The reason you see so many security holes for Windows is *because* its so widely used. I can almost guarentee that if *NIX was on the number of desktops (corporate and home) that windows was, you would see a total reversal of exploits. The fact is that all the irrating software is developed to break IE/Windows because THATS WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE USE.

    2. Re:Spyware? What spyware? by Ballresin · · Score: 1

      That's also why Apache web servers on *nix are so subject to attack and have so many holes. Because, you know... it's the majority of all web servers.

      Wrong.

      Microsoft's OS and most of it's accompanying software is attacked and virus-ridden because it's a big smelly piece of shit. Not because it's the most common.

      Of course, it's also the most virus ridden because many of the virus writers DON'T LIKE MICROSOFT BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS SHIT SOFTWARE!

      --
      I got nothin'.
  174. Re:Easy and cheap net nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, all of these "lockdown" solutions solves the admin's problems but probably creates a much bigger problem: data security. If I can't work on something from my work machine, I'll probably copy it off to a floppy or email it somewhere so that I can go home to work on it, or to use an old machine running Win98 that we cobbled together just to get around your BS rules. That doesn't sound like much of a productivity boost now, does it?
    We had the nazi problem at work way back with NT when the dumbass admins locked us out of everything. Couldn't even add a printer w/o having an admin come to your desk to add it. That's gotta cost. We almost went as far as to put the hard drives into an non-locked-down machine just so that we could install software.

    Usually locking stuff down just shows complete and utter ignorance on the part of the admins.

  175. some evidence suggests you are wrong by Dink+Paisy · · Score: 1

    This post on BugTraq suggests that Mozilla and Firefox will have security problems when they get popular enough. The evidence is pretty compelling, too. Current testing procedures for Mozilla are obviously inadequate.

    --

    Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
    whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
    --Proverbs 9:7
  176. Re:Yea you are really safe keep telling yourself t by obeythefist · · Score: 2, Funny

    Keep it civil! There's nothing to be gained by accusing people of being an MCSE.

    Although you make a salient point - use of IE at all is a risk in any IT organisation.

    To an extent locking down a workstation is effective when using IE - most (not all) spyware is derived from popups and click-here's that launch as a result of the very flawed design of MSIE. Locking down the WINNT or Windows folder will prevent these spyware articles from installing correctly. This does offer a good degree of protection from Bonzi Buddy.

    Of course, web browsing admins are quite often the cause of many disasters in I/T. I remember a helldesk employee of ours once went to a russian website and had our whole corporate link running a DOS attack on someone we didn't even know within hours.

    --
    I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  177. Easy solution-Give in-11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you cannot trust your employees, you should not have hired them."

    Well good for you. Now try scaling to the size of Exxon or Boeing and get back to me on your successfully run "I trust everyone" IT structure.

  178. block access to the internet -nt- by Suppafly · · Score: 1

    block access to the internet -nt-

  179. Easy and cheap-Give me my MTV!. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You're just an idiot continuing an argument that you started on the wrong side and are attempting to save face."

    Oh, your cute when you're wrong.

    "The bottom line becomes better when users are more productive. That's simple to understand."

    That doesn't mean that the internet is necessary to being productive. In fact one can make just as valid an assumption that the internet makes one less productive.

    "Nobody can deny that the staggering amount of information available to internet users makes them more productive than without. Not even the sheltered workshop you inhabit would be using paper phone books and encyclopaedias any more unless it's due to a lack of funding."

    Um, no. One can conclude AT BEST, that some of the information available on the internet is useful to some of the people. The degree to which it's useful over internal sources of information is debatable.

    At worst the majority of it is misleading, and or just plain wrong. Your blind faith in a resource you have no control over is duely noted.

    "p.s. starting an argument with "Um" just proves you're an idiot."

    Could be worse. I could have started the conversation with the assumption that I was talking to the OP.

    1. Re:Easy and cheap-Give me my MTV!. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "duly" not "duely" as you so dully typed.

      You know you could have found the correct spelling using the internet... ah, there are a myriad of productive uses for it.

      If the workers you've experienced become less productive with more resources at their disposal then either you're an idiot who hired idiots or an idiot employed by one. Guess what you do with people who don't work? Hint: they would waste time just as effectively with a box of paper clips.

  180. Spyot has resident shield by Negativeions101 · · Score: 0

    I thought Spybot S&D had a resident spyware detector that actually blocks it before it gets into your system?

    --

    I'm not anti-microsoft. I'm anti-bullshit. Which means I'm anti-microsoft.
  181. Ban their certificates? by inhalent · · Score: 5, Informative

    I manage an active directory domain and I've taken care of the major offenders through group policy.

    First, I attempt to download the spyware much like any user would. When I get the prompt asking me to approve this installation, I view the certificate that it was signed with and save the certicate to the file.

    Next, I add that certificate to the list of banned certicates domain wide. It works great and fixes the problem of people installing spyware without knowing it.

    1. Re:Ban their certificates? by nytmare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't there a list of spyware certificates on some reputable web site that we all can download and add to the certificate "ban list" wholesale?

    2. Re:Ban their certificates? by audiofree · · Score: 1

      do you have a list of these? It would be nice to have a list like that... can you post it somewhere?

  182. what an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You haven't the brains to make a real comment, so you critique spelling?

    Stick to just reading, k?

  183. Anti-spyware management tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a tool out there called AdAxis (http://www.adaxis.de) which coes exactly this job.

    Check the beta page for a version that supports AdAware SE and Spybot S&D.

  184. Well, I rather think it's simple. by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 3, Informative

    Install VNC over the network (or other comparable remote-control software; VNC is free and GPLed) and put HijackThis on a read-only network share.

    If the user reports problems, VNC into the machine, run HijackThis as root, and remove what you need to.

    Running as User or Power User will help, but it won't stop everything.

    Try adding the MVP Hosts list to the firewall's shit-site blocker.

    If you can, put SpywareBlaster into your image set for the machines you clone and force a once-a-year reclone with updates.

    There's also the simple idea of not letting your users use IE. Force them to use Firefox, Opera - anything but IE.

    --

    Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
  185. This maybe a stupid question... by msimm · · Score: 1

    But how about just locking the systems down? I worked for a small business (I know that doesn't really translate to 2000 users) and we (I) used GS98 to secure our Windows 98 clients (again, I know, they are out of business and no-one should be using 98 by now anyway). This worked pretty good, we had desk staff sitting on them at least 17 hours a day 365 days a year, checking their email, everything you don't want them to do. But they couldn't access settings (no, not even custom desktops, I'm *that* mean) and they couldn't install software on their own.

    It made a little more work for me. There was no walking them through the steps to fix something over the phone (almost any administrative stuff required a password). But every time I had to come by and do work on one of the pc's I was amazed at..well how good they still worked.

    The software I was using had multiple levels of admin login, so I could even give the ding-bat managers "special" passwords with a few extra abilities (not as if they'd ever actually configure/fix anything, but it made them feel better).

    Anyhow, there must be something like this with Windows XP (or for it) and I don't see any reason that wouldn't fix 99% of your problems.

    Since I'm currently a networking student I'd be really curious what people in industry really do do (I'm not sure we'll actually be covering that in my education!).

    For the record, I know circumventing GS98 is trivial. I wouldn't have deployed it if I didn't try breaking it first myself (simplest way was to rename an executable to any application on your allowed list). But that *never* came up with my users. ;)

    --
    Quack, quack.
  186. And the solution is.... by jandersen · · Score: 1

    "Is there a tool that we could push out to all the PCs to basically do what anti-virus programs do and block these programs from running and clean them from the computer?"

    There's something even better, which will never get these problems in the first place: Linux ;-)

  187. Your point being? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Software that demands an insecure environment should not be installed. Period.

    I am pretty sure that Palm (or PalmOne or whatever their name is this week) wul be more than willing to change how their apps work if security conscious WIndows SAs would demand this fixed.

    But there you have an oxymoron, no wonder companies can get away with nonsense like this (not in the UNIX world, sometimes we get applications with lax security and it is sent back to the manufacuter. Normally things get fixed very quickly).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  188. Executive's Palm. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is the bulshitiest excuse in the history of mankind.

    You explain to the suit that you can't install the software because that would make your network a virus/spyware testbed.

    If the suit inisist have him put it in writting exhonerating you from any responsibility and financial damage the company may suffer .

    It always amazes me the deference that some people have for somebody wearing a suit and with an important sounding job description.

    Your job is to make that network safe, in spite of the owners of the company themselves if necessary.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Executive's Palm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And someone actually pays you at the end of the month!

      Your job is to provide a computing environment which allows the real workers in the company to make some money.

      If it's more profitable for the company for you to clean up an infected machine from time to time, rather than letting a real person get on with his/her job, then so be it.

    2. Re:Executive's Palm. by TheTomcat · · Score: 1

      In reality, unfortunately, this is often the case..

      However, more often than not (in my experience, anyway), the "suits" don't have a clue about the REAL implications of not cleaning up and protecting UNTIL something happens.

      I used to work at a company that allowed our merchants to spam by turning a blind eye. IT was all over management on ethics, and real risks of spam (blacklists, reputation, etc). The suits couldn't care less.. the merchants were making us (read: them) loads of cash. Then one day, we got blacklisted.. then another list the next day. Now we couldn't send mail at ALL (for most domains). So, we adopted a no-spam policy (as we should've in the first place). It took this serious of a wake-up call for management to think past their noses.

      The same applies to viruses and spyware, and user permissions. Your job it to make sure they KNOW what they're doing. Most times, they will not understand, no matter how simple it's put. And yes, get it in writing whenever possible.

      S

    3. Re:Executive's Palm. by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      The "suit" is usually your boss.
      You may think your job is to secure the network. In time, you'll realize your job is to obey the "suit".
      Yeah, yeah, quit, I know the drill. I have a wife, a 1 year old son and a couple of old parents without a pension. I value all of them above my "dignity".

  189. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  190. Here is how we do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lock down most systems to normal user, which fixes 95% of spyware issues. Some of the users have specialized, poorly written apps that require Power User or Admin access. We train those users and tell them to run Ad-Aware and Spybot once a week. I would LOVE to dump IE, but the web based frontend to our legacy, mission critical COBOL application (Which requires two full time programmers, plus a good part of our webmaster and operator's time.) only works with IE and Netscape 4.x. (I HATE COBOL).

  191. Er.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... ACs start at -1, so that means people have taken notice and are actually modding it up.

    Did you read the FAQ :-P

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Er.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... ACs start at -1, so that means people have taken notice and are actually modding it up.

      Wrong, dude. I don't no why, but different from all others my postings start with a plain 0.

    2. Re:Er.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a user setting. You can set ACs to be -1, but for most people, it defaults to a score of 0.

    3. Re:Er.... by revividus · · Score: 1
      Did you read the FAQ :-P

      Not recently, actually. My bad. :-(

      And though it does work (and is the only way I've found to install palm software for users), it is definitely a goofy way to have to do it.

  192. Re:Because people need to work....FOR ME! by Nutria · · Score: 1

    So instead of working through the system to get changes effected. Most Americans try the "I'm a rebel" approach to solving their problems.

    Or... think of it as The Spirit Of Ingenuity, the Pioneer Spirit, blah, blah. All those thing that made, and continue to make, restless people leave The Old Country, and make better lives for themselves here.

    No wonder people feel uneasy around your country.

    Because the people still living in The Old Country are the timid ones, or satisfied with the status quo?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  193. You won't like my suggestion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need to connect your workstation to the internet.

    Ok, so you really need access to some net resources. Identify those specific resources, and whitelist them in a proxy server.

    You can make it possible for your employees to use your webapps, send and receive email, and even do whatever research or whatever it is they are supposed to be doing for you, without making every workstation a general-purpose web surfing station.

    Now, if it's a question of employee morale because they are accustomed to using their desktop computers for entertainment purposes, you have other problems.

    You could compromise -- have a few kiosk terminals that are usable for surfing, and lock down everything else.

  194. Why connect every workstation to the internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you already connected every workstation to the internet, as opposed to using a local net, and you move to take away that access, you'll have a revolution on your hands. But if you get to start from scratch, don't do it.

  195. Easy and cheap? No, dumb and patronising...Mu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who sees the irony in the above title?

    Just how many times on Slashdot have we had posts on "dumb users" and "joe average", "coffee cup holder" jokes and so forth?

    And yet when it's YOU stuck with the DUMB label, then your the SMART ONES that know better than everyone else, so the rules don't apply to you.

  196. There is an excellent tool for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Is there a tool that we could push out to all the PCs to basically do what anti-virus programs do and block these programs from running and clean them from the computer?"

    Yes, there is. And it comes with your system:
    >deltree \win

  197. Panda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try to look at the panda client/server software.
    They have come a long way. They discover delete and prevent spyware if you want to. They also have great distribution (on W2K and up) and very nice central management.
    All they need to do is marketing. Support is pretty good here in Belgium, although I've heard complaints about the US support.

  198. Foundation Silogy by eyepeepackets · · Score: 1

    The owner of a large structure notices it is having problems. He asks for advice and gets it in truckloads. "Fix this, change that!" "No," say others, "Change this, fix that and fold here!" The advice is plentitudinously ponderous and most precisely proportional to the problem.

    Seeing an old man chuckling at the circus of advisors with their advisements , the owner asks him what is the source of his amusement.

    "You refuse to accept what you see: The structure is built of sticks held together with mud, it is built on a sand foundation, the bedrock below is cracked basalt laying atop an active fault. So you built a pretty facade on it. Take your lesson, cut your loses and move on."

    The owner looks at the structure, looks at all the advising advisors, looks again at the old man, shakes his head and sighs: He buys a cherry coke and takes a walk on the beach.

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  199. Spyware Blaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spyware Blaster

    http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.h tm l

    You could also do what "supertrick"? does, and basically add a fiendishly long list of ad/spyware servers to your host file next to the IP address 127.0.0.1 .....

  200. Re: Those are after the fact solutions. by Warhaven · · Score: 1
  201. Fundamental problem by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Some people mentioned dumping IE, although I second that recommendation for eliminating most trojans/backdoors out there in the wild, I would not recommend to do that for having to deal with spyware.
    The problem is more fundamental, spyware per se is just a small program which in most cases is installed by the user, most of the times it comes with some kind of shareware which gives you full access if you install the spyware, in some cases it is installed by an exploit.
    Locking down the IE only helps you in the second case.

    What you have to do is to sandbox the user, Windows can do that, but that means that the user basically has no rights of program installs whatsoever. If you can justify that go ahead.
    The other solution is to go with a system where spyware is not rampant as in Windows. Macs, Linux, BSD come to my mind, but most users would feel unhappy about it probably.

    The third one is to keep the data on a separate disk/networked computer and simply overwrite the users installation on a regular base.

    None of these solutions would make the user happy because you take the power away from them. Anyway getting more and more antivirus scanners or anti spyware tools is like doctoring on the symptoms and not the cause. In case of spyware it is using a lousy hole ridden browser and users installing everything left and right on their workplace machines without knowing what could happen.

  202. Man... by msimm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was with you right up until you said penalties. How many work environments will let the IT department waste time and valuable (well, sometimes) resources with petty penalties? I'm all for limiting what a user can do, after that its just them and god (and their boss of course). :)

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Man... by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      I'm all for limiting what a user can do, after that its just them and god (and their boss of course).

      You mean the user's and God's boss?
      What company was this again?

  203. Spyware Guard by EvilGrin666 · · Score: 2, Informative

    SpywareGuard does exactly what you require. It scans software when you open it and stops it from mucking about with obvious spyware related registery keys.

  204. Not exactly... by dbCooper0 · · Score: 1
    the band was "Electric Monk", and they really sucked (sorry Bob), not that they weren't trying real hard, but this was back in the 80's (I didn't actually hear them play live, but worked with a coder [VB] that I'd known since DOS 2.0 named Bob whose band it was - I heard the cassette to which I had to politely nod and say things like "Cool" and "Interesting")

    To their credit, they did only originals, I understand. Seven years or so after Bob divorced his *babe* wife, and I'd lost touch with both of them, I'd gotten together with her and we agreed that the band sucked...especially after she heard my band.

    No pointers to that, as we are an acoustic cover trio, doing CSN&Y, S&G, Eagles, Jackson Browne, Springsteen, all old fart music (which we are)

    It sounds like your band is going to have some acoustic flavor to it? ;-))

    --
    db
    Cig:
    ôô
    /`
    1. Re:Not exactly... by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      I can hope it will :) Just waiting for the time and the money to bring it to life :) Have most of the money and none of the time :)

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    2. Re:Not exactly... by dbCooper0 · · Score: 1
      Me, I'm already out of money, but have excess time. As it is, I should have played 20 miles away tonight, but the economy has made bar owners a little skittish, and we took tonight off. I'm bored shitless...:-(

      Anyway, if you have faster than dial-up, I'll email you a link to listen to what we do, and ask for reciprocal access to mp3s of your stuff?

      I'll give you the link anyway, WTF...but not here. I'll try your email.

      --
      db
      Cig:
      ôô
      /`
  205. Mod parent up. by Dimensio · · Score: 1

    My mod points expired yesterday, this post should be +5, Informative.

    Palm's software should be easier to set up for non-Admin users, but it can be done.

  206. Actually Useful Answer by jayloden · · Score: 1

    Rather than starting flame wars or arguments over permissions...I'll endeavour to answer the actual question. First, Spybot Search and Destroy now contains Tea Timer, which will actually prevent installation of spyware components and warn of incoming spyware. This is at least worth mentioning.

    Second, Java Cool Software has both Spyware Guard and Spyware Blaster. Both are free (at least for personal use), and both do a pretty good job of preventing the installation of spyware components. Spyware Blaster is specialized for blacklisting bad Active X controls and the like, but also has protection for Firefox vulnerabilities. Spyware Guard is a background guard to warn of incoming spyware and prevent some installations.

    -Jay

  207. Re:Wrong crowd... by DigitalSpyder · · Score: 1

    Wow. What a predictable post. And you bagged 3 points for that crap?

  208. We have approx. 10,000 desktops+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for a large broadcaster. We have PC's on set, PC's controlling critical (i.e. this fails, we're off air) applications, PC's everywhere.

    6 Months ago the "solution" was

    1) Unnofficially install Ad-Aware (It's not free for corporate clients, and a while we'll spend millions on Windows licenses and anti virus, the $20k for adaware wasnt there)
    2) Run it
    3) Uninstall it

    Now, after I complained that we were told to break the law (i.e. buy us the software, install mozilla as standard), policy is to re-install windows on infected computers (knowing full well we'll carry on using adaware, but now it's our fault when it comes to the BSA audit)

    6 months after that we FINALLY have a policy that stops internet access on broadcast critical machines (Floor Managers surfing lastminute.com?), and a login script that removes common spyware. It's still crap.

    (Of course this is teh tip of the iceberg. We run mysql databases on Windows Server platforms because the server team only know windows. Of course the server team have just been sold off to Siemens so god knows what support we'll get from them)

  209. convert to linux by lkcl · · Score: 1

    problem goes away.

    1. Re:convert to linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does your ability to do buisness.

  210. Kaspersky Anti-Virus does this by kilogram · · Score: 1

    In the latest version of Kaspersky Anti-Virus, you can choose to download "Extended databases", which not only detects viruses, but also malware, spyware, adware and the likes. Since it is a realtime scanner, it should prevent those programs from running.

  211. LAN Admins don't make money??? Are U crazy? by freedom_india · · Score: 2, Insightful
    LAN administration isn't the most important part of a company, you aren't making the company any money.

    Wanna bet? Remember Blaster, Slammer / SQL Worm? How much did we lose? S.Korea was knocked off the 'Net.
    Even a feather in the hands of a Dumb user is still dangerous ! He may tickle himself to death.

    LAN Admins lock down systems BECAUSE they need to protect you from yourself. or better yet they need to protect the company investment in you from going waste because you installed some Anna.K screensaver and end up saying "Doh!"

    As long as users like you are dumb and stupid, you will continue to be treated like kids: Childproof everything.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:LAN Admins don't make money??? Are U crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LAN Admins don't make money??? Are U crazy?
      Wanna bet? Remember Blaster, Slammer / SQL Worm? How much did we lose?


      I hate to break it to you, pal, but losing money != making money.

    2. Re:LAN Admins don't make money??? Are U crazy? by jridley · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not making money, that's "not losing money".

      Exercise: Let's spin you off as a separate company. How long do you keep getting paychecks? What's your revenue stream? Don't have one? Then you're not MAKING money.

      You are a SERVICE, and an EXPENSE. Certainly it's a necessary one, but if it weren't, you'd be on the street in a second.

    3. Re:LAN Admins don't make money??? Are U crazy? by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, let's assume this spinning-off thing happens...

      You pay $100,000 per month for our services. We guarantee service will work no matter what, or you don't pay. Your regular package is a web server, some file servers, and 100 desktops. The desktops have access to the 'net and an office suite.

      If some worm comes along and starts deleting the office suite and clogging the 'net connection, our revenue stream is on the line. Stupid users would then be cutting into our bottom line, and we'd have no choice but to deny them access, restrict their accounts, or, god forbid, unplug them in order to maintain order, peace, and food on the table.

      Then we'd have to carefully reconstruct the house of cards, and this time we're gonna use a little glue. Now none of the users (since we don't know who messed it up the first time) get to access anything on the list of restricted sites. Yet, there are so many sites out there... we couldn't possibly block them all. And another user inflicts the same pain all over again. And we don't get paid... again.

      This time, we're gluing these cards to bricks and rebuilding it the right way! Total lockdown. Yes, IT does make money. Yes users do need to be locked down. Yes we do own you. You're the worker bee. We're the beekeeper. You can sting us all you want, but we're just going to protect ourselves even more in the future.

      Ok, maybe that was a little over-the-top and BOFH-ish, but the point is still valid. You're not seeing the whole picture because you're covering your eyes.

    4. Re:LAN Admins don't make money??? Are U crazy? by k12linux · · Score: 1
      LAN Admins don't make money??? Are U crazy?

      I hate to break it to you, pal, but losing money != making money.

      Of course you are right. But which is better: Making an extra $100,000 because nobody slowed down by having restrictions on their PC... or NOT losing $1,000,000 when the entire network including ordering and processing systems is down for 3 days because someone didn't have restrictions on their PC?

      So of course a main conern for sys Admins should be helping you make money, but it has to be offset by protecting against huge potential losses if some moron thinks the PC they use at work should be treated the same as their home PC and they should be allowed to install every kind of crap they find on the Internet.

      Granted, some users are more than capable of managing their own PCs, but that is the minority not the majority in almost all companies.

    5. Re:LAN Admins don't make money??? Are U crazy? by SidV · · Score: 1

      Then what, may I ask, is the difference between a worm slowing down access and making things difficult.

      And Net Admin Inc. pulling the plug, or slowing things down and making things difficult?

      It's like that old argument, whats the difference between a M$ OS and a Virus, Nothing.

      Similarly, there is no difference difference between spyware/adware/malware and an IT department that is too rigid/lazy/ignorant to do things as they should.

    6. Re:LAN Admins don't make money??? Are U crazy? by Alrocket · · Score: 1
      Has anyone on this thread ever heard of a crazy concept called "compromise"?

      The policies in place should be well thought out and flexible. It's administration, not rocket science.

  212. Linux: problems solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have been in the same situation and decided to switch to Linux. After installing Fedora on all machines and the latest versions of OpenOffice etc. we don't have any problems like this anymore and overall we are extremely pleased. Nowadays any serious company should not use Microsoft Windows anymore. Linux is superior in about any aspect.

  213. Yup. It's called non-MS software by cheros · · Score: 1

    I know that it's not an easy answer but I'm amazed that companies with well paid, knowledgeble staff still insist on buying second hand cars of the same dealer they bought the first lemon off, leaking oil and all.

    The fundamental problem is not the spyware or virus infections, it's the platform allowing it in the first place. I disagree with locking down users - that doesn't always work for the company. Simple privilege escalation ON DEMAND (i.e. not running high by default) is the only way to contain this mess, and that ain't Windows. Anyone using KDE has now gotten used to the fact that they don't need to run teh system as root to make it do anythign they want, including installing new code. Why? Because privilege escalation is well implemented, you know when the system needs more access.

    Add training, remove Microsoft, zap 95% or more of the current problems, and that's without mentioning improved stability and much lower license risks (also kinda nukes FAST/BSA's business model but I must admit that doesn't make me feel sorry somehow ;-).

    Windows: the time for excuses has passed.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  214. Technical solution useless w/o policy 2 back it up by Media_Scumbag · · Score: 4, Informative

    Any time you have to deal with a technical issue that involves user interaction as a component of success, you will need to propose to management, a policy that bolsters the behavioral aspect of the solution; Users need to be made, by management, to have some degree of awareness and culpability for virus and spyware infections.

    "Frequent-fires" users will be compelled to learn some digital hygine.

    Most large and medium-sized businesses operating today have some sort of policy on sexual harassment/hostile workplace/conflict of interest/Internet and PC usage policy, etc. Generally, users understand that these policies are for eveyone's protection - With ~2000 PCs in the mix... This is definately where you should start... Policy Covers Your Ass.

    On the technical side:

    1. Router logs, intrusion detection, and sniffing as trending tools to show your boss what's up with traffic.

    2. Good, solid desktop images/ app pushes/ GPO's - harden the Registry, Security Policy, individual apps as necessary. Beyond that - when a machine is sufficiently infected, it should be replaced with a re-imaged one --- it can be faster than cleaning, and is a hell of a lot more complete. This also reinforces the notion of users not storing important things locally.

    3. Helpdesk tracking software - What users/machines/network segments are continually having the same problems? Does Human Resources need to be the next step for some people?

    4. Desktop management software - provide your boss with stats on just what kind of crap is showing up.

    5. If you must use/develop software that may enable or even contain spyware, you have a particularly tricky problem that concerns both company policy and IT best practices.

    Of course, you know your boss, I don't... How you implement these suggestions is different for everyone. To some, it may seem draconian, to others, quite lax.... To some, budgets will not allow the necessary attention - for others, this kind of focus could perhaps justify a budget increase.

    Oh... And consider the broswer's role in the business - what is an acceptable $$ loss for a preventable issue? Have you already spent that?

    My $.02

  215. Immunize by Kylow · · Score: 1

    Please familiarize yourself with the Immunize feature of Spybot Search and Destroy. Its quite useful.

  216. Re:Yea you are really safe keep telling yourself t by legrimpeur · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    look I have mod points but I prefer to answer you... First if you have Automatic Update on chances that a hole in IE is exploited are extremely low. Indeed where I work it NEVER happened on patched machines (on non patched it HAPPENED). Second, again even if there was an hole if you are limited user a typical spyware program that exploits the hole won't be able to install its ActiveX thing so the parent was right since the topic is about spywares. This was experimentally confiremd here where I work: we have 50 desktops, all the users are not working as administrator but one (the usual stubborn dumbass). Well only the dumbass has been infested in more than two years. Based on these observation my feeling is that spyware developers target the usual home users working as administrator on an unpatched machine, as soon as you make the user limited the spyware stops working. If you had some real life windows admin practice you would have come to the same conclusion...but this is slahdot we know. Ah by the way don't you think you were just a tad too arrogant?

  217. prevention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't use IE.
    Don't allow users to install any programs.
    Don't employ firewalls.
    Make sure all software provided is updated to keep up with any vulns.

    The employment of some IDSes or traffic sniffers wouldn't hurt either to try and see how the spyware is getting in and how one can prevent it.

  218. restricted rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a simple "don't run as root" lecture? Give the CEO an admin account as well as a regular user account, and explain the security benefits of using the latter for things other than administration. CEOs are generally intelligent.

  219. Re: Those are after the fact solutions. by famebait · · Score: 1

    Yes it's a pain for the users, but it does alleviate the potential of corporate espionage (don't beleive it doesn't exist, it most certainly does) and also spyware/adware/etc screwing up your computers.

    So does cutting off the electricity. Or how about firing everybody and shutting down the company entirely? Then we'll finally all be safe.

    --
    sudo ergo sum
  220. re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is an excellent tool for preventing spyware from screwing stuff up. It's called Linux.

  221. Re:Yea you are really safe keep telling yourself t by rikkards · · Score: 1

    I agree that MCSE was a bad name during the NT4 days where you read the books, get a copy of Transcenders and download braindumps and you could go and get your cert without ever installing the OS.

    But right now I am updating mine for 2003 and they have really done a lot to cutting down on the above. It seems that they have gone through and made the questions hard enough that you really need to know how it works. Which is quite refreshing.

  222. Re: Those are after the fact solutions. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    4). Invest in a decent SAN and keep the roaming profiles there, ALL documents should be kept on the SAN / roaming profile so that re-imaging the computers when they do get things on them does not cause valuable work to be lost.

    that is great for a single office. it's a nightmare for other offices.

    ever try using a company system at the end of a 512K pipe in an office of 3 people?

    you just made them all useless.

    now have that office of 30 at the end of a T1 use it...

    they are also useless now.

    a SAN a BCD needs to be installed in every office with over 13 people and a full T1 for EVERY office.

    but corperate NEVER EVER does things like this.

    proper netowrk engineering that ENSURES high performance for the end users is more important than saving a few extra bucks.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  223. what you don't want by wobblie · · Score: 1

    Is another client side app to maintain on windows.

    Any proxy that's worth a shit can do this for you.

  224. Run as a LUA !! by dioscaido · · Score: 1

    It's very simple, really. Set up your users as a limited user account, instead of an Administrator on the machine. Problem solved. No need for Ad-aware, spybot, or any of those machines. The user will not be able to write to the registry (HKLM), or write to system directories. All of the most common spyware breaks when the user is running as a limited user.

    All you need to do is create a policy for software installation. Probably only allow tech people to install, so their accounts would be administrator across the domain.

  225. In Soviet Russia... by gsperling · · Score: 1

    ...Spyware removes YOU!

  226. What about this? by dos_dude · · Score: 0

    I just read the bluecoat.com offers proxy servers that claim to do exactly what you want.

  227. Spyware Protection at the Corporate Level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't want to by into the mutiple client heartbeat thing, I would suggest a product called Trend Micro. As the number one virus protection suite for Corpoate for the last 3 years (or more), and now the leading choice of the Homeland Security Act, Trend Micro is the all in one suite. It can block spyware, virus, adware, joxe, hoax, wi-fi intrusion, builtin firewall,etc all from one client. The corporate product is called OfficeScan and the home product is called PC-Cillin. I have Pc-Cillin at home and you can run any spyware search engine you want on my box and you wont find anything cause Trend keeps it clean. Corporate proucts take a little more finess but have the same features in them. You turn them on and they keep you network protected. The best part about Trend Micro is the centralized management consoles. The ability to manage the infrastructure from one box or multiple boxes at your chosing is there. Check it out at http://www.trendmicro.com also download any of the products for demo at http://www.trendmicro.com/download. They do everything you could every want whether you want it done with software or hardware. They dont take up anywhere near the resources that norton does and they keep their defs up to date as often as you want unlike mcafee. I would recommend the NeatSuite at the corporate level and its all automatic on the removal of competitor software when you rollout. Also you get a big discount if you switch over to the neatsuite.

  228. How about.. by Lazy+T · · Score: 1

    How about not giving all of your users admin rights? It works, I know.

  229. what about changing the host file? by coolcold · · Score: 0

    I remember there was a list some where on the net which have a list of web address containing lots of spyware download or communicate URLs. put them in a host file and u dont need to worry about them

    --
    I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs :)
  230. Yes, there is a fantastic solution to this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No problem. Just install Linux...:-)

    (Do I get super-deluxe points for this post?! ;-))

  231. to clarify a bit... by foQ · · Score: 1

    Most of the suggestions mentioned here are some form of "lock down the PC." That is a very good solution, but only if you're using XP or 2000. We have about 300 PCs running 98se and they are most of our problem. We have to do this becuase some of our apps don't run properly (or at all) on XP. In fact, we've got one app that runs only on OS/2 Warp! No spyware on that one.

    To further complicate the situation, some of our apps are web interface apps with ActiveX controls which require IE to run. Therefore we can't just run firefox or something.

    If we just reimaged the PCs every night, we'd hear a hellacious uproar from people who have things saved on their local machines. You can't change several years of corporate culture overnight. Also, think of the people who don't know what a folder or directory is. They don't know the difference between a network drive and their local drive.

    There are quite a few solutions that would work after a year or more of re-education, redeployment, restructuring, etc. but this is not an option for us right now. What we REALLY need is a piece of software that runs the way Symantec AntiVirus Corporate does: allowing us to push updates on a regular basis from an internal server, scan silently, report back to the central server any problems found, block install attempts, etc. Right now nothing we have found will reliably remove and prevent spyware/adware. Even Ad-Aware and SpyBot (the two we most commonly use) do not remove all of the popups, not even right after the new definitions have been released. There is a HUGE market for someone to step up and take care of this kind of thing, but nobody seems to be able or willing to do it.

  232. Spy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Where possible, use permissions
    Although you can't make all users restricted, most users can be restricted. Put the few non-restricted users in a group called "BadProgramName" (say "Quickbooks"). If one admin-level user group gets to be too large a problem, start looking at fixing the problem. If you are licenced I'm sure their tech support will be happy to help.

    2) You know how Spybot modifies your local host
    file to "Immunize" your computers. Add that list to your DNS. And update it.

    3) You do use real anti-virus (not some free version of Sophos) don't you. Norton 05 has anti-spyware built in. (I just verified that the corporate edition does as well.) Use it.

    4) If you know how to create and deploy .msi packages, get creative. Set Spybot to auto update and run. Set Norton to do the same. Eat more pasta (joke)!!!

    slashdot@mcdiarmid.net

  233. Best spyware tool? by vancleve · · Score: 1

    Firefox

    No, really, the majority of the spyware that comes in is through the web and through good old IE. I've been imploring my users to make the switch, and the ones that have have found less spyware related problems.

  234. So what about home users? by Hobbes69 · · Score: 1

    Browsing the comments I saw a lot about how to stop spyware at the corporate level. My problem is at home. I'm the admin for my computer and I don't plan on making myself a limited account and try to make everything work. What options do I have? Settings/Changing Windows Policy/Software?

  235. tea-timer by andytypes · · Score: 1

    since you have spybot search & destroy installed. it's a good idea to get the TEA-Timer running, when a spyware tries to change your windows registry, then it will popup a window asking you if you wanna do the change or not. another way you can avoid the spyware! DO NOT VISIT THE PORN AND CRACK SITES! maybe using a Linux desktop is a better idea.

  236. Re:re-imaging by ticktockticktock · · Score: 1
    However, one thing I didn't mention, that also speeds up the whole process, is that the ext3 file system will also handle large files with lots of nulls by NOT recording the large chunks of null bytes, just a marker. I tested this by creating a 1.7T (that's terabyte) file on a 40 gig partition. Lots of space left over.

    Even funnier is putting that 1.7 terabyte file onto a floppy formatted with ext2 and giving it to someone who uses linux (that didn't know about "sparse" files) and seeing the look on their face when they see the file's size.

  237. Qwik-Fix Pro protect against forced installs by thorlarholm · · Score: 2, Informative
    Qwik-Fix Pro from PivX Solutions (full disclosure: I created this) works to protect against forced installs of spyware.

    http://pivx.com/qwikfix/

    Qwik-Fix Pro is not a spyware killer but it is enterprise level and do protect against all of the browser based vulnerabilities (among others) that are being used to forcefully install spyware. It is a perfect combo together with a spyware killer such as The Cleaner from Moosoft (http://www.moosoft.com/) or Lavasoft Ad-Aware (http://www.lavasoftusa.com/).

    The protection against IE vulnerabilities was implemented in September 2003 and has since protected against all command execution vulnerabilities discovered since then without a need for updates. These very improvements to IE were subsequently included by Microsoft in Windows XP Service Pack 2, though the implementation Microsoft choose failed to protect against several vulnerabilities discovered since then such as the Drag'n'Drop vulnerability which Qwik-Fix Pro protected against.

  238. Several such tool's I've found. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "SpywareBlaster"
    http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/ spywareblaster.htm l
    and "Enough is Enough"
    https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/main -nf.htm

  239. 2000 computers and not a *nix among them? by museumpeace · · Score: 1

    The posts here have been very infomative, a good read and /. at its best but they leave me wondering...
    All most all the posts concern MS OS'es and the ways to administer MS networks. Even at home, I run a mix of Mac [OS X 10.2] XP pro, Win2K and, when the lap top comes home, ME. Uniform policy administration and enforcement is not an option now and wait until I plug my Linux or BSD box into the hub. When I run PestPatrol on the ms boxes for the first time, I find all kinds of crap...literally hundreds of corruptions from registry settings to exe's. After a clean-out and set up of the PP monitors, things stay pretty clean. All this talk of "stupid users" and how to protect them from their own carelessness has validity in a business environment but a home network with kids who like avatars and blinking shortcuts and drag in downloads to install without so much as asking me "I found this rabid kitten, can I keep it, Please!" leaves no room for rigor: you just HAVE to approach the problem from the "cure" direction rather than the "prevention" direction.
    And BTW, are there any cheap, reliable spyware cleaners for Linux [or are any needed;^]

    --
    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.
  240. Trend Micro working on it. by therealjason · · Score: 1

    I was at a conference about 4 months ago, and a representative from Trend Micro was there. He stated that they already have implemented some spyware detection in their Enterprise Desktop Product, and they were going to be focusing more on it in the near future. Of course, those guys will tell you anything to get a sale, but it might be worth checking out.

  241. HOWTO: Take what SpywareBlaster does, & deploy by JPamplin · · Score: 0
    Several people here have correctly mentioned SpywareBlaster, the freeware tool from: http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.htm l However, you need to go one step further for large deployments. In my unattended XP install scripts, I go ahead and install the SpywareBlaster application silently using the following code:
    ECHO.
    ECHO Installing Spyware Blaster ...
    start /high /wait D:\Apps\Spyware1\Spyware1.exe /verysilent /SP-
    taskkill /IM spywareblaster.exe /F
    xcopy %A%\Spyware1\*.dtb "%ProgramFiles%\SpywareBlaster\*.dtb" /Q /S /C /E /R /Y
    In the above example, I have renamed the SpywareBlaster app "Spyware1.exe" for 8.3 compatibility, then I kill the process since it starts running after installation. Finally, I have the latest spyware definition files that the program downloads in the same folder, and I just xcopy them to the program's native directory.

    When it finishes, it is installed, and the data files are already updated, during your unattended install. The problem is, you have to open the app on every machine and click on Enable All Protection in order for the registry to be changed. That would suck on 2000 machines.

    But you can go a step further, doing that step automatically. You can take all the registry changes that the program generates (to disable evil ActiveX controls), and fold them directly into your registry during install. Here's How:

    1. Install SpywareBlaster on a test PC, run the updates, then enable all protection.
    2. Open REGEDIT and export the following key:

      HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\

    3. Import the reg entries from that branch using the following command during your post-install script:

      ECHO.
      ECHO Applying Anti-Spyware Registry tweaks ...
      start /high /wait REGEDIT /S (path to file)\spyblock.reg

    That's it! It's very easy and I do it all the time for my unattended installs. Since it generates registry entries, you can push those out to all users without any further installs, if you wanted to. I think GPEDIT.MSC does that or can do that.

    Good Luck,

    JP

  242. DAMNED users! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey,
    It would be EASY to admin the network...

    If it weren't for all these DAMNED pesky users!!

  243. Turn OFF Outlook's option popup for New Email by ankhank · · Score: 1

    Turn off the stupid box that pops up on top of whatever someone's doing and interprets the next "y" or "Enter" as an approval to open the email.

    Anyone who types fast where I work -- there are still a few of us -- and who hasn't turned that Outlook option off will often have email open unexpectedly. And, when it's a piece of crap that got past the filter, it'll do something awful.

    Email's supposed to be async anyhow; mine now usually has an Out of Office message saying NO, I'm HERE, but I'm BUSY ...

    Oh, and if you could keep that stupid OOO from replying to spammers (provint it's a good address) you'll be doing better than my office's The-Department-Formerly-Known-As-Tech Services.

    As to locking things down -- yes, but .... I went disgrunled for a while referring to them as the "TS Department -- because that's the answer you'll get" after I just happened to luck out and get an honest answer from a new Help Desk person -- I found I had been getting Word VBA errors for NINE MONTHS on a special assigned task, "oh, you're an ordinary user and you don't have the whole VBA package and help installed, oops, I'm new here, I wasn't supposed to tell you that ..."

    -- I know why the caged bird sings. -- Angelou

  244. Have you tried spywareblaster? by RevMark · · Score: 1

    Hi.. Newbie poster here.. have you tried spywareblaster it's a program we use on our Windows based machines and find that it will limit the amount of spyware that gets installed. It can be found at http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.htm l

    RevMark

  245. A few things you can do.. by Trevoke · · Score: 0

    Make sure all your users have a windows password. It helps if random programs can't just login as the username they find and install themselves. disable ActiveX. Limit Java. Lose IE/Outlook and use Firefox/Thunderbird. Block these ports (TCP and UDP): 42 67 (BOOTP Server) 68 (BOOTP Client) 79 (Finger) 113 (Ident) for incoming data 137-139 (NetBIOS) for incoming and outgoing data ( if you aren't on a private network that use M$ Network, completely uninstall NetB*.* that shit has more backdoors and loophole than a stray dog has fleas ) Also block protocols 47 (GRE), 1 (ICMP) and 2 (IGMP) , whatever ports they may use.

    --
    You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
  246. Re: Those are after the fact solutions. by Johnny+Doughnuts · · Score: 1

    Also, make sure you disable windows help.

    Help has little things in it that say "open xyz for me" where xyz is add/remove programs, or whatever.

    Also, getting to the C: is surpisingly easy. If you go to the properties of a shortcut, and click find target, typically you're in. You just need to find the right shortcut.

    They both work even when the items they open up to (xyz, and c:) are disabled with policy editor.

  247. Good thought, but that's not how it works by anomaly · · Score: 1

    I work for a large company, and their view is that viruses are only worthy of attention when we are hit by them. Any time we dodge a bullet, that's considered doing our job, and we get no special credit for it.

    When something hits us (primarily because we let our users have administrator, and secondarily because we put almost no effort or money into software patch deployment and automatic upgrades) we go into firefighting mode, and when we're done we get a "glad that's over. How do we avoid that next time?" We give the same answer we gave last time, and they respond: "That costs too much. Keep doing what you're doing."

    I doubt that any Fortune 500 companies really reward virus prevention.

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
    1. Re:Good thought, but that's not how it works by Nutria · · Score: 1

      we go into firefighting mode

      Well hell. That's why they keep saying "That costs too much. Keep doing what you're doing.".

      If all the Network/Windows techs went home as 5PM during the crisis, increasing the pain on Management, saying, "if you had listened to us in the first place, this would not have happened", you'd get the support you need.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  248. Winpatrol by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

    Install this, and tell your employees that if the dog barks, HIT NO.

    I have installed this on 2 very computer illiterate peoples computers and have yet to have spyware troubles since then.

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
  249. Unattended Spybot Package by drfreejon · · Score: 0

    I am a Landesk administrator for a company with 1200 machines. I recently created an unattended package that installs Spybot, downloads new defs, runs program, creates a log file and uninstalls Spybot...all unattended and silent without any user interaction. On the Spybot web page there are all of the switches. It is a bit resource intensive so the user might see a little hesitation on the local. This is what we do.

    --
    http://www.lipservicemusic.com
    1. Re:Unattended Spybot Package by kristoff · · Score: 1

      would you be willing to share what you did to create your unattended package? I am looking at doing this too, but for a smaller network, of only 200 machines, im plagued by spyware

    2. Re:Unattended Spybot Package by drfreejon · · Score: 0

      Here are the Spybot switches I have.
      Landesk has it's own coding language so that won't be useful to you. You should be able to make a pretty simple batch file using these switches.

      Spybot Search & Destroy 1.2 & 1.3
      Install Switch: /silent
      Will display the progress during installation, but not the wizard. /verysilent
      Even the progress will not be shown. Errors etc. would still be shown. /nocancel
      Disables the Cancel and Close button. Useful with /silent. /dir="x:\dirname"
      Installs into that directory instead of the default one. /group="folder name"
      Installs into a program group of that name instead of the default one. /noicons
      Avoids creation of any icons for the installed softwae. /components="comma separated list of component names"
      Installs the given components instead of the default ones. Components are main, blind (icons for blind users), language (all language files) and skins.

      ***Here's a link to create it as a scheduled task:
      http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?s=98 5282d06 be2fd0829399bab14ab6d82&p=309008#post309008

      --
      http://www.lipservicemusic.com
  250. clsid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have the same problem where i work. I discovered through microsoft's website that you can disable active x controls from running in internet explorer by adding a kill bit to the clsid fo the active x control. After some more searching i found that spywareblaster stops spyware from running by adding all of these values to the registry. So, i just exported all of the spyware clsid's that spyware blaster added--with the kill bits-- and distributed it through active directory.

  251. Citrix Et Al by jon3k · · Score: 1

    We run a 16 member citrix farm, and use domain Group Policies to apply restrictions. All requests pass through a proxy server, which is forced as the IE Proxy server, again, using a group policy.

    We don't have *any* problems with spyware/adware on our citrix farm.

    I'd recommend considering auditing individual user access rights, locally, on each PC. Consider implementing local group policies on each machine, and installing AppSec (check out support.microsoft.com for a free download). If the machine was properly configured, the user wouldn't have sufficient rights to install spyware/adware, barring a browser security vulnerability.

    Basically, consider prevention instead of clean-up.

  252. Re:re-imaging by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Yep. Sparse files are awesome. Just that most people don't know about them, and some, when seeing those HUGE files, think the file system is hosed.

    I remember reading one post where someone thought there was a bug in the seek routine because of this.

  253. Re:Yea you are really safe keep telling yourself t by SilentChris · · Score: 1

    "Being the good little MCSE that you are you probably jepordize your network by using IE on your own machine."

    Lol. I'm not an MSCE at all (I think that's what you meant to say, not MCSE).

  254. What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The anonymous coward is correct; if you add the user to the admin group, install the Palm Software, and then take user out of the admin group after the first sync, it will continue to work.

    ...whan you are forced to go thru all kinds of wild, abnormal gyrations to install and use a piece of software. Palm targets their software toward the corporate user, yet they write it in such a manner that a typical corporate user cannot install and use it in a typical corporate (i.e. locked down) desktop machine without the assistance of a rocket scientist.

  255. Check Point Interspect and PestPatrol Corporate by Lord+Farquar · · Score: 1

    I recently did an evaluation of PestPatrol Corporate Edition 5.0, which runs in a similar fashion to Symantec's Corporate Antivirus. The software is server based, connects to PestPatrol for spyware removal updates, and can run a daily scan of hard drives to remove spyware. The only thing that is actually installed on the workstations is a small app that performs the actual scans. It's not that expensive either, I think it was about $2k for a 250 user license. Check it out at http://www.pestpatrol.com/Products/PestPatrolcE/

    Check Point's Interspect hardware is really interesting. It's a piece of hardware that plugs into your network backbone and protects the network from spyware, Trojans, worms, etc. It doesn't actually remove anything, but if it detects an infected computer on the network, it can either prevent that computer from accessing resources on the network, or if need be, it can actually disable that nodes port on the switch that it's plugged in to. It does a lot more too, and I can't wait to get an eval of it. Check it out here: http://www.checkpoint.com/products/interspect/inde x.html/

    Hope this helps...

  256. MODS ON CRACK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't handle the truth.

  257. Skip Antispyware and consider this alternative.... by bozty54 · · Score: 1

    There is a company out there selling a network appliance with custom ASIC that will monitor Layers 1-7 for virus, content and spyware/malware. This could feasibly stop the entry into the network of any of these items for which signatures exist.

    However, I have an alternative solution for any environment that has server based or independent storage options to the internal harddrive -- Write-protect the harddrive. What exactly do I mean? Well using a product like Driveshield from Centurian Technologies or DeepFreeze by Faronics you can cause your computers hard drive to reset itself to a known state when the computer is rebooted. Think of it as automatic instant reimaging of the machine upon reboot.

    Yes, this means that you'll need to save data onto removable storage or a server but think of it this way. If you force all your computers to shutdown at night when users come in, in the morning they'll be rewarded with a PC that runs as good as the day you set it up.

    If you want to make changes to the PC like installing new software, patches, etc. simply reboot and turn off the protection, make the changes and turn the protection back on.

    This is really the only current way to keep machines completely clean. All reactive solutions will fail when new threats are not listed in the database of threats. Yes, the machines can become infected and with the security holes in Microsoft Windows you'll still need to apply OS patches to keep virus that spread automaticelly across the network from propigating if they breach the firewall. But imagine how much easier it will be to clean up afterwards, fix the firewall, reboot all machines and apply the daily service pack.

    These products are available for PC and Mac.

    I am not affiliated with either company.

  258. Blacklists to kill programs by Afroplex · · Score: 2, Informative

    Aside from individually going to each machine and cleaning them, we try killing the spyware installers and executables. First we installed on a box as much spyware and peer-2-peer apps as we possibly could, and also browsed executable lists on antispyware/malware sites. Then we made a monster list of these executables.

    If we were running an XP only shop (this won't work in Win2000 or 98) we would use Microsoft's software restriction policies in active directory. We don't, so this is out of the question.

    Novell Zenworks (versions >=4) rogue process management sounds like it may work, but when we tested it doesn't kill apps that start up before the user logs in. So any spyware services aren't killed, even after the user logs in.

    Next up was Progkill, an application on Sourceforge.net. Seems to work well on Win95/98/2000 boxes if it starts up. Has a few bugs when starting up. I wish I had a Delphi development box else I would debug it. Bonus points to it for its gui interface.

    Finally was roguept (rogue process terminator) on Sourceforge.net. Does the same thing as Progkill, but not as easy to setup. Extremely small though and fast. It is written in C++ and runs as a service so it kills Spyware from the getgo. This speeds up system bootup time.

  259. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  260. Re:Skip Antispyware and consider this alternative. by rfc1394 · · Score: 1
    I have an alternative solution for any environment that has server based or independent storage options to the internal harddrive -- [use an application to] write-protect the harddrive... If you want to make changes to the PC like installing new software, patches, etc. simply reboot and turn off the protection, make the changes and turn the protection back on.
    Damn, I wish I had thought of that. I had forgotten that possibility. It brings back memories of decades ago when disk drives were washing machine sized, and there was a write-protect switch on the hard drive to allow drives to be run read only.

    I will add two points to that.

    1. You will have to have either an extra (local machine) writeable drive or a partition on the same drive because Windows requires writeable swap space. My rule of thumb is to use 4 times the amount of memory, so for a machine with, say, 1 GB of space, you want to set aside a 4GB swap partition if you're going to go this route. For example, when machines routinely had 64MB of memory, I would often make a machine perform better by creating a 256MB fixed swap file. No resizing and no potential for lack of swap space when the machine got full due to lack of disk space later.
    2. You will need space for the TEMP= and TMP= settings (many applications need temp space for work or for recovery, such as Word Perfect's autosave, the ability to automatically checkpoint what you are doing in case Windows or WP crashes before you can save work). You could use the same partition (or drive) as the swap space for this purpose.

    For these reasons creating, say, a ram drive would not be appropriate and you would need some local writeable storage of hard-drive size. Or, possibly having only a specific temporary directory be writeable and no other places, if it was possible to implement directory-level write protection, which I think can be done in Windows releases of NT 4 and above, e.g. 2000 and XP.

    I think the parent poster for the message this is a response to gave an excellent idea and I commend him on his thinking of it.

    Paul Robinson

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  261. how the BOFH would do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    take 1 pound of C4 and tap to the bottom of users chair with detonator connected to a spare cat 5 cable back to IT office. while using VNC to observe user suspected of installing spyware once the act is committed send a signal down the CAT5...

    No more problem!

  262. Evil admins forget the human beings at computers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If ever I have seen a thread that proved LAN administrators are completely inhuman, this was it.

    You all seem to see the LAN as a bunch of computers that must control humans. Change the computer to prevent all human activity that is wrong (e.g., installing spyware).

    What the REAL problem is that the human beings are not being told how to use their damn computers. You all assume that workers are somehow incapable of comprehending how NOT to install spyware or how NOT to use their computer for inappropriate purposes. I'm sorry, but if your employees are abusing your computers at work, then warn them once and then FIRE THEM. An employee who blatantly disregards your instrucions to install anything without first asking will undoubtedly commit other violations of company policy.

    AAARG. I just can't stand how human beings in a LAN environment are forgotten entirely. I've seen so many cases where LAN admins are fighting for dear life a network of infected zombie PC's with spyware, porn, whatever and all they can see is how to lock down computers harder because you just can't "trust" humans not to do stupid things. Well, actually, NO ONE EVER BOTHERED TO TELL THEIR ASSES THEY WILL GET FIRED IF THEY DO STUPID CRAP!

    This is as much an employee management issue as it is a administration issue. Computer are great tools and some employees really do know how to install things that will improve their productivity. Locking them down like they were in some sort of prison is goddamn Orwellian. You need a healthy combination of well-patched, well-built, good-policy systems with a solid management of human beings.

    - Disgruntled ex-lan admin and ex-cube farm employee.

  263. Need to switch OS base, change policy, or armor up by digital+photo · · Score: 1

    Which OS's are the ones which are susceptible to Spyware? WinXX. Why? Poor security model and ease of bug installation.

    Gut reaction is to get rid of the platform which harbors the bugs. But if that isn't possible, then perhaps it is time to change the company usage policy.

    Most of these bugs appear from 1 of 3 sources: web surfing, email virii/trojan/worm, or direct computer attack.

    With the web and email, you can filter a certain amount, but something will always get through. With the direct attacks, your computers should have its security settings up. The inclusion of NAT/firewall devices for each department/cubicle block/computer couldn't hurt.

    Another possibility is to use something like DeepFreeze to freeze the OS hard drive on the computer and have personal and changing files stored on the network drive. Have the computers reboot themselves 3 hours or so before people get into work so when they arrive, the computer is in its clean state again. They login and they have access to their files through a standardized and cleaned desktop. No bugs unless corporate decided to put it there or the tech guy let one get into the frozen image.

    Anti-spyware and anti-adware/bugware software suffers from the same flaw as anti-virus software: you can detect and wipe out the current and old stuff, but the new stuff will get you before you get updated. Then all of the other stuff will get you.

    I use Linux, MacOSX, and WinXPPro. My XPpro machine has no bugware/spyware/virii. Why? Strong usage policiy(No IE, Outlook, or any MS based internet product. No P2P, no IRC, and no IM. Use of FireFox or Mozilla only for webmail and web surfing. Box sits behind a NAT/firewall box. XPpro system is setup with restrictive firewall settings.)

  264. Spyware/Adware Prevention In Large Deployments? by will1434 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you may be treating the symptoms before the disease. Spybot has a very useful inoculation feature, but Javacool's SpywareBlaster http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/index.html employs real-time protection that is more comprehensive. Use them both and always always keep them updated. Also ditch IE for Firefox, http://www.mozilla.org/ you will thank yourself. It is much less vulnerable to exploits. Try the wonderful Mike Lin's control panel http://www.mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml to detect and delete nasties trying to boot. Total cost for these security upgrades? $0.00 unless you want automatic updates (which I recommend considering the size of your network). I'm certain the authors would appreciate donations, however!

  265. free use terminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    At a company I once worked at, the had a few pcs in the lunch/break room with internet access. I don't think they had access to the company network. All personal stuff could be done there - and there were many times during the day that the room was empty. Do whatever you want to those machines, and reimage them in the morning.
    They also had a fridge with fee snapples and drinks:)

  266. Re: probably licensing too by ryandlugosz · · Score: 1

    It may or may not be a consideration, but Kinkos might wipe the machines to protect from licensing troubles... Say I go to Kinkos to print something and need to install a font on the system. I probably have a licensed right to do so (most font licenses allow this, IIRC) but it must be removed from the system after printing.

    By wiping the machine fresh each time, they don't have to worry about any spyware *or* licensing issues & the user can install whatever they need to get their printing done.

  267. ghost re-image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have a ghost image re-image after every reboot.

    So, have a seperate data drive on the system so that users can upload data and what have you. Have a boot CD-ROM (even seperate, sealed) with your boot image of the system.

    Request users to have their workstations reboot. In the case of a library or work facitliy, schedule to have them reboot, with a warning message, every time a couple hours after working hours are over.

    Every morning is a new machine.

    A little ghestapo? I guess so, but once you get a working model, you rarely have to worry about spyware or adware. Plus, if you want, you can give admin privileges to your students/employees. Who cares? It won't be there come tomorrow.

    Of course, if you have rediculous amount of cash. Fibre boot each system and keep a copy of the original image on your NAS/SAN/Array.

  268. Small Organizations by gpmac · · Score: 1

    We have solved this in a couple of ways:

    1. First and foremost, our non-technical users are not on Windows. We use a Suse 9 distributed network, with all users authenticating to a DLAP/NFS server and all files are remotely stored for them. For our non-technical users that merely need a browser to access web based administration systems, this works well. The users are using a combination of Mozilla and Konquerer for their applications and kmail for their email.

    2. In our development and managerial environments we are using a mix of Windows 2000 and XP. We do not run a domain controller. We restrict admin access from those who lack the technical ability to understand and mitigate the risks. For those that understand, they are given administrative access, but are also given a normal user account. They run their day to day operations on the normal user account and can switch, when necessary to install or adjust configurations. This way, they can do what they need to do, but their day to day operations and their spare time surfing does not effect the machines.

    We are a small organization. Our rollout of machines numbers in the double digits, not the triple or quadruple numbers.

    In the two years I have been running this organization in this mannor, we have never had to deal with a virus issue and I have had exactly 1 malware issue that had to be resolved. That issue was solved rather quickly, by removing the admin access from the user, as he realized what he had done was inappropriate and he was going to be restricted at that point. Our user education programs are small but effective and they have protected the investment we have in equipment.

    GP
    SIG not required.

  269. Sacrifice Chicken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had no idea that that step was optional.

  270. webroot's the best by skatephat420 · · Score: 1

    I work for Bridgewater State College and we have used the Spybot, Ad-aware, and Webroot SpySweeper. So far the most successful Spyware remover has been Webroot. This program finds more traces and is easiest to use. There are alot of students that are not that knowlegeable in computers. Now that we recommend Webroot Enterprise addition there is far less Spyware calls for us to have to go to.

  271. better solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    • I think it's more important to:
    • setup squid and squidGuard
    • setup correct firewall rules on cisco
    • setup mimedefange/spamassassin/clamav
    • setup everyone with OpenOffice
    • setup everyone with Firefox
    • setup Norton Anti-virus
  272. Re: Making Computers Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen to that, about how Nazi admins make systems pristinely useless.

    My college has upgraded their security this year, and I have had to simply stop using their network. I can't affor the exotic equipment they require, and even if I could... It fails half the time because of their draconian rule systems & interaction of too many security devices. It is just plain unpredictable what will work from one day to the next. Hugely annoying, since I could easily fix it if they would let me. And I'm paying for it as much as the next guy.

    As a result, I have had to learn to share internet with a neighbor. This involves out-of-pocket expense I hadn't budgeted for, but it is the only way.

  273. Interesting idea by anomaly · · Score: 1

    Except the first consequence is that we'd be reprimanded for not being a team player, and then we'd not get performance bonuses at the end of the year, and we'd not get promoted.

    Your idealism is refreshing, but your understanding of the way the world works is a bit limited.

    Respectfully,
    Anomaly

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
    1. Re:Interesting idea by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Except the first consequence is that we'd be reprimanded for not being a team player,

      I don't play on the team that has to fall on it's sword for bad managers.

      Put another way: there's a time to go into firefighting mode (large contract, short deadline; unforseeable circumstances; something you screwed up; etc), and there's a time to whip out the memo detailing the preventative soution, and the return memo from the boss saying it's too expensive, and then go home at 5PM (well, 5:30ish).

      Your idealism is refreshing, but your understanding of the way the world works is a bit limited.

      I've been in IT for 16 years. I know how it works. I'm also 40, and won't put up with that crap anymore. My bosses know I work at night and on weekends (as a DBA, that's the only time I have to do "big" work) and am a team player.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  274. Blah Blah Blah by SidV · · Score: 1

    In reagards to the whole discusion of locking down computers and whether users should have acces to the web, or to install programs or whatever.

    The #1 arguement for locking down was. You have the apps to do your job, you don't need anything else.

    BS

    If those apps don't work you can't do your job, and often those apps don't work, and often those apps don't work because of IT.

    I used to work at SUN (Where I had the most network/software issues of any company I've ever worked at). the main program for logging calls and so forth was RADIAINCE, which anyone who's worked at SUN in the past 5 years knows about. And what a total and complete piece of Shite it is. But I'm not here to talk about that.

    One of the other major tools for working was a web browser, not for browsing the internut, but for browsing the intranet. that's where you did research on problems, research on part#'s and also ordered those parts. No webbie, no workie.

    The biggest problem was not getting web access, but when the 6 different pages you needed to do your job blew up and went away. Sun uses Nyetscape, and it's up and down more than a $2 hooker. Never mind loosing your place, but having to re-open Nyetscape and navigate through the pages and logins to get back to where you were.

    It was neccesarry for us to do our job to install 3rd party apps. When Opera for Solaris came out some of us were in tears of joy. Some installeed IE for Solaris, we even ried that stupid Java browser SUN has. that couldn't even access 1/2 the pages we needed to do our jobs. (was better that Radiance because when it didn't work on a page, that's it, it didn't work. Radiance was sneaky bastard, you never knew when it was going to crap out. And it was always slower than a 3 legged donkey)

    Then there was proxies, anyone who used a US proxy was at a serious handicap. Most of us used Proxies that were 12 hours off from our time zone.

    In all, the only software tools that we had that worked were unsupported, or 3rd party ones. The only way we could do our jobs was to have administrator access. Then the network would go down. At those times I'd always yell. "THE NETWORK IS THE COMPUTER!"

  275. Re:Evil admins forget the human beings at computer by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1
    You advocate firing people for installing spyware but call LAN admins inhuman? The fact is that There is probably not a single LAN admin who has the authority to fire anyone. And if you think the boss is going to fire the top selling sales guy because he constantly installs spyware, you have another thing coming.

    Educating users is important, no doubt. But securing the network is the Admin's responsibility, not the sales guy's. So if systems keep showing up with adware and spyware, and the user has "no idea how it got there", the machine has to be locked down or there needs to be an anti-virus-like centralized program to eliminate the malware.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  276. Re: Those are after the fact solutions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disabling right click, however, WILL keep people from accessing these items. Also, if the user doesn't have access to important system folders, then there is much less damage that can be done.

    As far as Windows help goes, you can put anything you want in there!! Have you ever heard of a user trying to use help before calling a helpdesk or admin? hehe... /sarcasm off

    Seriously though, every little bit helps. I personally haven't found many users who will go to great lenghts to find ways around system policies. People don't normally TRY to abuse the computer systems, its just a side affect of insufficient training and lack of understanding.

    Therefore, removing ways that they can "unintentionally" cause damage is usually sufficient. However, there will always be the cases where a user falls victim to a hoax email and ends up deleting critical system files (if they have access to them).

  277. Prevx by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1
    I would recommend looking at Prevx personal IPS. I believe they are working on more enterprise type solutions. On a machine where you aren't stopping the install of software by limiting accounts, Prevx watches to make sure registery keys, IE addons, etc aren't added/modified w/o your explicit permission.

    For windows computers, my home security software list is: Ad-aware, Spybot, Prevx home, AVG anti virus, and I've been using windows SP2 firewall. (I'm undecided whether I really need to download Kerio or tiny.)

    --
    I do security
  278. Who made your stupidity MY problem?? by felis_panthera · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're tired of IT "Nazis" who impose restrictive limitations upon you and your fellow plebes?? You're tired of being told how to operate your office computer (which, for the record, is COMPANY property)?? You're tired of being treated like an idiot everytime We have to descend from on high to come and fix something that (99 times out of a hundred) was YOUR FUCKING FAULT (the other 1 time, it was the guy in the office next to you, for the record)??

    Here's what I'm tired of...
    -------
    15 hours spent tracking down the last vestige of a virus that got into the network because some dipshit user clicked on that gods damned "punch the monkey" banner. Did I get thanked for preserving the integrity of the company's data?? No, I get told to watch my ass or I'll be out on the street for daring to bill the company for those many hours at once...
    -------
    Removing the spyware which has crippled your machine causing it to "run too slowly" (the original reason you called me)... oh, and by the way, standing over my shoulder, pissing and moaning about lost productivity... that doesn't inspire me to work faster... especially not when the very next thing I see you doing (while en-route to another "emergency" call) is playing SOLITARE!! Real productive...
    -------
    Being told you have a virus and then coming into your office to find that you haven't bothered even to open the e-mail I sent out about a new CRITICAL SECURITY UPDATE that you really should install... by the way... it was in an e-mail because the last time, I spent a day visiting every - single - machine in the office and applying it myself, only to get flak for costing everyone 10 minutes of their precious time
    -------
    Having My lunch/smoke break/FUCKING WEEKEND interrupted because you or one of your shit-headded co-workers desperately need something installed/removed/hit with a stick... I don't need free time, what the hell would I do with it?? I live but to serve you my leige... you jerk-off...
    -------
    The rules and restrictions we place upon you are not out of spite. We are not fascist dictators making rules willy-nilly in the hopes of catching you with your pants down. These rules are in place to protect the sanctity and security of the network that we get paid to protect. The attitude that you see is the result of years of dealing with people who do everything they can to get around our rules. People who continue to open spam e-mail, who open attatchments on e-mails they have not verified, who wait until a computer problem gets so bad that the unit is no longer functional, who visit unsecured websites, who ignore critical updates (they're called critical for a fucking reason, plebe)... you're the problem, not us... Your right, I am paid to interface man with machine, to make the integration of technology and business as seamless as possible, and to keep the company data stored on the network safe from the outside world... I am not paid to babysit you, I am not paid to hold your hand, and above all else I am not paid to take your abuse... so here's the deal... when you follow the procedures we lay down (if you want to know why the rule is there, ask) so that the problems I have to fix aren't ones that have been caused by you, then you'll stop getting the brunt of my attitude... but so long as you act like a petulent child, demanding that everything run perfectly right now... now Now NOW... and continue blaming us for problems that are all totally preventable... I will treat you like a child...

    so either start treating us like real people, or run your own damn network...

    --

    The chains are broken
    Loki is free
    Ragnarok is at hand...
    1. Re:Who made your stupidity MY problem?? by mindstormpt · · Score: 1

      ditto

      I wish I had moderator points...

    2. Re:Who made your stupidity MY problem?? by fingerfucker · · Score: 1

      "I spent a day visiting every - single - machine in the office and applying [the critical security update] myself"

      I just laugh at poor clueless admins like yourself. The years that you "spent dealing with people" could have been better used if you picked up an admin book to teach your technician monkey ass some new tricks.

    3. Re:Who made your stupidity MY problem?? by felis_panthera · · Score: 1

      Hey, shitknuckle, instead of insulting me (-1 flamebait), how about offering some real advice (+1 informative) or even a title of "an admin book" so I might be able to improve myself. Or perhaps a new and better way of installing patches, or dealing with people (+1 inf, or +1 ins). It's "priesthood" dickholes like yourself that have made this into a problem, and attitudes just like yours that make it more difficult for the good techs to get by. You, sir, are a prick.

      --

      The chains are broken
      Loki is free
      Ragnarok is at hand...
    4. Re:Who made your stupidity MY problem?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh how I agree with many of the points that you made.

      Having My lunch/smoke break/FUCKING WEEKEND

      OK, no need to swear, but you forgot to mention the 3AM phone calls because SOMEONE WAS NOT THINKING ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING!!! As a Sr. Prog/Analyst/Sys Admin, (Mid sized shop) here's my view on this. First off, we have M$ making the person who is not motivated enough to pick up a book to find out what the thing above the keyboard that glows is really called magically become an administrator of a pc.

      Point, Click, Ship, Play a little golf.

      Point, Click, Cool, I've got a neat little screen saver.....

      Point, Click, Opps, I just infected an entire network and Bob is going to have to work 52 hours straight to fix the problem.

      Secondly, We don't educate the users... The problem MAY not be entirely the losers fault. It's very easy to belittle a user when you are trying fix their pc because they did something stupid, (Or a whole lot of stupid things).

      My approach was to try to teach the offending user what they did wrong and why. Most listen, and learn, some need to attend class a few times. Repeat offenders seem to come in 2 classes, (1) The people who push on a door when it say 'PULL' and (2) The people who are really trying and with some help eventually catch on.

      As frustating as they may be at times, always remember that they are YOUR losers.

      Alas, I have no more users. They closed my office and let them all go. I keep in touch with most (Except the ones who push instead of pull). I still work for the same company from home. So now I can code in my fuzzy slippers, but I would trade the slippers for some users to have fun with.

      OK no users to screw with, who to pick......

      Now management faces the wrath of my woe. I know they are not as intelligent as the average user, but it is at least something. "Hey, let's have a meeting to discuss the meeting that we are planning to discuss the meeting next week"

      PS My boss is a former "rocket scientist" (really) so many ways to go with that... :-)

      Yours truly, bobm STL, MO

      Not really a coward, only didn't want to try to create a user accout here because that #$(* administrator here problably wouldn't give me rights anything other that 'read-only' so I can't install that new spiffy screen saver...

      P.S. Lighten up. Life is short.

    5. Re:Who made your stupidity MY problem?? by maximilln · · Score: 1

      In regards to your subject line...

      You do live in the US, don't you? You are aware of the tax system? Our entire society is structured to make the stupidity of some people the problem of everyone else. To be perfectly blunt, our system rewards people who feign stupidity by giving them subsidies. It's not just in the government. The whole premise of insurance coverage (much of which is required by law) is to take the stupidity of some people and spread it out over the entire population.

      While I agree with your overall sentiment (though you could refine your verbage) I have to wonder why you think you should be exempt from the crap that the rest of us deal with. Not just in taxes, but on the job, at restaraunts, driving down the road, or even walking down the street.

      I often feel the same way,"Why am I charged for the stupidity of everyone around me?" There is no real answer except to take a deep breath and think,"That's how I know I'm not in heaven."

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    6. Re:Who made your stupidity MY problem?? by felis_panthera · · Score: 1

      You do live in the US, don't you?

      no

      You are aware of the tax system?

      I am aware that you _have_ one...

      The whole premise of insurance coverage (much of which is required by law) is to take the stupidity of some people and spread it out over the entire population.

      We just changed our system up here... while those of us who don't make mistakes do still have to have insurance, the only thing that will raise your premiums are claims filed where you were at fault. A minor victory, but a victory none-the-less...

      (though you could refine your verbage)

      First off, I was quite irate at the arrogance of the parent I originally responded to, and so perhaps my language was a bit strong for mixed company. Secondly, I'm Canadian, studies have shown that we swear more than any other nationality, and so my language is typically peppered by, shall we say, more colourful metaphores (double dumb-ass on you, and so forth)... I already restrain myself most of the time in order to protect the sensibilities of my backwards neighbours to the south *Grin*

      I know I'll never eradicate stupidiy... but can't I at least keep making the lives of stupid people more difficult?? I know it won't make them any smarter, or help me any in the long run... but I do enjoy watching them struggle, furrowing their brows in a desperate attempt to understand the situation...

      Thanks for the input, I'll remember to tone it back down now that I've cooled off... it's good to know I'm not alone...

      --

      The chains are broken
      Loki is free
      Ragnarok is at hand...
    7. Re:Who made your stupidity MY problem?? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Being told you have a virus and then coming into your office to find that you haven't bothered even to open the e-mail I sent out about a new CRITICAL SECURITY UPDATE that you really should install

      What about the viruses that themselves come disguised as critical security updates?

  279. Re:Skip Antispyware and consider this alternative. by bozty54 · · Score: 1

    Hi Paul -> Thanks for the kudos. ;^) I should have been more clear when I described write protecting the hard drive with the software described.

    This software virtually write protects the drive. As far as the OS/software/user is concerned the drive is writeable. I don't know if you've seen PowerQuest's v2i protector the performs online imaging of the while requiring no server downtime. What these software applications do is use their own swap area to write all changes done during a session by the OS/user/application/etc.

    In the case of Driveshield and DeepFreeze the changes are then discarded on reboot. In the case of v2i protector the changes are commited to the disk once the image of the system is created.

    The concept is brilliant and keeps your machines from being broken by viruses/spyware and my favorite end-users. While not restricting end-users from exploring their machine in any way, they can actually delete OS files, this software actually puts everything back to the way it was set up initially. Actually, in reality it never lets it be changed to begin with since it uses the virtually swap area for all changes during the session.

    Please spread the word this technology can save LAN administrators countless hours of work so that they can concentrate on implementing new technologies to better serve their end-users.

    -Nyle

  280. Yes. by swiftstream · · Score: 1

    It's called Linux.

    --
    Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
  281. why not websense? by dbizzle · · Score: 1

    I'm currently employed by a large health care provider. We use websense to block spyware, malicious content and of course unauthorized websites. Seems to work pretty good. The real problem is patch management for 25,000+ workstations.

  282. I can't believe shyster hasn't gotten a Score5 yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose you feel the same way about your Purchasing Department (Why should I have to get a PO
    The perfect analogy. Companies hire pros to keep them running smoothly.

    If...someone..is
    (a) knowledgeable
    (b) cautious
    (c) reasonable and
    (d) wants administrator access...
    I'll usually give it to [him]...this guy also becomes my go-to guy for the department

    It seems so obvious. With great power comes great responsibility. Morons need not apply.

    gewg_

  283. Domain users with permissions by PFY+by+Day · · Score: 1

    You can also give domain users full permission to specific folders... instead of granting All or Nothin' access to their entire computers.

  284. Re:Yea you are really safe keep telling yourself t by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    "Lol. I'm not an MSCE at all (I think that's what you meant to say, not MCSE)."

    Isn't is Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer?

  285. Re:Kinko's by angelinbabel · · Score: 1

    RE : Kinko's Actually, No. In Kinko's computer rental environments, the distribution is W2K, with account privelidges as you describe, to keep people from running amok. The policy is to re-image the stations once >weekly using disk images via Norton Ghost, mostly to toast accumulated cookies and other detritus. (in more recent bundles, cookies are auto-wiped on logout, which should have been the case from the begining.) Now sometimes you'll find as a customer that a Kinko's person follows after you and re-images a machine, this generally means that the server has told him the machine is misbehaving, which usually has to do with the unreliable software they use for auto-updating the software from Kinko's HQ. Keep in mind also, that those stations run HUGE amounts of proprietary software to deal with ExpressPay (the part of the system that takes your money) which is prone to tripping on it's own guts and falling down in a heap. Kinko's people are basically trained to re-image if something goes wrong that rebooting doesn't fix. If you've been in a branch or read of one where stations were re-imaged after every login, the author was either misinformed or more likely, the staff of the branch in question was not running a current bundle on their rental computers. AIB

  286. Norton by Mika24 · · Score: 1

    Norton AV 2004 and 2005 have integrated spyware i use pest patrol (www.pestpatrol.com)

    --
    http://www.npcgaming.com Dedicated Gaming Servers
  287. spywareblaster and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best tool is spywareblaster, who the Spybot S&D author mentions in his tool if you check the Immunization section. Pay for the automatic updates and you should be set. This will protect Mozilla and IE at least, I'm not sure about other browsers, from hundreds of thousands of malware attempts.

    http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.h tm l

    Also, using Firefox will eliminate much of the cruft on its own from getting in in the first place. But, spywareblaster can enhance its protection as well as IE.

    http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

    And, also grab a personal firewall, I suggest Kerio. Kerio blocks ads (pay version) and blocks incoming/outgoing traffic in addition to allowing the user to block an application attempting to run another applcation (in both free and pay versions).

    http://www.kerio.com/

  288. Filtering it all by isc7 · · Score: 1

    Many before have discussed the basic Winblows lock downs... no Admin access. (Beware XP sometimes will not update virus or patches with limited access users.) Lose IE as primary browser etc. More some OS to Linux. All good ideas worthy of deployment when possible but in the meantime:

    Take a defensive approach vs. offensive:

    ISCnetwork.com has a Firewall content Filtering Server, others may also.

    It first is a firewall between your current Internet access and the rest of the LAN(s).

    1. The FcFS blocks access to blacklisted web sites... porn, spyware, gambling, warez, virus infected, and some other 20 categories if wanted.

    2. The FcFS filters out advertisements from pages. Pop-ups are eliminated or just blank. These are where most spywares / adwares are found for the employees to download and install.

    3. The FcFS filters out email viruses & SPAM; another source of spywares. FcFS can be set to strip off bad attachments so newest viruses become less of a problem before Norton or McAfee have a cure.

    4. The FcFS offers a "Whitelist" of company approved web sites. Some employees can be limited to only a handful of "approved" web sites. Example: If you are a public library and have card catalog computers, the card catalog is all that the computer can ever access.

    5. The FcFS keeps track of internet usage. You can see which computer is trying to send out company information by the "access denied" list. This keeps down the constant battle of scanning and debugging what turns out to be clean computers.

    6. The FcFS has on the fly website blocking from any browser. You find an abuse that is not blocked like victoriasecret.com add it to the lists.

    Good luck with your battle. Our spyware block list has grown from 600 in January to over 40,000. I figure by the first quarter of 2005 it will surpass the virus infection available to XP some 65,000 or so.

  289. Re:re-imaging by nzhavok · · Score: 1

    First of all I hope you aren't actually saving those images to files then zipping them... Well you probably just did that for clarity, but pipeing to/from bzip2 seems to give the best mileage in my opinion.

    I do this on my laptop, the image is ~ 10GB and the rest is zeros, however it's still an overnight operation. I actually uncompress it from an external drive (USB2), which is quick enough. The time that takes the longest is writing to the laptop harddrive, which is slooooow.

    To be honest I'm not sure why it takes so long, laptop drives *are* slow but not that slow. I should probably check that the drive is actually in DMA mode.

    --

    He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
  290. OK, you two lovebirds... by AlphaSys · · Score: 1

    Look, if you both worked in the USAF, then you know policies and implementations vary widely from base to base. While everybody's reading off the same page of directorates, AFPCA's way of implementing is not the same as DISA's is not the same as Podunk AFB's CS which doesn't fall under the purview of either yet.

    The hurdles the AF is dealing (not too poorly) with right now do not differ that much from a lot of the businesses today. Their IT sprung up a little here and a little there, with no centralized view of THE way to do things. This has its pros and cons, but, sooner or later, if from a purely management standpoint, it is inevitable that there has to be some top-down policy to keep things safe but still usable.

    Anybody in the business knows that bringing policy down from above onto a wide array of systems that have grown up grassroots over very many years is next to impossible. Until a single authority takes over all .MIL network client installations, it will remain spotty. But it is getting better. For a long time, you saw the "security before functionality" mindset reign supreme and the base CS didn't care if you got any work done; in fact, they rather liked it if you couldn't because it was an indication that the system was locked down good. Luckily that is changing as they slowly figure out that you can secure a workstation relatively well (security is a tradeoff and all you have to do is decide what risks you want to mitigate for what loss of functionality or simplicity) and still let and end user get some work done. A big shift to server-based applications has made this easier too. A single cluster of application servers is much easier to lock down while retaining functionality than thousands of desktops. Now the problems they face are that the application servers have gotten very pervasive and some of the data they serve up is truly sensitive stuff. So they're able to implement good best-practices role-based security at the server, but what to do with the data as it leaves the server and is in the hand of the requester? There is a huge need for good research into some RM technology in the gov't sector in general that can limit what an user can do with output. WHile it would be difficult to stop someone bent on pilfering or leaking info, such activity could be made very difficult with the right application of good RM tech.

    But my original point was, just because an implementation worked as adverised at AFB #1 doesn't mean it would at #2. There's just a lot of variables there and you know it.

    --
    Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
  291. Why not by jarod670 · · Score: 1

    Just limit access to what the users actually need to get to and call it good. I work for a hospital, the people who work in the E.R. on second and third shift were notorious for downloading spyware/adware, screensavers, desktops, etc. and then would call to complain their pc was slow. We have Border Manager, but it still let them get to "news" sites that downloaded this crap for them. So we took drastic measures and blocked their internet access by workstation. They can only get to sites that we designate as appropriate for their work. No more calls to clean up machines, and they actually can concentrate on saving lives instead of looking for a great George Clooney screen saver.

  292. Re:Sacrifice Chicken by Custard · · Score: 1
    all requisit latin chanting with a strong nasal drawl
    Real admins chant in binary
  293. My theory by RyanSpade · · Score: 1

    I've worked for many comapanies in many IT based positions. Spyware and Virus troubles are a terrible burden. The more computers/users you deal with, the harder it is. On a Windows based network, the best step is to cut Spyware at the source. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...

    Use firewalls and such to block internet traffic that couldn't possibly be work related. For example, blocking some major game sites by address, such as partypoker.com, games.yahoo.com, and so on.

    Block port access used by instant message services, such as port 5190(I think that's the one) which is used by AIM.

    Set your mail server to not allow executable attachments whenever possible.

    Encourage the use of Mozilla based browsers, rather than IE. If IE must be used, disable BHO's (Broswer Helper Objects) to prevent 3rd party software from attaching to IE. (I've found this seems to be the root of most spyware.)

    If at all possible, use a web based e-mail system, rather than Outlook or IE.

    And most importantly, keep a good Antivirus system on *ALL* machines and force them to autoupdate themselves.

  294. Possibly unfair to say that.... by gstoddart · · Score: 1
    This problem is just lazy IT. If they can't take 5 minutes to add an HP scanner then you've got the wrong guys in IT...Again bad IT practise ... think of an IT department run by intelligent IT guys not lazy management types like you're describing.


    Yes, maybe they can enable the scanner for you in just a few minutes.

    And then every idiot in the company comes over and sayd "Oh, I just need this too". Sometimes in a really large organization, you end up with policies that are uniformly enforced specifically so they do NOT have to deal with the endless stream of "just one more thing" they may get swamped with.

    Admittedly, it's a limited and short-sighted policy, but if it's been handed down from on high, the IT guys get to play CYA by saying they didn't violate an edict from the CTO or something.

    You really do need to take into account the sheer momentum that administrative overhead and policy has in very large organizations before you decide the IT guys are either lazy or incompetent.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  295. Making Firefox look like IE by brw12 · · Score: 1

    At the school where I work, kids unwittingly install spyware all the time, thanks to IE and various messengers and such. Firefox is only a partial solution, but it's a big step, so I remove/hide IE and place a link to firefox on the desktop and in the start menu. Here's the coup de grace: I go into the firefox link's properties and change its icon to IE's icon! (click change icon, find the IE folder in Programs, select iexplore). The kids never know the difference and when I come back to do maintenance, the machines are usually spyware-free.

  296. M$ Access, VB, and Microtek scanners by tepples · · Score: 1

    I've thrown Knoppix in many machines, as experiments

    I've tried it, and perhaps it was the CD-ROM overhead, but OpenOffice.org took inordinately long to start up, and perhaps it was the lack of an accelerated Radeon driver, but I could see the GUI being drawn line-by-line rather than instant rectfills.

    10 LET M$ = "Microsoft"

    You claim there is no Access for Linux. Google for mdbtools

    Does mdbtools have graphical schema, form, and report construction tools like M$ Access does? (looks at screenshot) No, a glorified terminal emulator that allows typing in SQL commands doesn't count as a GUI.

    Second, WINE does Visual Basic rather well

    Great. Now we can violate M$ EULAs that prohibit running covered products in any operating system but M$ Windows brand operating systems.

    I have never had to replace any of my hardware because it was not supported under Linux.

    You appear lucky. After over a year, SANE still lists Microtek Scanmaker 4800 family scanners as "unsupported" in red letters.

    1. Re:M$ Access, VB, and Microtek scanners by rincebrain · · Score: 1

      OpenOffice.org took inordinately long to start up, and perhaps it was the lack of an accelerated Radeon driver, but I could see the GUI being drawn line-by-line rather than instant rectfills.

      OO.org takes an inordinately long amount of time to start on my 1.5 GHz Athlon XP I have running Linux from the hard drive at home, that's not the CD. And the lack of accelerated driver was probably it, since I've not had speed problems on machines in the 200-300 MHz range.

      Does mdbtools have graphical schema, form, and report construction tools like M$ Access does? (looks at screenshot) No, a glorified terminal emulator that allows typing in SQL commands doesn't count as a GUI.

      No, no. I meant mdbtools as a means to convert a database to a format readable by various Linux tools.

      Now we can violate M$ EULAs that prohibit running covered products in any operating system but M$ Windows brand operating systems.

      Last I checked, the MSVB runtimes don't have an EULA; you extract them, and use them. But that could just be my memory; I've not had the need to install them in a long time.

      You appear lucky.

      Win some, lose some. I admit, hardware support under Linux can fail at times. Given that they implement it themselves, most of the time, I'd think a lot is supported, wouldn't you?

      --
      It's only an insult if it's not true.
    2. Re:M$ Access, VB, and Microtek scanners by tepples · · Score: 1

      OO.org takes an inordinately long amount of time to start on my 1.5 GHz Athlon XP I have running Linux from the hard drive at home

      OO.org on Windows on the same machine I used to test Knoppix (that is, 0.86 GHz PIII) starts fast enough. If it's not the CD, it must be that <troll>teh lunix is slowz0rz</troll>.

      No, no. I meant mdbtools as a means to convert a database to a format readable by various Linux tools.

      So which among your "various Linux tools" is the graphical schema/form/report tool? Migrate the data with mdbtools and migrate the point-and-click developers with what?

      Given that they implement it themselves, most of the time, I'd think a lot is supported, wouldn't you?

      True, but for many businesses, "a lot" of supported hardware is not enough, especially when the short-term cost of replacing mission-critical hardware outweighs the licensing cost of the next edition of Windows.

  297. Migration starts with the new hires by tepples · · Score: 1

    so okay, you install OpenOffice. Now you have to train 4k ppl to use it.

    How did 4,000 people learn to use Microsoft Office software? What kind of turnover do you have in your office environment? Why can't you train new hires on OpenOffice.org and then run MS Office and OO.o side-by-side, with the new hires on OO.o?

  298. Flu shots are a bad example by tepples · · Score: 1

    What do you do to avoid catching the flu? That's right you get a flu shot.

    I can't wait 41 years to be old enough to be eligible for flu shots.

  299. bla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm only responding to this -1 rated comment because I am investingating the slashdot user interface for a stupid paper I have to write.

    Please ignore the following

    1. Re:bla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      asdfasd f asd
      fads
      fa
      sd fasdfasd fa
      sdf asdfdsdfa sdfasd fasdf adfa fadsf asdf asddasdfasd

  300. There is: Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is: Linux.

  301. Anything you install in IT - you support forever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why most shops don't want unknown third party applications or cheap hardware. Because the end users will still want support on it, regardless if it was an authorized IT purchase or not.

    Fact is these kinds of purchases eat up a substantial amount of time (telephone and desktop visits) when there are any software conflicts, upgrades, or other issues.

    It's not just IT being lazy.