Slashdot Mirror


Crackers Tune In to Windows Media Player

jamshedji writes "Crackers are using the newest DRM technology in Microsoft's Windows Media Player to install spyware, adware, dialers and computer viruses on unsuspecting PC users."

367 comments

  1. It's like sun on your wedding day? by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "It's pretty ingenious," said Patrick Hinojasa, chief technical officer at Panda Software. "To take an anti-piracy feature and use it to feed spyware is extremely ironic."

    Not quite ingenious but certainly not ironic. Perhaps if they were loading copyrighted materials such as movies and music onto your machine while you were attempting to download the license for DRM *then* it would be ironic.

    The sad thing is that 99% of Windows users are likely telling WMP to install these licenses automatically when they try to play a media file. It's the "popup addiction" at work. People can't stand popups and anything to get them out of the way for good is they way they want to go.

    This is going to become yet another excuse for trusted computing and single codec repositories. "Look! You are being infected by those bad sites on the Internet! Want protection? Use trusted computing and you'll never have a problem again! Just sign here, here and here. Pay here and connect here. Ahh, isn't that better?"

    1. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by Squatchman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't remember WMP ever asking me for a license before. Maybe I'm just not using the right features, but it plays just about any media file I throw at it without any bitching(codecs being installed). Something like this could REALLY wreck hell if it was written to work with iTunes. A good number of those people buy their music from the service.

    2. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by Sardak · · Score: 3, Funny

      ..to install spyware, adware, dialers and computer viruses on unsuspecting PC users. I think I'd be unsuspecting too if some program tried to install a virus on me.

    3. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by UWC · · Score: 4, Interesting
      All WMP versions that I've encountered through the current one have given a choice on whether to enable DRM at install. I've never tried installing with DRM enabled, so I don't know if it would request DRM on all files, or just makes sure to verify DRM on protected files, but with DRM turned off, I've not had a problem with playback of other files or portability of WMP-created media (e.g. CDs I've ripped to WMA. Yeah, I know, I should have used MP3 or Ogg, but CDex wasn't working for me at the time, and I was lazy; I've since rectified the transgressions).

      I wonder how long until you're no longer given the choice to opt out of DRM at install, though.

    4. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might check this out.

    5. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by krgallagher · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Here is another quote:

      "In this case, they're using technology meant to secure content. It just shows that the more bells and whistles you add to the technology, the more you open doors for the bad guys,"

      To me this just proves that trusted computing is a bad deal. The more control you take away from the end user, the more control you give to the people who would hurt you.

      --

      Insert Generic Sig Here:

    6. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by andalay · · Score: 0

      Don't upgrade!!!!!!!!1

    7. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by zarr · · Score: 1
      I wonder how long until you're no longer given the choice to opt out of DRM at install, though.

      If you're allowed to opt out, then there isn't much point to it, now is there?

    8. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by manwal · · Score: 1

      It's the "popup addiction" at work. People can't stand popups and anything to get them out of the way for good is they way they want to go.

      This happened to my brother's computer about a month ago, when a friend of ours started IE and tried to reach some tripod page. I guess he mistyped the URL, because he ended up with a 404-page and the software firewall asked if some process could launch WMP. He clicked yes without thinking (or listening). Luckily, the anti-virus monitor saved the day.

    9. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by jemfinch · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not quite ingenious but certainly not ironic.


      I'm getting so amazingly tired of Alanis Haters Anonymous getting on everyone's case for not understanding the word "irony," when in fact, ironically, they themselves do not understand it.

      Irony is an "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs." When companies use anti-piracy "features" to install Spyware, it's ironic, because no one expects that DRM will be used to install Spyware.

      And, while we're at it, it's unexpected (and thus ironic) when you find a black fly in your chardonnay. It's unexpected (and thus ironic) when it rains on your wedding day. Yes, there are some lines in "Ironic" that aren't themselves ironic, but that fact itself makes the song ironic! So members of AHA are screwed both ways: if they complain that the lyrics do not describe irony, they show by their very complaints that the song itself is ironic.

      Take that.

      Jeremy
    10. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by SpecBear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not that it's being exploited by genius so much as it was implemented by arrogance. The very nature of DRM software is to conspire with a content provider to use Joe User's computer against him in a way that he cannot circumvent.

      Any DRM implementation is more likely to be exploitable in ways such as this. DRM is more likely to be insecure from the user's standpoint because it's designed from the ground up with somebody else's security as the highest priority. And once the software has been exploited, it has the potential to be highly troublesome because the malicious code now has access to a system that was designed to prevent the owner of the computer from tampering with it. The more effective the DRM is, the more dangerous it is to the user.

      Perhaps I'm being overly paranoid, but I find this to be quite alarming.

    11. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      I don't see how DRM installing spyware is ironic. That's exactly the sort of thing I expect from it...

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    12. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Wanna bet that within 6 months of "trusted computing" being commercially viable, someone will come up with a way to exploit it that will be virtually impossible to fix without reverting the entire machine back to an "untrusted" state?

    13. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valve's Steam

    14. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by Xerp · · Score: 1

      Nice. The only trouble being that with Microsoft's track record you'll end up getting infected by a feature in their "trusted computing".

      While you're at it, what are the odds on a virus / spyware that spreads via "features" in the Microsoft anti-virus / anti-spyware products?

    15. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

      Irony is an "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs."

      May I point out that while the word "irony" is used like that in translations as well, in various languages other than English the meaning is actually quite different. In several European languages "irony" means "something that seems like the malevolent action of a higher being".

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    16. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      This is absolutely correct. The thing that I do not understand is this. The electronics, computer hardware, and software industry (collectively the technology industry), when considered globally, is a trillion dollar industry. The consumers don't want DRM, they have made that preference loud and clear in the marketplace thus far. The entertainment and content industry is maybe 100 billion dollars per year world wide (and that is being generous). So why don't the technology companies band together, give the consumers what they want, increase their revenues and tell Hollywood, MPAA, RIAA, etc to piss up the proverbial f***ing rope?

    17. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The WMP versions newer then 7.0 i think have a tab in the settings to automaticaly download licence keys or aquire licenes automaticaly for protected content. Usualy the defautl is to DRM you files too so if your system crashes, all you media riped with WMP would be useless to you if you don't have your own license key backed up as well.

      I'm going to guess that this uses some sort of scripting in the license file to allow redirection to a site for payment options and that site is what is allowing the downloads.

      This issue can be fixed without making trusted computing the only option. First, it can make the site actually use a different form of instalation from the licenes file. IE: not allow the site itself to install the file and surpress all popups with a notice saying do not pick any popups. Then allow a temp file or cookie to be placed on the machine that has the information of the actual license file when you return to opening the DRM cripled file. It can be more elaborate then this but it would at least lock out this specific exploit.

      I'm interested in finding out whats going to happen when someone uses this tecknoligy to either strip the drm out, or conect it to another piece of DRM crippled media that gives it a good license for an already free product. I imagine that with the right modifications they can authenticate the media based on a responce to the system and bypass the need to get a valid license in the first place.

    18. Re:It's like sun on your wedding day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think jemfench still wins on this. Flies in your chardonnay, rain on your wedding day: both could be meet that definition.

      Again, for the song, those statements that don't meet that definition can be rebutted with: This song is still ironic. :)

  2. It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by Ckwop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this time.. we probably wont have the ability to turn it off.

    This will become the new ActiveX.. I can see it already..

    Simon.

    1. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by RpiMatty · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, in this case WMP asked to go download and install the codec needed to play the video file.
      When the user clicks yes, then their system becomes infected.
      So if you don't trust the video source, or set WMP to not download codec you will be safe

    2. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by dewke · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can turn the "feature" off. The spyware is installed when the player claims it needs a license. The settings for this are on the privacy tab.

      --
      Oderint dum metuant
    3. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by notasheep · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it has nothing to do with codecs. It has to do with acquiring a license to play a video file. And you can turn this off if you'd like in WMP. The problem is that most folks have it set to automatically acquire licenses by default.

      --
      Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
    4. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
      No, in this case WMP asked to go download and install the codec needed to play the video file.

      Nothing to do with codecs. From TFA:

      When Windows Media Player encounters a file with certain "rights management" features enabled, it opens the web page specified by the file's creator. This page is intended to help a content providers promote its products -- perhaps other music by the same artist or label. However, the specified web page can show deceptive messages, including pop-ups that try to install software on users' PCs.
    5. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      The problem is, that setting does not work! I have it turned off, but Zonealarm still gets hit whenever I play a WMV file that wants a license... there's a reason why I don't let IE or WMP access the Internet without explicit permission every time.

    6. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "opens the web page specified by the file's creator. This page is intended to help a content providers promote its products"

      In other words adware!

      WMP IS ADWARE AND SPYWARE BY MS'S OWN DEFINITION AND DESIGN!

      How much more obvious does it get?

      One could argue for MS products opening their own Web page for some reason, but some other random company's Web page? I could see providing a URL maybe, but actually going to the site without your permission?

      Tell me again MS doesn't want to control your machine!

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    7. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by RpiMatty · · Score: 1

      Ooooops. I did read the article, but then confused what article described with one of my past experiences.
      I had WMP ask me to download a codec to play some movie file once. Being lazy I didn't let it, and didnt care about playing the movie.
      So as long as you don't let programs do anything for you automatically, you should be safer
      Haven't upgraded to this new version yet, and since i never really use it, i dont think i will anytime soon.

    8. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by dewke · · Score: 1

      Well I don't use IE at all, unless there are pages that are specifically designed for it and will not render in firefox.

      I'd be willing to bet you get hit because media player goes looking for the license and then prompts you to install it. Not that I trust MS on that anyway.

      --
      Oderint dum metuant
    9. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by Glonoinha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the problem - trusted computing implies that you trust the computer and all of a sudden it is making those decisions for you (and screwing you in the process, it appears.)

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    10. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or it could be that wmp is checking for updates...

    11. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when there is NO feature left to be disabled? Then what? I think were running out of features to be disabled. Do I need to disable Windows then?

    12. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      this time.. we probably wont have the ability to turn it off.

      I just downloaded Slackware to update my auxcon box. I think I could turn it off with that.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    13. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by JThundley · · Score: 1

      You gotta play the Devil's advocate: Doesn't FireFox do the same thing when it comes across a plugin that it doesn't have? It takes you to Java or Flash or whoever's site to download the plugin to display the content. It's all about making smart choices and knowing what to accept and what to deny, which is still hard for the average user.

      P.S. I hate Windows Media Player so much that I use mplayer on my one windows box :)

    14. Re:It's a bit like IE and activeX except.. by ekhben · · Score: 0

      Yes, most folks do. That's how it installs by default, and it doesn't tell you otherwise. I'm reasonably clueful about computers, and you know, it never occured to me that I'd need to go find an option so that a media player wouldn't try to be a web browser too. I mean, wtf? Should I check my text editor's settings to make sure it won't try to load software from the web depending on the contents of the text file? The mind boggles.

  3. Happy by bustersnyvel · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I'm so happy that I've got a system that doesn't integrate every little bit into the OS! Too bad Mickeysoft still doesn't understand that more features don't make their system any better.

    1. Re:Happy by kurokaze · · Score: 1

      How the f*ck is the parent labeled interesting? Just because it's an anti-MS rant that does not contribute in any meaningful way to the topic?

      Sheesh.. I hope I see this in meta-mod.

    2. Re:Happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had any sense you'd realize that this exploit has nothing to do with OS integration.

    3. Re:Happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting because it substituted 'Mickeysoft' for 'Microsoft'. LOLOROFL

    4. Re:Happy by TCaptain · · Score: 1

      You're new here ain't ya?

      --
      "I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
  4. No logic by MarkRose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One has to wonder why an application whose primary purpose it is to just display data is such a huge vector for infection. What was Microsoft thinking when they made it possible for movies to automatically open URL's and install stuff? Perhaps someone can explain the logic to me.

    --
    Be relentless!
    1. Re:No logic by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What was Microsoft thinking when they made it possible for movies to automatically open URL's and install stuff?

      To make it easier for users to watch movies. Codecs to watch movies are available all over the place but a generally dumb Windows user wouldn't have the faintest idea where to get that.

      Microsoft was attempting to make their media viewing a bit easier by telling them the codec wasn't installed (rather than displaying their famous acid-trip screen saver) and that WMP could attempt to install it for them.

      It's partly the users' fault for clicking on "stop bugging me about this in the future and just install everything known to man without asking."

    2. Re:No logic by pvt_medic · · Score: 1

      Marketing. Think about it if everything you saw instantly connected you to the products page? not saying it is a good idea, but microsoft probably was thinking that they can use it to sell stuff. See something you like in a movie click and voila your at the website to buy it.

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
    3. Re:No logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One has to wonder why an application whose primary purpose it is to just display data is such a huge vector for infection. What was Microsoft thinking when they made it possible for movies to automatically open URL's and install stuff? Perhaps someone can explain the logic to me.

      It's because they're Microsoft and we're Slashdot.

      On a more serious note : Automatically downloading codecs/drm schemes allow both users not to worry about downloading new codecs and RIAA/MPAA supporting companies to lock users without their consentment (well, you're consentant, didn't you agree some license to allow them/MS to do that ?).

    4. Re:No logic by Smidge204 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Unfortunately, in order to display the data correctly you need to know how to read it, and that typically requires codecs and plugins... unless you want to recompile/redownload the program each and every time a new format for video/audio/features (subtitles, etc) comes out. (And sometimes it seems everyone and their grandmother has their own codec...)

      Is that a good enough explaination?

      As for what they were thinking, probably something along the lines of: "Our target user has little or no in-depth knowledge of computers, so we will automate everything as much as possible with default settings that will work 99% of the time." Considering the market share Windows has, that's obviously pretty sound logic.

      Unfortunately it backfires a lot, because this makes the users trust the computer to make the right decisions for them, and trust that the default settings are an adequate balance of function and security. The only fault I can find in MS on this one is doing too good a job at making it easy for Joe Public.
      =Smidge=

    5. Re:No logic by nine-times · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Why do web pages need the ability to launch programs and install things? It's long been Microsoft's design philosophy to hook every one of their apps to the OS and to each other, and give each the ability to do as much as possible. The idea is that this makes productive computer use easier and more transparent.

      And it does. Unfortunately, it also makes malicious computer use easier and more transparent. Microsoft has ignored that aspect to their design philosophy, and it's become the source of many highly-publicized security issues.

    6. Re:No logic by m2bord · · Score: 1

      it gives microsoft the potential for additional revenue.

      by using their drm and codecs, the authorized distributor could run ads, announcements, or other multimedia on the end user's pc.

      i'm not wild about wmp but it is far less clunky than my musicmatch jukebox player.

      --
      Is it 5:30 yet?
    7. Re:No logic by DavidD_CA · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you RTFA, you'd understand that Windows Media Player attemps to connect to the Internet when a file is played that it doesn't have a valid license for.

      In theory, if you download an MP3 with DRM enabled, Windows Media Player will search your computer for the license. If it doesn't find it, it will go to the URL specified in the MP3. This is part of the DRM spec.

      "Hackers" are just taking advantage of this, creating fake MP3s/MOVs and making those URLs go to junk-infested sites.

      In WMP's defense, it *does* ask you first if you want to go out and hit the site for the DRM license. And once you get there, if you're running SP2 then security is no different than any other mailious website you may visit.

      SP2 should block the popups, and give you a much more informative warning if the site tries to push software onto your computer.

      --
      -David
    8. Re:No logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is their codec installation mechanism sucks donkey balls then?

      seriously, they cant EVER find the right codec.

    9. Re:No logic by kerrle · · Score: 1

      Except as has been pointed out by the IE exploit covered here on Jan. 7, it's still very much possible to install software through IE without user interaction, even with Service Pack 2, as long as Active X isn't completely disabled. That exploit only requires that a page be viewed.

    10. Re:No logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it doesn't even work that way. Never, not once, ever ever, has WMP ever been able to automatically find and install a needed codec for me. It's completely stupid.

    11. Re:No logic by mindriot · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess the question is, why is it even possible that downloading a _DRM license_ (which to me is just a piece of data in a certain format) allows downloading and installing of malicious _executables_ at all?!?

      The only thing downloadable should be a valid DRM license. A simple data file basically. Why is it even possible to let it download executables?

    12. Re:No logic by MasterLock · · Score: 1

      You can't blame the user for just wanting to watch a video file. Have you tried to create video files for distribution? There are so many codecs out there it's ridiculous to expect users to have them all or know where to find them.

    13. Re:No logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make it easier for users to watch movies. Codecs to watch movies are available all over the place but a generally dumb Windows user wouldn't have the faintest idea where to get that.

      And it's ideas like this that will keep Joe Sixpack "dumb" as you put it yourself. If everything is done automatically for him, how will Joe ever learn how to do it himself?

      Ignoring a major security risks like this just to ease media viewing a little just doesn't make sense to me. We have enough file formats that can give us spyware or virii already - thanks, but no thanks! Whether it's in Microsoft best interest to keep users dumb is certainly a interesting question to rise though.

    14. Re:No logic by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      The WMA client doesn't download anything. It directs you to a website where you can get information about the license. Legitimately, you would see the licence provider's information and their message. ie: Your license is expired, we couldn't authenticate you, RIAA ownz joo, etc.

      In this case, the webpage that WMA loads up is filled with malicious software.

      --
      -David
    15. Re:No logic by hey! · · Score: 1

      Blame it on the pesky von Neumann.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:No logic by Technician · · Score: 1

      Why is it even possible to let it download executables?

      Actualy I think that it runs as an executible to make the DRM work in the first place.

      What good would it do if you downloaded a file and the key and they worked anywhere they were both put?

      I think the DRM works by the requesting delivery of the DRM file to everyone (distribution unaltered) the the key is requested (license paid for). The file comes as an executible so it can scan the system so it can gather system specific information such as the hard drive serial number. The active key then reports back with a hash of the information. The rights vendor then issues a hashed key for that specific machine. That's how the DRM key is made unique for a specific piece of hardware and the specific DRM content so it won't work together elsewhere.

      Remember, many DRM files are shared and passed along as a simple e-mail attachment or website download. To view the content, you gotta buy a hardware specific key. It's the active content of the key handshake that is exploitable.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    17. Re:No logic by kurokaze · · Score: 1

      lol.. I'd mod you up (+1 funny or insightful) if I could!

    18. Re:No logic by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft was attempting to make their media viewing a bit easier by telling them the codec wasn't installed (rather than displaying their famous acid-trip screen saver) and that WMP could attempt to install it for them.

      You are incorrect. This exploit has nothing to do with fetching codecs. It is a feature that will open a web page specified by the creator of the movie or song file, that is intended to allow the user to buy a license to use the media. Basically it is a "feature" whereby media player will see a movie, notice you don't have a DRM key for it, and open a web page so that you can buy said DRM key. Unfortunately, like usual MS was completely blinded by dollar signs and did not consider that arbitrary files could direct the user to any old web page, and since IE is full of holes, this makes it pitifully easy to use a media file as a trojan.

      I have not looked at this exploit more than superficially so I am unsure if the media player will always open the page in IE, or if setting Firefox as your default browser will save you. I also do not know with what privilege level IE connects, at a guess I would think it is as you with the lowest security setting for that page, but it could be your default, or connect as "root." Someone also mentioned that there is a setting to disable this, but it does not seem to work.

      It's partly the users' fault for

      ...expecting their computer to be reasonably secure by default, and not silently install programs from anyone who can lure you to a particular web page. Also for assuming that the computer equivalent of a stereo and VCR will not connect you to random places on the internet and randomly install programs. If Sony made it's consumer appliances like this, when you put a VCR tape in from your neighbor you would have to worry that it might make extra ads appear in the middle of your TV screen from that point on.

    19. Re:No logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mp3's can't have DRM.. specific to ASF types only.

    20. Re:No logic by mindriot · · Score: 1

      Right. But if the DRM license needed is in a standardized format (no executable business... devise a proper crypto protocol) nobody would have to be redirected to a webpage and interact and be tempted to download any nonsense provided.

      Of course, the only thing is that for some DRM content you may be required to go to some website so you can purchase the license. That of course can't be avoided... distinguishing legitimate sites from malicious ones here is a hard task, admittedly...

    21. Re:No logic by dbacher · · Score: 1

      It's not even MP3's -- the file has to be encoded with the DRM scheme itself. It's not checking file signatures, etc. The music file itself has encoded in it "I'm not licensed." The "crackers" are going into services like Kazaa, and putting up songs that "look" legitimate, and installing spyware instead. This has been going on for several weeks now, and is well covered elsewhere...

      --
      If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
    22. Re:No logic by Maestro4k · · Score: 2
      • I have not looked at this exploit more than superficially so I am unsure if the media player will always open the page in IE, or if setting Firefox as your default browser will save you. I also do not know with what privilege level IE connects, at a guess I would think it is as you with the lowest security setting for that page, but it could be your default, or connect as "root." Someone also mentioned that there is a setting to disable this, but it does not seem to work.
      There was an article about this earlier because a contractor of the RIAA/MPAA started this mess (check out my last journal entry, it links the article). According to that article WMP always uses IE, ignoring system browser preferences. This isn't too surprising as most MS software does this, apparently MS can't handle the concept of someone wanting to use software from anyone but them.
    23. Re:No logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense. You're arguing just to argue. You were wrong, now please stop.

    24. Re:No logic by legirons · · Score: 1

      "In theory, if you download an MP3 with DRM enabled, Windows Media Player will search your computer for the license. If it doesn't find it, it will go to the URL specified in the MP3. This is part of the DRM spec."

      So... this search of your computer for the license...

      The one which indicates success or failure by whether it connects to a certain website afterwards...

      Is there any way to direct that search to particular filenames?

    25. Re:No logic by gwait · · Score: 1

      The same logic used when they added this same capability to email. Remember when it used to be safe to receive email?

      "Wouldn't it be nice if I could password protect my operating system files?"
      Gord Wait

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
    26. Re:No logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need the ability due to the insane attitude, of a majority of people that want web applications.

    27. Re:No logic by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...expecting their computer to be reasonably secure by default...

      And why NOT? We expect our cars and toys for children to be reasonably safe by default! If Apple can make a computer reasonably secure by default, why can't the largest software company? Simple; they think they can sell more upgrades for 'security' if the users are worried about security. Is the latest XP with all its patches really all that more secure than an out of the box windows 95? Maybe some, but not much.

      I think consumers, and that includes computer users have a RIGHT to expect that the product they buy will not cause them harm. If the computer technology businesses were held to the same product liability standards as say car or toy makers, maybe we'd get safer computers. As long as our society allows software makers to legally protect themselves with those lame EULA disclaimers, true computer security will remain a dream. If a software maker (including Microsoft) could be sued under the same liabilty standards as most other manufacturers, we would have VERY secure computers in a short time.

      --
      All theory is gray
    28. Re:No logic by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...MP3 with DRM enabled,...

      I did not know that the MP3 or MOV format could have any kind of DRM. I have never encountered an MP3 file that was in any way encumbered, at least not on iTunes or Quicktime.

      --
      All theory is gray
    29. Re:No logic by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      You're probably right. I'm using "MP3" in a generic sense.... kind of like calling something a "xerox copy" when it's really a photocopy.

      --
      -David
  5. So tired... by Virtualtaco · · Score: 0, Redundant

    At a glance i thought this was an arcticle about white people and spyware...

  6. Crackers like... by NetNifty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Crackers like the RIAA/MPAA contractor Overpeer?

    1. Re:Crackers like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By now everybody should be clear about who pees over whom...
      There's still MPlayer, The Core Media Player, and loads of other players around for windoze. If it has to be windoze at all.

    2. Re:Crackers like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed :)
      btw i like your sig, its very VERY apt

  7. Hackers, not Crackers. by purduephotog · · Score: 1

    Really, the article says Hackers. Crackers break software.

    I mean if you're going to rip the first line 'summary' from the article itself, why skimp on one word?

    1. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by DrinkingIllini · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because as /.ers we know the difference, and these are most certainly crackers, not hackers.

    2. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree. Crackers break software, hackers write broken software ;)

    3. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up and get off the Internet, punk.

    4. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer the word Honky.

    5. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by zarr · · Score: 1

      If they did it just for fun, then they would be hackers, right? :)

    6. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "we," paleface? A "cracker" is either a thin salty wafer or slang for a bigoted white southerner. It's use to mean "malicious computer programmer" ranks up there with "virii" and "boxen" as Really Pointless Language Ticks Fourteen-Year-Olds Can't Grow Out Of Fast Enough.

      Still and all, I look to the positive: Slashdot's continuing replacement of the word "hacker" with "cracker" in otherwise verbatim news article headlines while simultaneously proudly flaunting its lack of any grammer or spelling controls remains that rarest of commodities, a near constant source of "Bemused WTF?!?" on a World-Wide Web that's become otherwise staid and predictable. Gentlemen, I salute you, and tip my hat to those Chaos gods you so cleary serve.

      (Oh, sure, g'ahead, cite some article in -- what's it called again? -- um, yeah, "Wikipedia" that "proves" me wrong. I'll be sure to sure to feel appropriately chastised, I promise...)

    7. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by jefftp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Crazy crackers, first eminem... now this.

      Seriously, Slashdot needs to give up the nerd dictionary crusade. Hacker is a bad guy with a computer. Cracker is a white guy.

      You won't see people referring to bundle of kindling wood as a faggot anymore--languages evolve new meanings. If you tell someone you threw a faggot on the fire last weekend you'll end up in jail for a hate crime.

    8. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      well, it's a matter of being yourself a true hacker and not liking the connotation your "title" is being given

    9. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because as /.ers we know the difference, and these are most certainly crackers, not hackers.

      I always thought it was funny that Mitnick himself uses the work "hacker" not "cracker". Guess even he's a n00b to the Slashdot geek nazis.

    10. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking bundle of sticks!

    11. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by Q2Serpent · · Score: 1

      It's use to mean
      Language Ticks
      so cleary serve
      I'll be sure to sure to feel
      lack of any grammer or spelling controls

      *snicker*

    12. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      Hey, Niblet: Re-read the post; I never claimed spelling or grammar superiority, only that ./'s continued pandering to the script-kiddies' made-up vocabularies and the ridiculous justifications provided by their only-slightly-better-informed apologists remain an ongoing source of irritation to me and anyone with a passing interest in English.

      Oh, and I meant to say "Ticks," as in "Affectation."

      The rest are typos.

      Looser...

    13. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please see this definition of the word cracker. It actually makes more sense than the word hacker for someone who breaks into something or through something. That is, you don't hack a safe, you crack a safe; you don't hack a secret code, you crack a secret code; etc.

    14. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by Q2Serpent · · Score: 1

      It's "Loser".

      Snicker.

    15. Re:Hackers, not Crackers. by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      I believe you have been, if my understanding of the teen script-kiddie slang is correct, "0wned."

      Thanks, as they say, for playing.

  8. What's with /. running months old news? by funkdid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok I'll admit it. I did a search on Limewire for some "adult" type content. Every single movie I grabbed up tried to get me to install some piece of software in order to watch the movie. 1800fastsearch, etc. I was annoyed that the spyware companies had gotten their tentacles this deep in porn. Those bastards, is nothing sacred?

    --

    I boycott signatures

    1. Re:What's with /. running months old news? by drafalski · · Score: 4, Funny

      tentacles this deep in porn

      Seems like a "5, Funny" joke is lurking in there somewhere...

    2. Re:What's with /. running months old news? by Rorschach1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey man, lay off the tentacle porn - some of us LIKE that!

    3. Re:What's with /. running months old news? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who thought of Maniac Mansion when reading this?

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  9. No no no, all wrong by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 2, Funny

    You people have it all WRONG, DRM was meant to Stand for Digital Rights Manipulation, it's actually a Microsoft feature.

    1. Re:No no no, all wrong by RPoet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like the variant term Richard Stallman likes to promote: Digital Restrictions Management.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    2. Re:No no no, all wrong by EvilFrog · · Score: 1

      Naw, "Digital Rights Management" makes perfect sense.

      "Management" means it is being controlled or restricted by my interpretation. Thus "Digital Restrictions Management" is just being redundant, and doesn't say what is being restricted (in this case, your rights to digital content).

  10. Re:Unsuspecting??? by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For those who still don't suspect, you might try Firefox.

    What does Firefox have to do with ending Spyware via WMP? Absolutely nothing. Last time I checked Firefox opened WMP on Windows machines when you attempted to play a media file.

    Hmm.

    Now maybe if you had suggested some little known media player that didn't automatically install codecs after you clicked "don't ask me again, just install" then maybe your post would have been worth something.

    At least RTFA.

  11. You know my solution. by cgranade · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Besides the obvious troubles of Windows, and of DRM, we now have the added issues of security? Well, at least I don't have to worry about it on my Linux desktop. Just on my Windows laptop. Really, I think that MS must try and leave these open so that they can sell subscriptions to their new AntiSpyware.

    --

    #define DRM chmod 000

    1. Re:You know my solution. by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thing is, this is one of those cases that hits Windows more because of the monoculture than directly due to the inherent security flaws or the DRM problem.

      In general "advanced" formats will require downloading software. The fact that the "advance" here is DRM is almost immaterial, except perhaps for the fact that some people believe they're downloading a license rather than software. But Windows asks explicitly if you want to download and install the software. You get a warning, you have to say, "Yeah, I want that piece of malware." The message may not be clear enough, and since there are cases where you do want it you're asking a naive user to make a fairly sophisticated security judgment, but it is there, and the malware can't bypass it. It doesn't need to.

      To my knowledge Linux doesn't have a good solution to that problem, either. If you need software to play that movie/music, it's up to you to verify that the software isn't malware. Linux users escape this problem largely because there aren't enough of them to make it worth the malware writer's effort (as well as the fact that Linux users tend to be better educated and would answer "Hell no!" to the question if asked).

      What's needed here is a security sandbox. Download the codec but don't give it permission to do anything except take stuff from one place in memory and dump it to another, or access a limited direct-to-video API. No network access, no disk access. I'm not aware of any particular Linux security sandbox.

      Microsoft does have its own, in its C#/CLR, though clearly that hasn't made it to the point of writing codecs yet. And it may not, since these are performance-intensive apps and virtual machines impose overhead. I've seen codecs written in Java, and they're tolerable but not what you'd choose.

    2. Re:You know my solution. by cgranade · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, so much of this could be avoided by at least not tying DRM into the lowest levels of the OS. Same issue as I have with MSIE. Comprimise Firefox, and you've comprimised an application. Comprimise MSIE, and you've comprimised Windows itself. Furthermore, since all lusers have admin privliges by default, any damage done by even an application can be severe. Hence, my reommendations. First, move the DRM layer out of the OS. Second, don't allow an admin to run the DRM-encrusted software.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    3. Re:You know my solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not aware of any particular Linux security sandbox.

      Try UML or a chroot jail. Hardly rocket science, but then you are a doze user.

    4. Re:You know my solution. by Secrity · · Score: 1

      According to the article, users are asked if they want to download a license; they are not asked if they want to install an executable. In any event, the normal MS user simply is conditioned to just press "YES" to get rid of the popup that is standing in their way of listening to the DRM'd crap.

    5. Re:You know my solution. by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure user-level controls are appropriate. The existence of a special more-privileged user to clean up your mistakes is nice, but it would be better to have finer control in the first place. If you were to download malware into your Linux app, it can do a whole bunch of damage even running as you: install itself in your .rc files, add a bunch of stuff to your path, spend out copious spam and copies of itself. IIRC it can even change your shell to itself. The only thing it can't do is prevent a separate, more-privileged user from cleaning it out, but it can make your life pretty hard in the meantime. Compromising "Windows itself" makes your life harder, but not as much harder as you might expect, because it can be pretty damn hard even without global permissions.

      I'd much prefer to see a sandbox model that limits the damage malware can do. Linux's model is better than Windows', but it's not as good as it could be, and I like the direction Windows is going on its security model. By Longhorn it could actually surpass Linux. That's at least two years out, and another two years before it sees really wide adoption, but I'd hate to see the Linux community caught flat-footed by it.

      One other point: DRM layers, assuming they need to exist (and I'm not asserting it; I'm just assuming it for the the sake of argument) work best at as low a level as possible, to prevent users from bypassing them. Ideally (from a security standpoint) you'd install your codecs in hardware. The analog hole makes for low-resolution copies, and the number of people who can hack it out of hardware is few and requires specialized tools.

      So if you're gonna have them, at least a part of them has a right to live at the OS layer. If it's buggy you're screwed, but one security principle is to put all your eggs in one basket, and then ensure that it's a really good basket. The DRM that lives at the OS level should be small, tight, and heavily checked. Codecs written above it should be rights-limited, not just to the user's privilege but even more finely than that.

    6. Re:You know my solution. by philci52 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd much prefer that systrace be configured for my media player than running a complete instance of UML.

      Systrace

    7. Re:You know my solution. by cgranade · · Score: 1

      Good point. From that perspective, let's write all codecs in Java, since the specs for the Java VM already support sandboxing. Furthermore, we could do a lot under Linux by `su'ing processes to lower privliges. The codecs are mainly seperated into independant shared objects already, so it should be fairly straightforward to make a daemon that listens on a local TCP port that takes in an encoded stream and spits out an unencoded one. This daemon could run as a local user w/o a login shell, and could load in the shared objects in process. If it is comprimised, it can't even modify its own configs, since they'd be stored with a normal user at the least, depending on the invocation method.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    8. Re:You know my solution. by jfengel · · Score: 1

      The conditioning is a very significant point; I alluded to it in the grandparent post. You're asking the user to make a significant security decision every time that popup comes up. Therefore either you must make it extremely rare, or have the answer be the same almost every single time. If users get conditioned to installing software, they will do the wrong thing.

      Microsoft's second-most-serious mistake is the design of those popups. But I still believe that its first most mysterious mistake is to have to have them at all. There needs to be a way to accomplish what it does (that is, extend the capability of the system on the fly) without making it open season on your computer.

      That's a flaw in the security model, but as I said in the grandparent post it's a flaw that I believe afflicts Linux's security model as well. They can design the popups better (perhaps) or not offer the capability at all, but the real solution is to offer a limited-rights model. Java has it; C# has it, and therefore someday Windows in general will have it. And if that happens Linux is going to be left behind on that front. Users like to be able to download new codecs and fiddly widgets, and as long as those things run at the same level of security as the user, no popup design is going to prevent mischief.

    9. Re:You know my solution. by trs998 · · Score: 1

      sounds reasonable. now all we need is someone with the drive (and skill) to make it work.
      Media players'd need to be modified to understand tcp/ip codecs, and codecs would have to be re-written. Possibly someone could write a wrapper that'd grab a codec and put it on a local port.

      an advantage (other than safety) would be the ability to run the codec on a different machine - say, your desktop while the player is a thin client (set top box?)

      and a disadvantage would be that the codec could still eat all your ram. Cpu time isn't really a problem as it is under windows, as even if something wants all your cpu time it can't upgrade it's priority - and will therefore not really achieve anything by using 100% as everything else on the system will still work fine.

    10. Re:You know my solution. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      "Furthermore, since all lusers have admin privliges by default, any damage done by even an application can be severe"

      Too true. There's an easy fix for it though: get the same type of user-switching Linux has (the function keys thing) and make it work just as fast. The main reason home-users on windows run as admin is because it's too much trouble to switch user-accounts just to move some data or something like that. And switching takes too long (fast user switching, sure!).

      Fix that in windows and a lot more home users will make different accounts on the same machine.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  12. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Use the excellent - and free - VLC media player

    1. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people like Media Player Classic instead. I think both are fine.

    2. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VLC media player is an excellent example of open source project. It is almost perfect, but the GUI really spoils the software complitely.

      Good example of this is the answers in the forums. "How do you do thing x?" "Answer: I don't know how to do it from GUI, but you can start the program with parameters x and y, and then it should work."

      Yes, command line options are superiour, but that is not the same as having a good GUI (=Graphical User Interface).

  13. Surprise surprise... by tommertron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Remember when media files used to be safe? When we only needed to worry about files with .exe and .zip and a few others containing viruses or malware? Even before the DRM stuff in Media Player, MS added the ability for video clips to launch web pages. Gee, great idea. Did they never think that people could have exploited that?

    Is it really worth sacrificing the safety of media files so that video players could launch web pages and other code? Another example of Microsoft trying to add usability, whlile sacrificing security. There's no way they couldn't have known about this security flaw.

    --
    Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Surprise surprise... by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember when media files used to be safe? When we only needed to worry about files with .exe and .zip and a few others containing viruses or malware?

      Presumably that was before you learned things.

      All data is safe, processing untrusted data is potentially dangerous, particularly if it is automatic.

      Email is just plain text but look how many buffer overflows various email clients have had just parsing it

      http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=email+parsing+buf fer+overflow

      and is has nothing to do with OSS/CSS they have all been vulnerable in various ways over time.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:Surprise surprise... by VertigoAce · · Score: 1

      By default it tells you this is a security risk and should only be allowed for trusted sources. I've seen the technique used for a streaming audio station where it opens a page containing details about the programming for the day, current song, etc. in the main window of WMP. Obviously it would be a bad idea to allow every file to do this without prompting you, but some users are just too clueless to realize that.

    3. Re:Surprise surprise... by Xugumad · · Score: 2

      Hey, some of remember when web pages were safe. I think it was around 1995...

    4. Re:Surprise surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember hearing mitnick once on the radio talk show, coast to coast AM, saying that you could not get infected from video(avi,mpg) or image (jpg)files, guess he was wrong ;)

    5. Re:Surprise surprise... by Art_Vandelai · · Score: 1
      And the thing that blows the most about Windows Media Player, there's no way to turn off this security-destroying "feature". Every time I start WMP, even though I've turned off every setting, for Codecs, licences, etc. Zone Alarm still asks me if I want WMP to connect to the net every time the program starts up. By definition, WMP IS SPYWARE!

      Why on earth wont they allow an advanced user to stop their media player from communicating with whomever the creators of the media files want you to talk to? I just want a dumb player that does what its told!

    6. Re:Surprise surprise... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Oh how soon we forget. Do you recall a jpeg parsing vulnerability less than a year ago? Several years ago, WinAmp could choke on certain ID3 tags.

      I do recall when email was safe though.

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    7. Re:Surprise surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's worse than spyware - this is practically my definition of a security hole.

      If a packet leaves my machine without my intending it, that *IS* a security problem.

    8. Re:Surprise surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such files cannot be properly called "video files" anymore.

  14. Re:Unsuspecting??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean Weatherbug isn't spyware?!? I guess I've been wrong for the past 3 years. I always pegged it as 'not much better than gator'.

  15. This is why I use Linux.. by Dana+P'Simer · · Score: 3, Interesting
    very little danger of getting infected in this way. And we don't have any DRM mechanisms to get in our way.

    But really, Windows XP does provide a way to keep users from installing just any software, that is by having a seperate administrator user and do you surfing and P2P downloading using a "limited" user account.

    I went to visit some relatives a couple of weeks ago and I found 250 dialers, spyware and malware programs on thier computer using Spybot. It was unbelievable!

    1. Re:This is why I use Linux.. by spicydragonz · · Score: 1

      Over Xmas I did an spybot/virus scan/adaware on my girlfriend's mother's PC. 1300! spyware files and 15 trojans. I asked her if she ever updated her PC when the microsoft shield blinked. She said she ignored that stuff. That has to be some kind of record of spyware for a single user right?

    2. Re:This is why I use Linux.. by boule75 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The issue is: if one does not run Windows with administrator privilieges, one cannot install a huge number of drivers and software, they cannot either use them.

      From printers to scanners and CDRom burning tools, there are loads of MS-related stuff that has never been tested -and which does _not_ work- on a properly configured Windows box.

      The solution? An improperly configurend Windows box, with full rights for the malware...

      --
      I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
    3. Re:This is why I use Linux.. by kerrle · · Score: 1
      Sadly, no. My little sister moved into her first apartment last year, and she noticed that her roommate's computer was running slower than hers, even though my sister has a P3-450 hand-me-down from me, and her roommate had a 2.4 ghz P4.

      Apparently, I trained her well. She ran Spybot and Ad-Aware, and felt she just had to call and tell me when she found more than 6,000 items.

      Not even 1,000 of them were cookies.

    4. Re:This is why I use Linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When logged in as a non-admin, some programs dont work or cant be installed, programs people might want to use (palm desktop/hotsync manager, sony's app for their netmd players)

    5. Re:This is why I use Linux.. by Dana+P'Simer · · Score: 1

      Login to the computer using the administrative account when you want to install that stuff. Isn't that obvious? I know that computer security and related issues are hard for people to understand. But if you are going to put your personal information into a computer, like your credit card number, or SSN, you should probably take some time to learn how to make sure it is secure. I embarrased the hell out of my nephew because I told his mother that he must have downloaded alot of that stuff while surfing for porn. He even used one of the dialers to get access to one of those "ImLive" type services. She had to put a block on those 900 type numbers.

    6. Re:This is why I use Linux.. by Dana+P'Simer · · Score: 1

      WOW! I had a feeling when I was posting the comment that 250 was going to be trumped by someone, but 6000! Now, THAT, is incredible.

    7. Re:This is why I use Linux.. by Sexy+Bern · · Score: 1
      It's not always that easy. Palm, Sage, QuickBooks and LaserForm are four business apps that I can name off the top of my head that require manual intervention as they assume elevated privileges will be held after being installed.

      Sure, you and I will go to the trouble to work out what registry and NTFS permissions need to be modified, but the average Joe will simply run everything as administrator.

    8. Re:This is why I use Linux.. by Dana+P'Simer · · Score: 1

      You have a point, however, that is the fault of poor software design. Software developer's should keep the security concerns of thier users in mind. Especially programs like Palm and QuickBooks. Again, isn't it obvious to these guys that working well on a multiuser system would be important.

    9. Re:This is why I use Linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      that is the fault of poor software design

      You are right. But when few users complain, because most users run as admin, the fault may not be bugged. It will certainly not get a high priority. Only and sysadmins and a minority of the power users use access restrictions on Windows. Therefore it is not expected to work for anybody but advanced powerusers and sysadmins.

      The developers where I work know of the file access permissions on Windows. But they don't know much about them. Almost anybody who has fiddled with Linux know about the file permissions on Unix/Linux, because you run into them so often.

      Applications that fumble and write their data in funny places like the root directory will fail, because mr. Unprivileged User can't write files there. Thus applications that require root privileges hither and dither must be suid root (not to be taken lightly!) or be modified to work without them.

    10. Re:This is why I use Linux.. by spicydragonz · · Score: 1

      wow 6000. Next time I see her mother I am installing firefox. Firefox makes adaware pretty worthless. Whenever I miss the satisfying feeling from cleaning out spyware I just fire up IE and surf for a few minutes.

    11. Re:This is why I use Linux.. by Creedo · · Score: 1

      I was working on a PC at a local business this summer. I spent 5 hours wiping out 1900+ spyware infection points. I had to wipe them out in chunks, because attempting to wipe the whole list locked up the computer. Apparently, this company was OK with the employees surfing porn on work computers. That was the worst machine, but most of the rest also had spyware and virus problems.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  16. Someone's got to say it by Bronz · · Score: 5, Insightful


    They aren't using Windows Media Player to install spyware. They are using WMP to get users to click on a link that takes them to a webpage where, presumably, the user's browser is compromised.

    Give the proliferation of spyware *without* this new fishing technique, I don't understand the significance of this. People find spyware all by themselves, they don't need any help.

    1. Re:Someone's got to say it by writermike · · Score: 1

      They aren't using Windows Media Player to install spyware. They are using WMP to get users to click on a link that takes them to a webpage where, presumably, the user's browser is compromised.

      Actually, just playing content is enough to open any page, which, as we all know, could contain malware that exploits a security hole.

      This has been going on for ... what? One year? Two? It's really very old news.

      It's made me give up porn. Sigh. ;-)

      --
      If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
    2. Re:Someone's got to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well in EU Ms are going to sell Windows XP without the media player - so get an alternative media player and you are safe!

      So you can continue to practice safe sex :-)

    3. Re:Someone's got to say it by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      But isn't this just an IE vulnerability at that point... It doesn't do anything until it loads the webpage - which indicates to me the exploit is of the web browser.

      Does this exploit work if WMP opens the page in a different browser? Such as Opera? If not, then again we are back to if MS FIXED IE, a whole slew of exploits would be kaput.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  17. Plays for sure by MrLint · · Score: 1

    so when Bill G was up hawking the MS 'plays for sure' market-speak, little did he suspect it was really infected for sure!

  18. It's encouraging to know that the ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 1

    comprehensive Microsoft security effort is continuing to provide new opportunities to developers/commercial interests to offer system enhancements, needed pharmaceuticals and privacy adjustments. It's so much better then on FOS or OS X, where such efforts are impeded.

  19. Re:Unsuspecting??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spywarearcata.com just got pwned!

  20. Re:This is news? by julesh · · Score: 1

    Download porn from kazaa lately?

    Many of us stopped downloading any .wmv files _years_ ago, because they frequently require a licence to play which is a PITA for offline viewing.

  21. Not only hackers! by EvilCowzGoMoo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Its not only hackers taking advantage of DRM vulnerabilities. This article at virus.org reports that the RIAA is also exploiting DRM!

    "The contractor Overpeer who works solely for the MPAA and RIAA to polute Peer-to-Peer networks with corrupt and useless files has moved to a new low by using a loop hole within Windows Media DRM to launch popup adds and infect users PCs with Spyware, Viruses and Adware.

    In what could be considered a quite blatent breach of computer crime laws the world over, Overpeer a company owned by Loudeye is making a lot of money seeding Peer-to-Peer networks with thousands of fake files. It's one of the entertainment industry's favourite, and most obnoxious, anti-p2p contractors.

    The loophole in the Windows Media DRM process allows companies to create media files and link them to adware. When you normally download a protected Windows Media file, you also receive a license that lets you play it. If however Windows Media Player cannot find a valid license on your PC, it checks in with a remote system running Microsoft's Windows Media DRM Server.

    You should rarely see that happen. Some files, however are set up to ask you for information before playing. They do this by displaying a URL in a dialog box labeled License Acquisition. Normally that dialog box is used to check for a user name or offer a chance to purchase the file that's being played. In a legitimate DRM-encrypted file the author may let you play it a few times, then bring up a window asking if you want to buy it.

    Since the license dialog box is in essense an Internet Explorer window, it will display whatever is on the page it points to, in the cases that have been seen of this these trojaned Windows Media files, they all point to servers that load up unwanted ads, including windows that attempt install adware onto your PC surreptitiously, including adding items to your browser's Favorites list, attempting to change your home page and installing viral adware such as the 180search Assistant. "

    Acording to the above article's date (December 31, 2004) Is it possible the RIAA inspired the hacker comunity?
    1. Re:Not only hackers! by jotok · · Score: 1

      I couldn't find in the article any support for the author's accusation that Overpeer is exploiting this vulnerability to compromise filesharer's computers...only some intentionally vague language written in the passive voice.

      Did I miss something?

    2. Re:Not only hackers! by KnightMB · · Score: 1

      If you feel the RIAA has done you injustice, support Independent Bands/Artist or buy music that is only in DRM Free formats like Ogg Vorbis, etc from sites like these: http://ind-music.com/ or http://www.cdbaby.com/ As long as people buy it and don't pay attention to what the software or music files are doing, they (RIAA) will keep doing what they do.

  22. Crackers? by deft · · Score: 4, Funny

    Has anyone told Chris Rock that crackers are doing this?
    He'll be pissed.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:Crackers? by fzammett · · Score: 1

      Best...Post...EVER.

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
  23. ...so, when did Firefox become... by lxt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...a media player? It's a flaw in Windows Media Player, not (unusual as it is) Internet Explorer.

    So, in other words - use VideoLAN :)

    1. Re:...so, when did Firefox become... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      No, it's a feature of media player (going to an URL to get a licence) that can be used to exploit holes in IE (by pointing the licence retrieval URL at a malicious website).

      The fix is to not attempt to retrieve licences, or to use a different media player.

  24. Winamp TV had this problem too by British · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the Beta Winamp TV stations, adult site operators quickly figured how to launch URLs on video streams. Needless to say, the support forums showed you how to turn off this feature about a day after the discovery.

    Please, not every app in the known world needs to launch a freakin' web page, etc.

  25. Yep, nothing is sacred. by Dana+P'Simer · · Score: 1

    Especially not porn.

  26. Incredible by jholst · · Score: 1

    How can it be possible for one company to make software with that many security flaws?!

    --
    -- Jonathan Holst Geeks will take over the world - resistance is futile
    1. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do make alot of software

    2. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, it's a pretty big company.

  27. Re:Unsuspecting??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It serves ads (the weatherbug) therefore it belongs in an antispyware (and adware)application.

    i hope MS doesnt remove it.

    I have a deep rooted hatred for that shitty program to begin with, but it still serves ad's and therefore should be includeed.

  28. Please clear this up for me... by go$$amer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is the difference between DRM and spyware?

    How could DRM work without inherently 'spying' on the user/victim?

    --
    STOP. You're being farmed.
    1. Re:Please clear this up for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic, how could a web browser work without 'spying' on the user?

    2. Re:Please clear this up for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They both provide something you want (music/movies/cute browser addons).
      They both spy on you to make sure they work properly.
      They both attempt to be hard to disable.
      The hacker community hates them.
      The general public doesn't care.

  29. Re:Unsuspecting??? by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now maybe if you had suggested some little known media player that didn't automatically install codecs after you clicked "don't ask me again, just install" then maybe your post would have been worth something.

    I'll go for one, mplayer. There's been beta builds on mplayers site for a while now, but I don't usually hear about anyone using it. While a lot of the port isn't as nice as in linux, and it seems to choke on most real player content even with the codec pack, it's still fairly nice. I keep it on a usb drive and it really comes in handy every now and again.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  30. When will Microsoft learn... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    That no good deed goes unpunished?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  31. WMP-out by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3

    If AOL would open the WinAmp source, after it was examined by a horde of cranky Slashdotters bent on porting it to Linux, it would be at least believed to be less buggy than WMP. It might whip WMP the way Firefox has whipped IE, Apache has whipped IIS, and all the other open source "utilities" are whipping unreliable MS software. Especially if the community could factor down only the essential WinAmp features, leaving the bloated full WinAmp available as #2, just like Mozilla.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:WMP-out by Koyaanisqatsi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why? You already have VLC, it's open source, multi-platform and plays a gazillion file formats

    2. Re:WMP-out by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Because "taking over the Internet" requires a brand name, like WinAmp. Being pleased by the takeover requires quality, like Firefox.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:WMP-out by tetromino · · Score: 1
      Quoth the VLC site:
      It can play:

      * MPEG-1, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 / DivX files from a hard disk, a CD-ROM drive, ...
      * DVDs, VCDs, and Audio CDs
      * from satellite card (DVB-S),
      * Several types of network stream : UDP Unicast, UDP Multicast (MPEG-TS), HTTP, RTP/RTSP, MMS, etc .
      * From acquisition or encoding cards (on GNU/Linux and Windows only)
      Notice that Windows Media is not listed. So if you want to play a Windows Media file (which is the only sort of format that allows the phishing attack described in TFA), you still have to use the unsecure bloated Windows Media Player, or some equivalent gui front-end to DirectShow.
    4. Re:WMP-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? It's redundant. Such an application already exists. Use VLC. Even if it is not 100% as capable as WMP for everything (e.g., I don't know if it supports DRM like WMP :-)), it has most of the features I would ever want, and it is more capable in many ways. It is also vastly more portable than WMP.

    5. Re:WMP-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the succinct feature list. Visit the full features list, and it claims to support ASF/wmv/wma, etc. Whether it fully supports them for all versions of the codecs, or if you need WMP installed to get the codecs, I'm not sure. I have not tried those formats with VLC myself. It would be interesting to try the bogus/worm ones on a test PC and see what VLC does with them. If it ignores the embedded URLs, then VLC is indeed a Firefox/Mozilla-like solution for Microsoft's buggy software.

    6. Re:WMP-out by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to port WinAmp? Granted, it is a nice media player (for the most part) but, XMMS is awesome. XMMS also integrates just fine with mplayer. I see no need at all to get source for WinAmp.

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    7. Re:WMP-out by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      While more OSS programs are always welcome, we're doing just fine with XMMS.

    8. Re:WMP-out by runderwo · · Score: 1

      The WinAMP source was opened a long time ago. See http://www.wasabidev.org/.

    9. Re:WMP-out by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That's very interesting. 2 key questions:

      1> the Maki "core" DLL can't legitimately be distributed with a Wasabi-derived app; can a Wasabi installer autodownload it from Nullsoft/AOL/TimeWarner? Or, even better, can a Wasabi installer use a copy of the Maki DLL already installed on a user's machine as part of a WinAmp 3 or 5 installation?

      2> Do (proprietary) WinAmp (3 or 5) plugins work "out of the box" with a Wasabi install (assuming no diffs have broken the API/etc the plugins depend on)? Can I just upgrade from WinAmp (3, 5) to Wasabi, and keep all my WinAmp plugins?

      Thanks for the lead - Slasdot can really deliver sometimes, especially when you ask a stupid question ;).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  32. I know this is a very pro linux forum but by chadamir · · Score: 0, Troll

    It seems that people neglect to mention the fact that countless times a week announcements are made that some piece of Open source software has a security hole in it which will allow root access to some fat slob in a basement somewhere. Each OS has its problems and really you choose based on what you need, not the fact that 1 percent of the media out there might try to get you to install some search bar on your internet explorer.

    1. Re:I know this is a very pro linux forum but by E-Rock-23 · · Score: 1

      Yes, holes are announced for Open Source OSs and Applications on a somewhat (but nowhere near just as) similar basis. But then again, consider this:

      These holes are often patched within a short time frame in the Open Source world. Most times, a patch is released not long after the bug is discovered, and more often than not, some end users will write their own patches, resulting in not only timely but optional fixes.

      Now, M$ took how long to release SP2? And it did what? Sure, fixed a few holes, but a Windows XP Home Edition computer is still as easy a target as ever thanks to all sorts of new and wonderful exploits, and some that have been known of for months, if not a year or two. And when are they going to fix these holes?

      Well, a new major release for IE has been pushed back a few years, and Longhorn (aka LongWait, LongOff, TakingTooLonghorn) is quite a ways off itself. Microsoft has said that it won't release another patch until Longhorn is released.

      Which means XP users are fucked until Microsoft decides to descend from the heavens with their miraculous new piece of ill-planned garbage that promises to make it all better.

      Meanwhile, us Linux users wait maybe a few months for a good patch, which more often than not works, and continue about our business in a much safer environment.

      --
      Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
    2. Re:I know this is a very pro linux forum but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, yould think the articles about all the holes in FF and Moz over the last few days would have had /. humble for atleast a week or so.

      This place would be 1000% better if it just stoped with the MS bashing and concentrated entirely on the FOSS movement.

    3. Re:I know this is a very pro linux forum but by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, you see, the security hole in any particular piece of Free Software only affects "some fat slob in a basement somewhere." Even a single security hole in a Microsoft product affects almost everyone.

      Let alone that Microsoft products have more, worse flaws than most individual Free programs...

      Comparing a hole in Free software with one in Microsoft software is like comparing a light rain to the [Biblical] Flood.

      --

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

    4. Re:I know this is a very pro linux forum but by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      There are two key differences. One: OSS is much less used, therefore an exploit of an OSS hole will do much less damage, therefore those exploits are much less common. Two: OSS developers (in general, not all of them) know that one reason a lot of people use their software is that it is supposed to be more secure, therefore they put an emphasis on keeping it secure (in order to keep people using their software), therefore they patch those holes in very short order.

      M$ on the other hand... One: Very widely used, therefore an exploit will go far and do a lot, therefore those exploits are written. Two: M$ users as a general rule (once again not all of them) are not as security conscious as OSS users, and therefore 1)they dont bother with the patches, 2)M$ doesnt bother making the patches in a timely manner.

      Thus, M$ products attract more exploits, and the holes are (in general) open for much longer after discovery, leaving more time for even lazy hackers to write exploits.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    5. Re:I know this is a very pro linux forum but by peragrin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually MSFT is the probelm. Forget being pro-linux(i am not currently running it). MSFT doesn't know security. It doesn't know how to design security. MSFT first builds features and then tries to figure a way to secure them. Your supposed to work the other way around.

      Also Why does WMP default open IE eve if your default web browser is something else?

      MSFT programs that were designed wrong to begin with

      IE, WMP, Outlook, Active X, Windows Scripting, MS word macros, MS excel Macros(yes they are close).

      The fact is MSFT has designed lot's of software and duplicated functionality first, then thought about if what they were doing could cause a probelm.

      No OS or software is perfect, but MSFT puts stupid obvious holes in their software and dismisses those who complain. there is no reason why Active x should be designed to take advantge of the entire system. How about Macro's? IE, WMP, Outlook are basically ONE program. That is how tightly they are tied together. Is there a reason why?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:I know this is a very pro linux forum but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All well and good - most linux users are knowledgeable users and keep an up to date machine.

      Can you say that about your parents? Your boss? Your siblings?

      Just because a patch is available doens't mean peopel will install it - see also: Windows Update.

    7. Re:I know this is a very pro linux forum but by dbacher · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know what you mean... A buffer overflow in Microsoft's SMB code that allows Administrator access obviously is far more severe than a buffer and artithmetic overflow in SAMBA allowing execution of code as root... Seriously, there are a few dozen open source vulnerabilities reported a week, and typically between six and eight patches are downloaded on my Linux box, each of which e-mails me with information about what it did, etc. In what way is that better than Windows? Because there are more patches? Because the patches are less well explained? Because nobody /.'s them because they aren't written by Microsoft? I'm not saying Microsoft is better here, but define "more frequently" and "more severe" -- root execution privledge is root execution privledge, regardless of what OS it's on, and last I heard, that was about as severe as exploits got. More frequently is subjective -- most of what I see on bugtraq and other forums tracking it is actually open source, so I'd tend to say more frequently is also a stretch. Of course, this being /., it's expected for everything to be scewed and reported with no actual relation to reality. After all, this is the forum where people think that posting source code to disable virus scanners on the public internet before informing package maintainers of the vulnerability is a good way of doing things.

      --
      If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
    8. Re:I know this is a very pro linux forum but by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      define "more frequently" and "more severe"
      More frequently: Internet Explorer gets exploited far more often than any *nix program because it's used so much more. More severe: With Windows it's much easier to be vulnerable, and with Internet Explorer there's such a high probability of catching something, it's more severe in the same way that an five mile wide asteroid with a 100% chance of hitting Earth is more severe than a similar asteroid with a 1% chance.

      SAMBA and Windows SMB might be equally vulnerable, but they're far less important than Internet Explorer which is much more vulnerable than Firefox.
      --

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

    9. Re:I know this is a very pro linux forum but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree, MS does know security, but no matter how much they proclaim their will to tighten it, the bigger and more important issue is backward compatibility and future exploitability.

      Backwards compatibility is what has allowed Windows to grow to the size that it is. Forget aggressive marketing tactics, it is the lazy computer user that needs everything spoon fed. It amazes me how people use those damn wizards. I hate wizards, as I'm sure most /. readers do, but the typical masses love the ease of use. Tighten security to the point that certain features no longer work because they may lead to an exploit and the average user pisses and moans.

      As far as future exploitability, that is meant in the business-sense. If MS tightens security too much, then they loose that small amount of advantage to add a feature in a future product that increases usibility for the lazy user.

      It's all about the Money

  33. True, but sad. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with your trusted computing satement, if Microsoft does acknowlege this incident there will only be more problems. Microsoft has been doing this kind of thing for years, so I dont expect their announcements to suddenly be more honest. I'd be even more surprised if the mass media found the real story instead of propogating microsoft garbage speak. Microsoft has been loosing credibility for several years now, in the future I look for "non-trusted computing" to be EASIER, and more trusted. When consumers see a open market that meets these requirements (and it's already impressive), they'll seriously consider a new platform.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
    1. Re:True, but sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      losing credibility

  34. Re:Unsuspecting??? by Zocalo · · Score: 2, Informative
    Last time I checked Firefox opened WMP on Windows machines

    Well, to be precise it opens which ever media player is associated with the media file you are trying to open. You can also override this on a per-filetype basis by specifiying a different handler for the file under the "Downloads" section of the Options box - the section titled "File Types". Whether your motivation for switching to Firefox was security, features, web standards or because it's FOSS, then the same motivation should apply to WMP too. Certainly on my Windows boxes none of the primary media types are associated with the DRM and security hole infested WMP.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  35. heh by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 0, Troll

    I thought this was going to be an article on a huge surge in Molly Hatchet and Lynyrd Skynyrd downloads

  36. I'm utterly surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that more people are not hopping on the Linux bandwagon. I grew tired of crap like this long ago.
    Linux affords people an out, at least until Linux reaches critical mass with a large installed user base.
    Common sense can prevent 99% of all crap like this for Windows users. A Linksys router coupled with a fully updated system coupled with Zone Alarm or other software firewall along with using a decent browser like Opera or Firefox stops crap like this cold.

  37. Damn... by Kyru · · Score: 1

    And here I was hoping this was a great new way to spice up my saltines.

  38. Re:Unsuspecting??? by garcia · · Score: 1

    Well, to be precise it opens which ever media player is associated with the media file you are trying to open. You can also override this on a per-filetype basis by specifiying a different handler for the file under the "Downloads" section of the Options box - the section titled "File Types". Whether your motivation for switching to Firefox was security, features, web standards or because it's FOSS, then the same motivation should apply to WMP too. Certainly on my Windows boxes none of the primary media types are associated with the DRM and security hole infested WMP.

    By default, unless you remove it or change the media player in the browser setup, every recent Windows machine has WMP and thus regardless of browser, is vunerable.

  39. Re:Unsuspecting??? by DrXym · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Firefox is a browser not a media player.


    If you want a decent open source media player, choose VLC. It works great on Win32, Linux & OS X. Works well supporting CDs, DVDs, AVI, DiVX, MP3, Ogg and just about every other media format known to man - except protected WMA.


    So if the exploit relies on dangling a "carrot" in the shape of some free pr0n if you download some licence into WMP, VLC won't protect you from yourself and doesn't offer comparable functionality.

  40. Better replacement for WMP by m50d · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/

    Windows media player like it should be. Low resource usage, plays dvds and any file you have the codecs for installed, without any network access at all. (Unless you're playing a stream or course)

    --
    I am trolling
    1. Re:Better replacement for WMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also not updated for half a year, uses more resources for decoding than newer players, and crashes once in a while.
      I still use it though.

    2. Re:Better replacement for WMP by tabdelgawad · · Score: 1

      I really like WMP Classic (what's linked to in the parent), but I've found that moving the time slider within many video file formats tends to be very slow, consume lots of resources, or just doesn't work.

      I've settled on using Winamp for audio, and Zoom Player standard (from inmatix.com) for video. With the right plugins/codecs, Zoom Player will play anything you throw at it (including quicktime and real files).

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    3. Re:Better replacement for WMP by MojoStan · · Score: 1
      Windows media player like it should be. Low resource usage, plays dvds and any file you have the codecs for installed...

      I like and use Media Player Classic (MPC), but it's not a complete "replacement" for recent versions of Windows Media Player (WMP). Some features of WMP that MPC lacks:

      • Rip/Encode CDs
      • Shop for Music and Video (Windows Media Format) on the Internet
      • Organize Your Digital Media Collection
      • Take Your Music and Video with You (portable music/video players)
      • Burn Your Own CDs
      I don't use any of these features of WMP, but many people do, so MPC wouldn't be a good replacement. I would call MPC a better replacement for WMP 6.4 (current version is 10).

      I think a better supplement for WMP is VLC media player. VLC plays (without installing additional codecs) DVDs, MPEG-2, MP4, DivX, XviD, Ogg, AC3, FLAC, H263, AAC, and others (VLC does not use DirectShow to play files). Before downloading a DirectShow codec, I always try playing a file in VLC media player first.

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    4. Re:Better replacement for WMP by m50d · · Score: 1

      Your features are my bloat. CD ripping and burning belongs in a separate application, as does transfer to devices. Organizing I can do fine with folders thank you very much. And online music stores should just need a browser.

      --
      I am trolling
    5. Re:Better replacement for WMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The features you mention are inherently designed for Microsofts DRM. Ripping cds under WMP 9 or 10 will default to "Copy protect music" in WMA format. If your not vigilant, and back up your licenses faithfully, you will find you won't be able to play all that music you spent hours ripping to your spare hdd or cdrs because you DON'T HAVE A LICENSE for them,even though this use is perfectly legal.

      MP3 is available through PURCHASE of third party add on. The purpose behind ALL of this is to make WMP the future "WEB TV" application, I.e. you won't be able to watch ANYTHING unless you agree to MS installing DRM and WHATEVER ELSE IT WANTS onto your p.c. Your P.C. will stop being a tool for your personal use and enjoyment and simply become a delivery method for there "PROTECTED CONTENT" which you will only be able to use in the manner they specify and NOTHING ELSE, and eventually only after PAYING THE APPRPRIATE FEE.

      The fact that Media Player Classic and other programs lack the features designe to implement MS DRM should be considered an EXTENDED FEATURE not a defect of the program. And NOTHING is "a better supplement for WMP", but ANYTHING is a good REPLACEMENT.

    6. Re:Better replacement for WMP by MojoStan · · Score: 1
      Your features are my bloat.

      I should have been more clear. I don't use or want these features in WMP (I prefer MPC), but many people use and want these features, so MPC would not be a good replacement for them. For these people MusicMatch or iTunes would be a more appropriate replacement for WMP.

      For Windows, I use and recommend EAC and LAME. I don't own (or want) a portable music/video player (I prefer PDAs) and I keep my music organized in folders I choose (not in C:\Documents and Settings\jackass\My Documents\My Music).

      But that's just me. Many people want that extra shit in their media player app.

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

  41. Simple rule of thumb by karnat10 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This has kept my computer safe and my mind happy for the last twenty years. I don't plan to change it:

    Don't buy products from Microsoft!

    There is one exception: The Microsoft Optical Wheel Mouse is a great product. You can't fuck up a mouse, though.

    Wait, Apple's round one-button mouse.

    Now, that's a deal: Apple could learn from M$ how to design mice, while Steve explains to Bill what an Operating System is.

    1. Re:Simple rule of thumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have done exactly the same as your first line... by using virtually nothing but Microsoft products.

      The difference is, I have a tiny bit of a brain and I don't traverse warez sites and I don't install every program from every jackass on the planet. Lastly, I take the very minumin security requirements necessary (turn off Active X in IE, stay up to date) and I have never, ever, gotten a virus, trojan or spyware on my machine.

      What I have gotten is a ton of work done using top of the line tools and software.

    2. Re:Simple rule of thumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now, that's a deal: Apple could learn from M$ how to design mice, while Steve explains to Bill what an Operating System is."

      Let's just hope there also some BSD hackers around to help Steve with the gorey details.

    3. Re:Simple rule of thumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a gooood little Bingo... aren't you?

    4. Re:Simple rule of thumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet you're a poor fucker barely making minimum wage too. MS technology is well on it's way to being commoditized. I hope you're not in tech, if so, save up now 'cause your job is headed to the far east asswipe.

    5. Re:Simple rule of thumb by droleary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have done exactly the same as your first line... by using virtually nothing but Microsoft products. The difference is, I have a tiny bit of a brain and I don't traverse warez sites and I don't install every program from every jackass on the planet.

      Well good for you, but how does your policy help the other 99% of Windows users who don't have a tiny bit of a brain?

      What I have gotten is a ton of work done using top of the line tools and software.

      I thought you said you were using Windows? You don't get a 95% market share by being top of the line, you get it by appealing to the lowest common denominator. You've gotten the "good enough" experience, which is nothing to brag about.

    6. Re:Simple rule of thumb by ivrcti · · Score: 1

      You wrote "Now, that's a deal: Apple could learn from M$ how to design mice, while Steve explains to Bill what an Operating System is. " That may be the funniest thing I've seen on /. in years!!

    7. Re:Simple rule of thumb by Technician · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The Microsoft Optical Wheel Mouse is a great product. You can't fuck up a mouse, though.

      Wanna bet?

      In the first release of the MS optical mouse, I bought one. I was fed up with skipping mice.

      Things went fine on my new computer install until I installed the mouse driver software..

      It was a new homebuilt computer still on the coffee table in the living room..

      EULA??? for a mouse.. yea right!!

      My mouse can't find my modem or Internet connection? WTF???

      I gave the mouse away and bought a Logitech optical instead.

      I quit buying any hardware that MS made unless it didn't require software drivers.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    8. Re:Simple rule of thumb by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who, on installing his new Microsoft mouse, had to navigate the installer using only the keyboard (no mouse installed yet, duh). Upon reaching the EULA, there was no way to use the keyboard to say "I accept"; it required the mouse. Which he could not yet use.

    9. Re:Simple rule of thumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one with the sides angled that it slips out of your fingers? I could not hold on to it long...

    10. Re:Simple rule of thumb by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Now, that's a deal: Apple could learn from M$ how to design mice
      They just need to buy it from the same vendors as Microsoft. Microsoft have never made mice - they rebadged mice designed and built for them by another company.
  42. Glad to see DRM is protecting digital rights by RLiegh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I first saw the story, I was afraid that hackers were somehow exploiting program flaws in media player that would give them unauthorised access, allowing them to install spyware.

    Instead, it turns out that DRM is simply doing it's job - protecting the digital rights on content providers by punishing those people who attempt to gain access to unathorised media.

    Here's my take, I'm pretty sure that I'll be safe wether I run linux or windows (I run both) since I am not ...wait for it... trying to leech other people's copyrighted material off of dodgy peer to peer networks!

    If you engage in pirating, you deserve the cannonball to your vessel; I, for one, feel no pity.

    1. Re:Glad to see DRM is protecting digital rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so you're aware of these particular media files and the terms they're licensed under. Please share. I know everything I download from P2P networks is completely legal to distribute in that fashion--so you can say with 100% certainty that I'm in no danger from this, eh?

      Equating P2P with piracy is like equating shoes with armed robbery. Just because a lot of armed robbers like to wear shoes doesn't mean we should treat all shoe-wearers with suspicion.

    2. Re:Glad to see DRM is protecting digital rights by RLiegh · · Score: 1
      Please share. I know everything I download from P2P networks is completely legal to distribute in that fashion--so you can say with 100% certainty that I'm in no danger from this, eh?

      Yes, assuming that the following is true:
      1)there are files on p2p that are authorised copies of intellectual property distributed by people who have permission to distribute them
      2)You are being honest when you claim that you are confining yourself to those files

      Then I can state that there is a high likelyhood that you will not be taken in by DRM enforcement found in files which claim to be by artists who are exclusively licensed for distribution by the RIAA or the MPAA.

      Regarding P2P, most robbers do not use their shoes as a means of coercing property from their victims, whereas pirates frequently use p2p (amonth other methodologies) to unfairly gain access to media that they are not authorised to access or posess.

      Again, if you violate other people's intellectual property, I'm not going to cry a river when the other bad guys violate you.
    3. Re:Glad to see DRM is protecting digital rights by dazedagain · · Score: 0

      You may get flamed for your comment but I, for one, agree with you. Some of the comments on this forum seem to assume that it's a God-given right to (as you so aptly put it) "leech other people's copyrighted material off of dodgy peer to peer networks!" I run WinXP because Linux doesn't support the apps that I need to make a living. I have no problems with spyware, malware, trojans, etc. ad nauseum largely because I use Firefox and Thunderbird, run a hardware firewall, and I avoid trying to get something for nothing. You can't cheat an honest man.

    4. Re:Glad to see DRM is protecting digital rights by avdp · · Score: 1

      I think if you read the article you'd find that it's not a p2p problem. There are other "vectors" of infection. Ever gotten an email with a wmv attachment of something super hilariously funny from a friend/family that you absolutely must open? Don't you dare open it, that file could have the same problem.

      Any wmv file (copyrighted or not) from any source can be infected. Your whole rant about poetic justice is quite beside the point.

    5. Re:Glad to see DRM is protecting digital rights by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      Except that isn't what is happening. WHile that could happen, what is happening is that this is occuring on kazaa and similar p2p networks, through illicit material.

      Wake me when the scenerio you suggest comes to pass, until then I'm going to have some ROFL waffles at the pirates' expense.

    6. Re:Glad to see DRM is protecting digital rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "High likelihood" is not 100% certain. So you think there's a chance (albeit small) that innocent bystanders could be hurt by this and you're happy about it?

      Where exactly does it say these are RIAA- or MPAA-licensed artists? As far as I know, it's a WMV home video of some guy's cat farting released under the creative commons license.

      Many armed robbers are identified by their shoes ;) It's the article of clothing they wear which is somewhat unique and not usually thrown away. No real applicability here, I just think it's a fun fact.

    7. Re:Glad to see DRM is protecting digital rights by Steve+B · · Score: 1
      Then I can state that there is a high likelyhood that you will not be taken in by DRM enforcement found in files which claim to be by artists who are exclusively licensed for distribution by the RIAA or the MPAA.

      That flushing sound you hear is your credibility circling the commode as a result of your absurd equation of "legally authorized" with "approved by the **AA".

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    8. Re:Glad to see DRM is protecting digital rights by dbacher · · Score: 1

      Well, under International Copyright law, which you seem to like to ignore, and US Copyright Law, the original author of a creative work (the artist) has a right to control how the creative work is distributed and exibited.

      The artists, as part of publishing through RIAA record companies, assign the rights to their work to the record label (Emi, Sony, etc.) who then, under US and international law, and as consitutionally garaunteed in the United States, have the right to protect the distribution and exibition of that work.

      The RIAA and MPAA, in turn, represent the intrests of member companies, who are typically infringed on as a whole. It's very rare to find someone who is illegally obtaining music from only one record company, it's much more common they are illegally obtaining music from many companies.

      Yes, the RIAA has the constitutionally protected right to pursue both Civil and Criminal charges. Congress is granted the right to pass laws related to copyright, and to use those laws to ensure that people authoring creative or technical works are free to control how their works are used.

      If you don't like the RIAA, there are plenty of unaffiliated labels and independent records out there, most at a fraction of the cost of RIAA artists, and many just as good.

      If yuo want the Sony label songs, etc. don't kid yourself by saying P2P is fair use, etc. P2P is a printing press for mass reproduction of files. When those files are legal, P2P is a great thing. When those files trampel over any copyright holders rights, P2P is a bad thing.

      Dilution of any copyright -- whether it's a RIAA or MPAA, or the GPL, impacts all of us... =/

      --
      If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
    9. Re:Glad to see DRM is protecting digital rights by TLLOTS · · Score: 1

      Indeed, because the wmv file formant is just soooo popular for piracy isn't it? Nevermind that someone could for instance try to gain access to a legitimate site serving wmv files and add in their little spyware addition to the otherwise legitimate wmv files. Imagine if this was done on a site hosting a trailer for a popular movie. The numerous vectors for attacks utlising this are quite vast, and you're rather naive to believe that those pirating media are the only ones whom this affects.

    10. Re:Glad to see DRM is protecting digital rights by Steve+B · · Score: 1
      If you don't like the RIAA, there are plenty of unaffiliated labels and independent records out there

      Why are you arguing when you recognize that my criticism ("legally authorized" != "approved by **AA") is completely correct?

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  43. Re:Unsuspecting??? by JaffaKREE · · Score: 1

    However, officials at AOL and WeatherBug did not take too kindly to the classification. "The vast majority of anti-spyware providers do not consider WeatherBug to be spyware, including Aluria, our own anti-spyware provider," said AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein.

    Is this guy serious ? Because the company's own software doesn't consider its other software bad, this is supposed to make us feel better ?

  44. won't work by tetromino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If AOL would open the WinAmp source

    The problem is that Winamp (IIRC) uses DirectShow and standard Windows codecs for playing movies; WMP is also essentially a gui front-end for DirectShow. (It's just like Linux where you have xine-lib with its plugins, and all sorts of guis for it - xine-ui, kaffeine, totem etc). My guess is that the Windows Media DRM is implemented at the codec level or in the DirectShow pipeline, and not in the media player - otherwise, the DRM would be trivial to circumvent. The only real solution is a usable windows port of xine-lib or mplayer (even helixplayer would work, as long as it implements its own video pipeline).

    1. Re:won't work by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If WinAmp were open source, we could patch it to use something else instead of a buggy DirectShow. One of the first things I would change would be to factor practically every component into a pluggable architecture. Foobar...

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:won't work by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Wasn't PlayMedia's AMP code that winamp was based on originally, open source at some point?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  45. Re:Unsuspecting??? by wernercd · · Score: 1

    However, officials at AOL and WeatherBug did not take too kindly to the classification. "The vast majority of anti-spyware providers do not consider WeatherBug to be spyware, including Aluria, our own anti-spyware provider," said AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein.

    I love that part of the eweek article in the grandparents post. God forbid AOL's own anti-spyware division peg it's own spyware as spyware.

    Genius. Anyone know if Webroots SpySweeper removes WeatherBug? or AdAware? I'd like to know what REAL spy removal ap's think.

    This is why I would only use MicroCraps AntiSpy/Virus crap with other more traditional methods like AdAware and SpySweeper. Atleast AdAware stays true to their roots without kissing other companies asses. The inhumanity that most people won't ever know about the shit that goes behind the scenes.

  46. Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by ftzdomino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trusted computing will make current spyware and worm problems a lot worse.

    As soon as a bug is found in a trusted computing architecture, which WILL happen, things will get a whole lot worse for the average user. Spyware will be created which your hardware refuses to allow you to remove, even with a boot disk or safe mode. Your computer will refuse allow you to install anti-virus and spyware cleaning tools. The spyware will install a certificate with high trust levels for spyware vendors.

    Even if no bug is found, companies like AOL have proven they're willing to sell out their customers by bundling adware with AIM without disclosure. This will likely create an initial hole which can be opened up much wider.

    Issues like this are killing Windows. I learned my lesson a few years ago that almost no shareware or freeware can be trusted. This makes Windows a lot less useful and is one of the many reasons why I usually run linux on my desktop.

    IMHO, trusted computing will only hurt Windows' usability by the average user.

    1. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by bigberk · · Score: 2, Informative
      Issues like this are killing Windows. I learned my lesson a few years ago that almost no shareware or freeware can be trusted. This makes Windows a lot less useful and is one of the many reasons why I usually run linux on my desktop.
      Check out the new cleansoftware site for free windows software that is free from spyware, adware etc. Not unsurprisingly, most of the software listed there is open source (making a future transition to a UNIX platform much easier). So at least while Windows is dying you can still use proper software when you need to still need to boot Windows once in a while ;)
    2. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by happyemoticon · · Score: 1

      Right. The good news is that while a lot of people will cry out to be screwed, there will be people serious about security who say, "Your products have been so virus-prone in the past. Why should I trust them now?" One of my friends is in the latter group; he's the IT/security guy with multi-million-dollar company, and they are absolutely fanatical about security. Guess what? The whole organization uses Macs. Believe me, these kinds of institutions have significant purchasing power.

      On a tangent, I'll admit that my understanding of trusted computing is limited, but wouldn't the "master key" which would allow any software to be run on your computer (which would of course be held by the vendor) be the ultimate prize for malware purveyors and virus authors? The temptation to sell and steal these would be extremely high. All it takes, buddy, is one corrupt employee. Or, for that matter, companies could willingly sell the right to "advertise" on their customer's computers.

      And with regard to shareware, I recently discovered how many of my favorite GPL'd applications also run on Windows, like Pan or Gaim. Point more of your friends to http://sf.net/.

    3. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but you cannot even take backups of your valuable data (the keys inside the palladium chip) rendering all your paid music unusable.

    4. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by mpe · · Score: 1

      I learned my lesson a few years ago that almost no shareware or freeware can be trusted. This makes Windows a lot less useful and is one of the many reasons why I usually run linux on my desktop.

      Another problem with Windows is that often shareware or programs containing spyware are described as "freeware". In many cases the only "freeware" Windows programs are actually multi-platform OSS.

    5. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Most master keys are well protected, at least for major companies. For example, Microsoft's driver signing keys are kept on one drive, with no network access, in a locked room, behind biometric security, in the middle of a secure site. The backup key is kept in similar conditions, just on the other side of the country.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    6. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by Paiway · · Score: 1
      Issues like this are killing Windows.
      Can't Windows just die, already? It feels like people have been saying stuff like this since forever, and I'm still waiting for the day I won't see bluescreens at airports and Windows-logo screensavers.
    7. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by danheskett · · Score: 1

      The grandparent poster has no idea even how MS's DRM OS is proposing to work. There is no "master" key garbage.

      Software which is "protected" runs in it's own little world: the memory, video path, input path, and file storage areas are encrypted using strong encryption techniques so that only the "owner application" has physical access to a decrypted copy.

      An application that wants to use this "technology" does not get validated by the OS, but the other way around. The application validates the OS, probably by way of Internet communication. So it's something like this:

      1. Machine boots. The nexus, which is a piece of hardware, takes a hash of the operating system sub-system that handles the DRM, as well as the firmware onboard the security hardned co-processors. This is stored in a piece of memory that is physically hardened and isolated from software: there is no direct access to it. Only the nexus can write to it. The rest of the system can only read from it.

      2. OS loads.

      3. Application is loaded. Checks the signature generated by the nexus and stored in protected memory. Opens a secure connection back to its "home base" - the maker of the software - to see if it wants to operate with the specified hardware/software combination. If it does, it continues to load. Otherwise, it bombs out or switches into a "non-secure" mode.

      4. The nexus provides access to "sealed" resources: resources that are only available to an application with the right key. Any data that the application creates gets stamped with this key and is seperated by way of this encryption from all other data. Other applications that tried to see this data would get only garbage, since the nexus doesn't have the key to decrypt.

      This is what is important. If you wanted to create a secure word processor say, which only allowed data to be read and written with that app, did not allow copying, printing, or screen captures and all that you would be golden with this system. When the user started that program it would only see a sealed area of the disk. The "C" drive would be unavailable. OTher secure programs sealed area would be unavailable (and presumably invisible, but regardless, unavailable). Only the program would have access to this area. Not even the OS (aka, Windows) has access to it. ONLY the code that is "trusted" by the Nexus has access to the unencrypted data. Same thing memory. And the video signal, and/or audio, etc.

      So this bit about spyware taking over the PC and not allowing it to be uninstalled, thats garbage.

      If a piece of spyware got into the OS, it's okay from the trusted apps perspective. The OS does not have access to the sealed data. Ever. The OS doens't have the encryption keys. The key is the application. Now, lets say someone hacked the trusted application. Okay, that' bad for that application. Now a bad application can read/write to that trusted area, but, and this is big: no other part of the system - including the OS or other secure areas. This is very big.

      The TCPA or Palladium system has a lot of OSS people very scared because virtually all of the OSS apps that are "work-a-likes" could be damaged. If only Office was allowed to read/write Office files, OpenOffice and its ilk would be very severely hampered.

    8. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are really off the mark here. There is no "master key" that the content owner provides. In fact, from the comments here I can easily see how much of a limited understanding you all have of the trusted computing technology. First of all the user has all control and rights to their machine. No one controls anyone's pc. That is pure bunk. Secondly, there are a series of "keys" that are issued and the "master" key, if you want to call it that, is a platform-only key that is stored on the user's machine in a hardware-based vault which would require someone breaking into your home with an electron microscope to get it. I'm sure they will just take your TV and cash if that were the case. LOL

      It is totally an opt-in technology. Opt-out and the PC runs any application like it did before.

      Spyware programs only catch viruses AFTER they are installed and send your info to some server in India. They basically do nothing. Talk about a waste of money, you guys cry about paying a few dollars up front for a marine guard protecting your PC, but you will pay for firewalls and spyware programs after you've already been screwed? Not smart logic if you ask me.

      The only thing trusted computing does is prevent content from running. If I was a content owner and you wanted to watch my movie and you refused to abide by my licensing policy (which is on every software CD today, by the way, and when broked gets the SBA at your door for a minimum of $80,000 fine PER INSTANCE), you can't watch my movie. So either change your mind about watching my movie, or don't watch it. That's it.

      So unless you're a thief, and you WANT to either LIE or CHEAT about who you are and if your computer is altered to steal, then trusted computing will surely bother you. but if you are an everyday person who is honest, this technology will improve your life dramatically.

      Today, fingerprints are being used more and more widespread. Can you change your fingerprint when its been hacked like a password can be changed? Answer - NO. Once hacked, that fingerprint is YOU. YOU are hacked. Not your password, not your credit card, but YOU. And you are screwed no matter where you go. Trusted computing is NECESSARY or this world will get ugly, early.

    9. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Check out the new cleansoftware site for free windows software that is free from spyware, adware etc."

      Uh, how would they know? I'm sure they mean well and everything, but if they're recommending closed-source software how can they possibly verify that it's not spyware/adware?

      Basically, they're relying on spyware being obvious, easy to detect, or commonly known-about. Apart from the open-source software whch they can check

    10. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by breon.halling · · Score: 1
      "Not unsurprisingly, most of the software listed..."

      Out of curiosity, did you mean to type "Not unsurprisingly"? 'Cause the double-negative turns it into "surprisingly". ;)

      --
      "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
    11. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep, you're right. that was dumb of me!

    12. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by bitwiseNomad · · Score: 1

      most of the software listed there is open source (making a future transition to a UNIX platform much easier)

      I understand what you're saying, but just as a note, open source software does not automatically mean *NIX software. There is plenty of open source software available for Windows and Mac, as well as closed-source software that runs on GNU/Linux.

      That being said, the more open source software is used in day-to-day life, the more readilly people will accept systems built on it. Effectively, it makes systems which are permeated by open source software less scary to the average end-user.

      --

      Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
    13. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      A lot of this depends on how everything is implemented.

      Suppose an exploit in the nexus is found. Spyware could use said hole to gain access to the entire system, and if it closed the hole behind itself it could use the nexus to then protect itself. When you went to delete it, the operating system would be denied access since it is no longer trusted to modify the spyware.

      Perhaps the spyware would work by modifying the web browser disk cache to put ads on webpages. Remember - it managed to corrupt the nexus, so it now has control over the trust relationships.

      Obviously if the Trusted architechture had no flaws, the whole model would tend to prevent spyware installation. However, the original poster poitned out that since the purpose of Trusted computing is to reduce a user's access to their own machine, it could be leveraged by spyware which managed to circumvent the architechture itself.

      My feeling is that it should be illegal to sell a user anything which contains an embedded key for which the user is not given a copy of all mathematically related keys (ie the associated private/public keys). If I own something, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Now, if the vendor wants to help give me more control via trusted computing mechanisms, that is fine, but I had better be one of the trusted parties - and that can be demonstrated by giving me the keys to the safe...

    14. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Uh, what do fingerprints have to do with trusted computing?

      What I don't like about trusted computing is that it creates a computer which doesn't trust me.

      My computer belongs to me, as does the data on it. My computer will surrender to me anything stored on it upon request. If somebody asks my computer whether I'm a nice guy, my computer will answer what I tell it to answer - not what the other guy who doesn't own it wants to hear.

      Why will me having a computer that does what I ask it to do make the world get ugly? I'm not asking that the bank's computer trust me. I'm not asking that your computer trust me. I'm fine with having secure keys stored in my computer to ensure that the computer doesn't obey any order not signed by ME, or to ensure that I'm the only one who can get data off of it. However, I will be the one to hold a copy of those keys - not some vendor someplace else whose last desire is to see me have control over my own hardware. I'm not renting - it belongs to me...

    15. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      well if you absolutly depend on a piece of software in one enviroment and it is open source, theoreticaly you have the foundation to move it to another platform so it would be a little easier.

      Back in reality, you are probably more corect then i wish to admit. I'm not a programer so i would depend on someone elses ability to move it or try to find a suitable replacment. If it is open source thought i could alway pay someone to do the work for me. Maybe the original programers?

    16. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Spyware could use said hole to gain access to the entire system
      No. That's untrue. The nexus even doesn't have access to the secure areas of the various programs without the actual binary being loaded into the secure portion of memory. The binary contains/is the key needed to decrypt the sealed storage. The lone binary is the *only* application that can access the sealed data and memory.

      When you went to delete it, the operating system would be denied access since it is no longer trusted to modify the spyware.
      You are misunderstanding how the system works. The OS doesn't trust binaries, the binaries trust the OS. If spyware infected the OS, that's fine. The individual binaries can check the hash against theier own internal database (or web based database), and determine if it trusts the OS/Nexus combination. If this is true, the binary allows itself to be loaded by providing the decryption keys directly via an isolated hardware path to the nexus which remember is a piece of hardware. That nexus provides the decryption/encryption for the sealed memory, disk space, and secure input/output path.

      The big thing that people misundestand is how the system works. It is largely not based on trust. It is largely based on sandboxing, which is a big step for MS. Not every app will run in "isoloated" or "protected" mode. I can see people running their corporate e-mail in that mode because the IT people require it. No e-mail can be saved, printed, forwarded, etc and all storage of it is tightly encrypted. Even screen shots would be impossible without hardware such as cameras and the like (and btw, with certain monitor filters this can be prevented, as well).

      My feeling is that it should be illegal to sell a user anything which contains an embedded key for which the user is not given a copy of all mathematically related keys (ie the associated private/public keys).
      The TCPA system does not rely on any embedded key in the OS or hardware. There is a hash which is generated by the Nexus at power-on that describes the system. Everything else - all other keys - are handled by the individual applications that are designed to be run in "isloated" DRM land.

      If I own something, I should be able to do whatever I want with it.
      The point of TCPA systems is that you don't own (1) the computer (corporate does), (2) the sofware (it is rented), or (3) the data (you are leasing it/renting it). In those cases you can't do whatever you want with it.

      The main purpose of TCPA is (1) lock-in. Applicatons that are "isolated" can only store data in isolated areas. No other app can access that data. Period. You are tied to that app. There is no phsyical way to get that data in or out of the system short of transcription. The other main purpose is that applications can decided whether or not to trust the hardware/software combination on the machine. Then the software can load encrypted content and not worry about being ripped or copied. You could have a media player which downloads songs from a secure store at 99/each. Those songs are downloaded from the player by the player, and stored in encrypted form is sealed storage. No other apps can get it.. The media player phones home before every use just to check you still have a license. You can't copy, burn, etc - except maybe in "protected" form to a secure portable player or encrypted data CD maybe. Same thing with DVD style movies etc.

      The secure applications are totally immune to spyware. If spyware changes a system component, the hash is invalided and does not match up against approved hashes when the app phones home. It refuses to load until the spyware is removed the hash once again matches the pre-approved list.

      The rest of the system suffers the same way it does now. The "Rest of the system" is effectively Windows today. The difference is that you dont have to worry about spyware sending your bank records to Russia if your financial software is an "i

    17. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The nexus even doesn't have access to the secure areas of the various programs without the actual binary being loaded into the secure portion of memory. The binary contains/is the key needed to decrypt the sealed storage.

      And the binary is on the disk, and consequently the spyware can access the key stored inside of it. If a file on disk is going to be decrypted, then the key uesd to do so must be stored SOMEWHERE on the computer - and therefore it can be retrieved.

      You are misunderstanding how the system works. The OS doesn't trust binaries, the binaries trust the OS.

      You indicated that the OS can't access protected memory/storage/etc. Therefore, the spyware can put its stuff in those locations. The spyware will simply refuse to trust the OS.

      The TCPA system does not rely on any embedded key in the OS or hardware. There is a hash which is generated by the Nexus at power-on that describes the system.

      Then how does a piece of software know that it is talking to the Nexus when it gets the hash? I could run an emulator and intercept the request for the hash and give the software whatever I want to - unless the nexus can respond to a challenge-response using a key embedded in the hardware that I do not possess.

      The point of TCPA systems is that you don't own (1) the computer (corporate does)

      Uh, TCPA isn't being planned just for business systems. If my employer wants to put it on their computers - that is their choice. However, TCPA is being made ubiquitous and is going to be installed mainly for home use on computers owned by their users. What is the point of DRM on office machies? Most people watch movies at home...

      My feeling is that TCPA will be used for uses beyond those advertised by those promoting it...

    18. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by danheskett · · Score: 1

      And the binary is on the disk, and consequently the spyware can access the key stored inside of it.
      No. Not at all. The binary is the key. The binary is loaded into memory by the OS, and then asked to run secure. Boom. Nexus jumps in. Decrypts the file using the binary. Now on the application level, I imagine vendors will use another layer of encryption inside, one that stores the key remotely. Regardless, only the Nexus has access to the sealed data, even in encrypted form. Even though it's on the same disk doesn't mean that Windows will have physical access to it.

      What is the point of DRM on office machies?
      Most data inside an office is meant to stay there. It's the ultimate in data security. The data cannot physically leave the machines.

      DRM is about way more than the piddly movie industry. I am sure Enron would loved to be able to prevent people forwarding e-mails, to disappear e-mails permanetly, to disable printing or copying of sensitive incriminating e-mails, etc.

      My feeling is that TCPA will be used for uses beyond those advertised by those promoting it...
      TCPA is really sound technology. It's a very very well designed system with very loopholes. Even running a virtual system within your system is defeated. Getting access to the sealed storage will require hardware hacking that very few people could successfully handle.

      TCPA will probably be attempted for home PCs, but, the bottom line is that it's going to be (1) expensive and (2) restricting to the point that most people will just stay away. There is no incentive to get people to use TCPA. Apps have to specially written for it. Media can already be purchased very cheaply - 99 for a song, $9 on DVD for a movie. It's not like prices will drop with the TCPA encoded media.

      TCPA is mainly going to the realm of corporate computing, and the very paranoid. TCPA is extremely useful for protecting stuff you dont want anyone seeing - like the police.

    19. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      No. Not at all. The binary is the key. The binary is loaded into memory by the OS, and then asked to run secure. Boom. Nexus jumps in. encrypts the file using the binary.

      If the binary is the key to decrypting the secured storage, and the binary is stored on the disk, then anything with physical access to that disk can decrypt the secured storage area. All you need to decrypt something is the thing that you're decrypting, the algorithm used to encrypt it, and the key. You have all three, so you can read it.

      Regardless, only the Nexus has access to the sealed data, even in encrypted form. Even though it's on the same disk doesn't mean that Windows will have physical access to it.

      I tend to doubt that TCPA will actually block the OS from reading data off a drive. There is no need to - if the data is encrypted then there is no benefit to protecting it.

      In any case, the OP's whole premise is that a flaw would be found in the Nexus allowing spyware to gain access to stuff it shouldn't be able to access. The OP's deduction was that this access could then be used to make the spyware harder to remove.

      I still haven't seen anything that suggests that if spyware were able to gain elevated privs on a TCPA-based machine that it wouldn't be harder to get rid of it as a result.

      Now, you can certainly argue that the spyware would never make it past the Nexus in the first place, and you may be right. However, the general pattern has been that nothing like this has every been bulletproof in v1.0.

    20. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by danheskett · · Score: 1

      If the binary is the key to decrypting the secured storage, and the binary is stored on the disk, then anything with physical access to that disk can decrypt the secured storage area. All you need to decrypt something is the thing that you're decrypting, the algorithm used to encrypt it, and the key. You have all three, so you can read it.
      No, I just don't think you are following. The OS and therefore spyware has no physical access to sealed storage. If the encypted data is at location 0 on disk, and the OS asks for location 0, the hardware is told "There is no location 0". An application has to ask the Nexus for location 0. The Nexus knows that only binaries "which are the key" (the key may be stored in the binary, maybe a hash, maybe meta-data who knows - it could be nothing actually; it's not perfectly defined yet the key storage mechanism) have access to a sealed storage. Remember every app has it owns storage.

      I tend to doubt that TCPA will actually block the OS from reading data off a drive. There is no need to - if the data is encrypted then there is no benefit to protecting it.
      It's key component of the system. The OS is not in control of the resources. It is specifically designed so that a bug in the OS or a bug in the application cannot result in compromised data. Every DRM'd app stores data in its own physically isolated (one draft of the design called for seperate banks of drives/flash ram for sealed storage). If you just relied on encryption you'd be open to man-in-the-middle attacks, bugs in the encryption/decryption routine, memory munging, etc.

      I still haven't seen anything that suggests that if spyware were able to gain elevated privs on a TCPA-based machine that it wouldn't be harder to get rid of it as a result.
      There isn't such thing as "elevated privelages". You keep missing that. A DRM app does not have special rights. It has *fewer* overall rights, and exclusive rights to a specific bit of memory/disk. That app has no special control over the OS.

      Now, you can certainly argue that the spyware would never make it past the Nexus in the first place, and you may be right. However, the general pattern has been that nothing like this has every been bulletproof in v1.0.
      You are missing it. If a piece of spyware was run as DRM'd app - which I am sure could happen - it won't be hard to do basically it's just a runtime flag that triggers the Nexus to take over, it'd have access *only* to it's own sealed storage. If you had a web-browser that was DRM'd, it could only operate within it's own little land. Another DRM'd app can't interact with it. A system component can't interact with it. It is an island of isolation.

    21. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You are missing it. If a piece of spyware was run as DRM'd app - which I am sure could happen - it won't be hard to do basically it's just a runtime flag that triggers the Nexus to take over, it'd have access *only* to it's own sealed storage.

      Again, the original poster's premise was that the Nexus contains a flaw which would allow an app to gain access to all of the sealed storage. Now, that premise may not be true, but if it were true, then the original poster's conclusion was that this could be used to make it more difficult to remove spyware.

      I fully agree that if the Nexus works properly this scenerio cannot occur. The original argument was that if it fails, it fails badly...

    22. Re:Trusted Computing Will Make It Worse by danheskett · · Score: 1

      The really big flaw would have to something like the Nexus Just Doesn't Work, or that it incorrectly calculates a hash or a key or some such thing. A buffer overflow in the firmware maybe could cause it to die.

      The mostly like failure is that the Nexus has a hardware flaw. It's essentially a big sandbox. As a comparison, look over at Java's history and see that very few instances of the sandbox being broken has actually occured. Even with MS's spotty record the .NET runtime sandboxing has been suprisingly high quality so far. Luckily, the Nexus is a hardware/firmware combination, so the reality is that MS won't be designing.

  47. Hastening The Death Of The PC by blueZhift · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It occurs to me that this sort of thing is just going to hasten the death of the home PC as a media device. We've already seen the decline in the PC as a gaming platform relative to dedicated consoles in part due to ease of use issues. If I'm Jane user and just watching downloaded videos opens the door to hundreds of spyware apps and other nonsense, I'm going to stop using the PC for stuff like that if there's an easier to use alternative.

    The next generation gaming consoles may be ready to become the easy to use box in the living room that is easy to use and never gets infected by viruses or spyware. If this happens, home PC sales will plummet! Couple these boxes with HDTV and high quality sound systems and it's game over for the PC. Slashdotters may be able to cope with the nonsense, but most people are going to take the easy way out, especially if the price of admission is low. As for me, I'd love to see a really good web browser on Sony's PSP, then I could do my mindless surfing in the living room on a reasonably good display.

    1. Re:Hastening The Death Of The PC by almostmanda · · Score: 1

      This is not a "PC" problem. It is a "Windows" problem. What assures you that these machines won't be running Windows, with all of the same problems? If a popular product does what a PC can do (browse the web, send e-mail, play video files), you can bet that Windows will be the only thing most people can handle. While I'd love to see Windows not used as much, most people would rather deal with the viruses and spyware than learn a new OS.

    2. Re:Hastening The Death Of The PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the user's name is "John" and he is attempting to watch an adult content media file.

    3. Re:Hastening The Death Of The PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woohoo! First Eminent Death Post!! You're Winner!!!!

  48. I guess that explains that by AssFace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was in NYC on business at the end of last week. The owner of our company had me swing by his apartment while I was in town and he wanted me to setup a wireless network there - which I did.
    As part of the process I was tasked with fixing the 3 XP laptops that were "not working" or "too slow".

    Sure enough, I found that they all had spyware - but one had 52 viruses on it.

    The best part was that his wife (it was her laptop) said to me "oh that is odd because my IT person from work JUST scanned that two days ago - so I hardly think that I got 52 viruses in two days."

    I tried to be polite but essentially told her that she might want to look into getting a better IT person.

    One of the viruses that she had kept spawning instances of the media player and I couldn't figure out why... now I see why I guess.

    (technically some of the viruses were trojans/worms/spyware, so I guess I should just say "malware")

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    1. Re:I guess that explains that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "
      The best part was that his wife (it was her laptop) said to me "oh that is odd because my IT person from work JUST scanned that two days ago - so I hardly think that I got 52 viruses in two days."

      I tried to be polite but essentially told her that she might want to look into getting a better IT person.
      "

      Crappy IT person might be one way this sort of thing could happen. Silly user might be another.

      As an IT person I have been asked about people's home machines a number of times. Given the amount of control I have over people's home machines, I try to avoid taking any responsability for them. =(

      Tho I get stuck doctoring the Boss' home PC anyway. Then I never know if I'm screwing up his home setup/peripheral drivers/net connection/anything else that he has that I don't know about. Nevermind pirating company software. =P

      Once I actually had to explain that software companies don't like you to install MSOffice over and over again from the same CDs, that they want you to buy it multiple times. This to someone who didn't have enough rank on me to just command it done anyway. "Yes, you see, that's software piracy. It's illegal." "... Really?"

      Oh, wait. Was I bitching again?

    2. Re:I guess that explains that by dbIII · · Score: 1
      I tried to be polite but essentially told her that she might want to look into getting a better IT person.
      The question is whether the IT person was being paid to put in time fixing peoples home computers in work time, or whether they said "here, try this virus scanning program at this URL" and got back to work (or reading slashdot.
    3. Re:I guess that explains that by AssFace · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I asked her if the IT person really looked at it, or just ran some anti-virus programs.
      She said "yes, the IT person ran two anti-spyware programs against it and updated the anti-virus program (Norton)".

      I explained to her that there are multiple viruses that once they infect your system, they can purposely block the anti-virus from catching them and future viruses.
      She had 3 of such viruses on her machine.
      When that is the case, you generally need to go looking for them.

      I suspect that she got those viruses in the first place because her home connection was so slow prior to their recent upgrade (and also due to spyware on the machine - she also had two trojans that were DDOS bots) that it was not able to update the anti-virus system in a timely fashion, so it was way out of date and didn't know to look for the various new ones it was infected with.

      When I say that I told her to look for a better IT person, I didn't really say that and it was largely tongue in cheek.

      Even after I fixed all of that and got their systems online, the next day they were complaining to me that after 45 minutes one of the machines drops its connection to the wireless and picks up the neighbor's AirPort (which it won't work on).
      I told them to phone her IT guy :)

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    4. Re:I guess that explains that by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I asked her if the IT person really looked at it, or just ran some anti-virus programs. She said "yes, the IT person ran two anti-spyware programs against it and updated the anti-virus program
      We all know the real way to look for these things is to boot off another medium and look at the infected medium, but that takes time and you do it when you are paid to do so - not on a home computer as a favour for someone that will never return it, and in a situation where if you spend too much work time on it you piss off the boss.

      What she should have done is take to someone to fix and put down the cash for the time, and then complain if a substandard job is done but few people do that when they can get quick and nasty free support.

      Even after I fixed all of that and got their systems online, the next day they were complaining to me
      Congratulations, you've just become free computer support for yet another person - fobbing her off to someone else as you did is the intelligent thing to do and you'll have to do it a few times before the message gets across. If they are a real friend they won't push it too far and you'll be OK and will try to do something on their own first - but there are plenty of others that just take advantage and never listen, becuase you are just some guy they know through someone else.
    5. Re:I guess that explains that by AssFace · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I could get out of it pretty easily since I live in another country and was only in NYC for a few days and extremely busy.

      Hell, I hate IT - I'm a programmer - but I get stuck doing IT 99% of the time.

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  49. Strike 3,475,493.08 for DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DRM may only be a functional annoyance for the average user in concept. Backlash from that alone could be interesting. Add the possiblity that MS's DRM implementation will very likely result in a $150 trip to the local electronics lease & fleece, your average user is going to be more then a little irritated.

    This is good news I say, good news indeed. The more people get pissed at DRM, the better.

  50. Re:Unsuspecting??? by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 2, Informative
    Why use WMP at all ? why not use Media Player Classic

    Seriously I haven't felt the need to install any AV player after MP Classic and mega codec pack from kazza-lite. Also use real player alternative and quicktime alternative much less resouce use and no phoning back to home.

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
  51. i can't believe what i just did by virtualone · · Score: 0

    i clicked on a link that said: "install spyware"

    --
    Only morons moderate based on a sig.
  52. It could be much worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Guys, it could be much worse. It's not like WMP is forcefully bundled into the world's most popular desktop OS or anything....

  53. Re:Unsuspecting??? by BlizzyMadden · · Score: 1

    I use FireFox, but the problem here is Media Player that I sure is using IE components. I've noticed this problem too and it's gotten to where I just don't download WMV files. Long live MP3 and MPEG! I haven't found a good WMP open-source replacement yet; otherwise, I would get rid of it like I did MS Office (replaced with OpenOffice.org) and IE (replaced with FireFox).

  54. VIRUS ALERT!!!! by killmenow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Warning!!!

    Do NOT DOWNLOAD BRITNEYSPEARSNUDE.WMV!!! It is not really a video of her stripping. It is a virus!!!

    BTW, HURRY! WAREZ LIST ENDS SOON!!!

    1. Re:VIRUS ALERT!!!! by nsayer · · Score: 1

      The warning would have been funnier if it said not to download britneyspearsnude.wmv because it really IS a video of her stripping.

  55. Don't you think this is a little by xRelisH · · Score: 0, Redundant

    racist?

    I mean crackers? I'm sure asian people, black people and people of other races are doing it too :)

  56. This is good by SunFan · · Score: 1


    The more WMA gets compromised the sooner we can dump it in favor of open standards.

    --
    -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  57. Am I missing something? by d_jedi · · Score: 2, Informative

    It sounds like (after RTFA) all this does is direct a user to a website - supposedly to get a "license" to play the content.. and once on that website, spyware is downloaded.

    So.. isn't this just a new way to get people to visit spyware websites.. which exploit flaws in IE? Meaning, there is no new flaw in WMP here?

    As long as WMP uses your default browser to check for licenses (can someone confirm this?) I'm safe :-> (now, to download some more porn off eDonkey!)

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
  58. Simple Answer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They work so unbelievably hard at it!

  59. Re:My issues with Windows 2000 by SunFan · · Score: 1


    You claim to be a Windows user and you haven't already been aquainted with the crash-curse-reformat-reinstall drill? I think you made your whole story up.

    --
    -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  60. Re:Unsuspecting??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And with ffdshow newbs will never be bothered with codecs again.

    I use MPlayer-cygwin myself, but the lack of GUI would put them off.

  61. Uneducated Users by Austin+Milbarge · · Score: 1

    Most people who use Windows are unaware of the fact that are running under an Administrator (root user) account where anything can be installed, copied or deleted. Including spware and viruses. To this day, I never understood why Windows computers don't come pre-configured to run as a non-root user with limited file, execution and registry privileges? If I remember correctly XP supports a feature called "run as" if a program needs to be run as root (ie. setup programs).

    I say, "too bad if the user has to type passwords!" The world of single user, DOS type computing is over. Time to start educating the public about the need to type in some passwords every now and then. Today's Anti-Virus and other Anti-Malware applications just don't cut it anymore. Blocking malware at the IP/Port level is not enough as you can tell by the failures of SP2. Password protecting processes at the OS level and file access at the file system level is much more effective. This whole virus/adware problem could be substantially minimized if people would just be more damn educated and willing to sacrifice a little ease of use. If we can be inconvenienced to show ID at the bank and enter a pin number at the ATM I don't think it's so bad to enter a password on our home PCs either.

    1. Re:Uneducated Users by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      "To this day, I never understood why Windows computers don't come pre-configured to run as a non-root user with limited file, execution and registry privileges?"

      Because vast amounts of software simply will not run if you're not an Administrator, and Microsoft would be inundated with support calls from clueless users.

      "If I remember correctly XP supports a feature called "run as" if a program needs to be run as root (ie. setup programs)."

      Yep, Joe Sixpack would be real happy if they had to enable 'Run As' on every single setup program when they installed software.

      Face it, Windows is a single-user, single-tasking operating system masquerading as a real OS.

    2. Re:Uneducated Users by myov · · Score: 1

      I gave up trying to configure non-admin accounts. Too many apps expect to run with full permission, though they don't need it.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    3. Re:Uneducated Users by dbacher · · Score: 1

      Windows 2000 and XP, by default, only provide the option "User" or "Power User" when you use the "add user" option in control panel.

      The bigger issue is "not running as administrator" doesn't fix the problem. With either Mozilla or Internet Explorer, when you view a site that requires a plug in, you're prompted to install the plug in. This plug in will be installed into your profile, and doesn't require administrative works.

      The web browser has access to everything the currently logged in user has access to, can access all his/her software and settings, can alter all his/her settings, and can communicate with any random internet sites that it chooses. It can log keystrokes for the current desktop session, it can log mouse clicks, it can search data files, and it can infect other applications that support add ins, plug ins or scripting languages.

      Running as a non-Administrative account lowers the attack surface, but not by nearly as much as what people think it does. Microsoft Installer, for example, will escalate to Administrator as required to install software from signed MSI files, and XPI can still install plug ins into FireFox for all users unless you manually go and lock down the firefox folder, for which instructions are not provided.

      --
      If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
  62. This automatic downloading has got to stop by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's all Microsoft's fault. They put backdoor IE invocations in everything. And now we're paying the price.

    If you have to run Microsoft, one solution is to back off to Windows 2000. You run Windows 2000. Windows XP runs you. Many corporate installations refuse to go with XP for that reason.

    It's not just Microsoft, either. Remember that DRM-protected CD that changed the firmware on Apple CD drives so the machine would never work again? (And remember Apple refusing to fix it under warranty?)

    1. Re:This automatic downloading has got to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows XP runs you.

      I didn't realize Microsoft was outsourcing their software development to Russia.

    2. Re:This automatic downloading has got to stop by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      "You run Windows 2000. Windows XP runs you"

      And you don't know how to set up xp properly. XP runs on (+_) the same kernel 2000 does, but has upgraded on certain features. It's the most stable OS MS have released to date (ok, just about the /only/ stable OS they've released to date :))and more user/admin friendly than 2000.

      Also, I've been led to believe the mayor reason companies won't upgrade to CP is due to the fact that they had just upgraded to 2000 and just will not spend the money to upgrade yet again to a platform which is only marginally better...it is /not/ due to 'xp running you'.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    3. Re:This automatic downloading has got to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that DRM-protected CD that changed the firmware on Apple CD drives so the machine would never work again? (And remember Apple refusing to fix it under warranty?)

      Dude, I use x86 exclusively, and I remember this one. It was a faulty CD (jacked up redbook audio) that confused the drive's firmware, and the user was required to reboot and get into the Mac's bios (open firmware?) and issue a drive eject command.

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


    I use Winamp, but Winamp is pissing me off lately for various reasons, so I may try Mplayer. I have Mplayer (and Video Lan Client) installed for those odd situations when something won't play and I need to test the file with another player. So far it's been pretty good about playing things, but the interface is not as hot as Winamp - not that that's necessarily a bad thing since Winamp is "busy" and consumed with featuritis.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  64. Why's it always gotta be about race? by untaken_name · · Score: 0, Redundant

    and how do you know these scum are all white?
    That said, I hate crackers too.

  65. Re:Unsuspecting??? by JimFromJersey · · Score: 2, Informative

    VideoLAN, plays just about everything.

    --
    between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
  66. This is a userland problem not WMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now maybe if you had suggested some little known media player that didn't automatically install codecs after you clicked "don't ask me again, just install" then maybe your post would have been worth something.

    Umm, then you would all be complainng about how said media player didn't work and asked you about codec installs even AFTER you told it not to.

    Place the blame where it belongs in this case. On the stupid users who click the "don't ask me again, just install" button in the first place.

  67. just buy a mac :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple doesn't have a DRM to break.

  68. Re:Unsuspecting??? by BlizzyMadden · · Score: 1

    Cool! I'll try it right away. Thanx for the heads up. Bliz

  69. Re:My issues with Windows 2000 by wernercd · · Score: 1

    Spy Sweeper Try this program in addition to SpyBot & AdAware. Spyware is one area where you need to seemingly use more and more programs to keep your system clean. Its one of the few known good pay-for-AntiSpyware products. Maybe even try Microsofts spyware? It surprises me how much stuff you find with each additional product you use. Crazy.

    Since you seem to know what's going on I'm also going to suggest HiJackThis! Use it to find exactly what programs are opening on boot, and tons more information. If this is too much info for you just search google for HiJackThis Log Forums. Proffesional Nerds volunteer to help talk people thru the logs. Use it carefully as it is a powerfull tool.

    I'm assuming you have some flavor of anti-virus and firewall.

    If all else fails, maybe you need to format and upgrade to XP? Not sure if that's an option for ya tho.

  70. wake-up call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be a wake-up call for anyone who is still using windows. Microsoft software has always been inherently insecure and things seem to go downhill for them at an alarming pace. Simply put, it is plain stupid to still use windows nowadays. At the current situation, with increasingly sophisticated viruses coming out every other day, we are talking "survival of the fittest" and that means Mac and Linux users.

  71. is it just me or... by notoriousE · · Score: 0

    do you feel hesitant to click on a link that says "install spyware"? :) ...to install spyware...

    --


    And then there was E
  72. Re:My issues with Windows 2000 by peragrin · · Score: 2

    Which is why once a year or so I do a scheduled complete re install. everything gets backed up and then I boot from a floppy and type my all time favorite command for cleaning a windows computer.

    format c: /s

    it takes a couple of days but hey it's all good.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  73. Re:Ahh, isn’t that better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People ask why I bother with a Non-Windows OS. They ask about it being hard to learn, install, configure, etc.

    I told them it was easer than trying to keep up with the MS exploit of the week. I have been watching for the last 6 months for the exploit of the week.

    In some weeks I'm rewarded with more than one. I'm seldom let down my not having an MS exploit of the week.

  74. I'm not worried... by FirstTimeCaller · · Score: 1

    I can always use Microsoft AntiSpyware to fix the problem! Right?

    --
    Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
  75. Time to regulate Microsoft by Metamediarich · · Score: 1

    Ridiculous! If ever there was anything that mandated nationalizing Microsoft and turning it into a regulated public utility, this is it - the straw on the camel's back! They seem incapable of doing anything that doesn't leave large holes that expose the security of every consumer to some dire threat! Every "improvement" is just another prelude to disaster. If this is the result of their focus on "security" - what do we have to look forward to is somebody comes in hung-over one day, and gets careless? Enough already!

    --
    Media don't kill ideas, people do.
  76. Re:Opting out by markhb · · Score: 1

    If you opt out, you can't (or at least aren't supposed to be able to) play media that have DRM enabled until you change your mind and opt in.

    --
    Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
  77. One Word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent

  78. Welcome to the brave new world. by hey! · · Score: 1

    Wow, you must be Rip Van Winkle. That linguistic battle was lost ages ago. The survivors went on (as losers often do) to slaughter each other in an internecine battle over whether the term for software released under a liberal license should be called "free" or "open source".

    These days, most people who want to play it safe disavow the belief that anything can mean anything, although a few nostalgic old timers are trying to rally the old gang around the idea that DRM should stand for Digital Restrictions Management.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  79. OK, I know that Crackers can tune in to WMP ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but what about black people?

  80. Re:This is news? by outz · · Score: 0

    Mod me off-topic? How's this off-topic you dumbass. If you were to download .wmv porn on kazaa you would know they've been using this exploit to infect your machine for a good while now.

    --
    What was your username again? -BOFH
  81. Re:Unsuspecting??? by mzwaterski · · Score: 3, Informative

    This should not be modded insightful. What garcia didn't process is that WMP will open the default browser to process the DRM license. If Firefox is your default browser it will be opened and presumably the webpage will not be able to use IE exploits to install malware. This of course is due to the fact that the issue is with security holes in IE and not WMP. The issue with WMP is that it is accessing IE.

  82. But there's more of them argument - pfft! by wazzzup · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that this causes a leak in the argument that Microsoft apologists use when talking about viruses and spyware. You know the "Your OS would be just as insecure if you had 90% marketshare" argument.

    Perhaps we can all agree that iTunes and the iPod currently enjoy a much, much larger share of the purchased digital music (and thus DRM) market than all of the Windows Media players combined. Yet as far as I know (and somebody may prove me wrong) but the DRM Apple uses hasn't been hijacked to carry malware. I'm not glorifying Apple, since they license Fairplay DRM from another company, but just pointing out that, market share being irrelevant, Microsoft seems rather incapable of writing any secure code whatsoever.

    Ugh. Does everything that comes out of that behemoth have to be a complete piece of shit?

  83. SO I CANT USE ANY WINDOWS FEATURE ANYMORE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like I have to disable ALL the features that made Windows good. All the features that made it somewhat different from Windows 95. Are we taking huge steps back in time???

  84. DO I REALLY HAVE TO DISABLE ALL WINDOWS FEATURES? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it really so that I need to disable ALL these cool features modern Windows OS offers to be safe? Is that the key to secure Windows computing? I wonder if there is ANY feature I havent already disabled.

    Where are we heading with this? Are we taking huge steps back in time because all features disabled Windows XP looks very much like Windows 95 to me.

  85. M$ is good for business by tratson · · Score: 1

    As an IT professional, I must commend M$ for another job well done. I have billed 6 hours this week (@$80/hr) fixing XP machines that were compromised via WMP. This is for 3 clients in a small town. What do you suppose this "feature" will cost consumers in the end.

    Myself, I use linux on all of my desktops, OpenBSD on my servers and WinXP Tablet on my mobile "repair kit" laptop. The only thing I use the laptop for is backing up customer data before formating and reinstalling a fubared Windozer workstation.

    While I promote open source software to my users, I would be out of work if Windows wasn't the standard.

    You will be assimilated...

    1. Re:M$ is good for business by Austin+Milbarge · · Score: 1

      Well I must agree with you there. In this terrible economy it's nice to know there are all sorts of ways to make money removing malware from PCs, although it's a sad way to make money.

  86. It's all part of the grand scheme by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

    When will people realize that MS software and windows in particular are buggy with the purpose. And the purpose is to dominate the world.
    MS needs to have its entire insalled base riddled with spyware, viruses, adware and all kinds of evil resource hogs to rally popular support for its next generation "solution" to the problem they created. The solution will gradually make them control the world. You know what I'm talking about, right? Palladium, DRM, La Grande (666).

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
  87. Re:Opting out by zarr · · Score: 1
    If you opt out, you can't ... play media that have DRM enabled

    In other words, you can't opt out of Digital Rights Management. Their "digital rights" are still managed.

    I'm sad now... :(

  88. Already Spyware by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Isn't WMP already spyware? It seems to always want to be connecting to the Internet when I play local media on it.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  89. Read this Article by bogie · · Score: 1

    Edelman article
    You try to play a file and then see this Image

    Most users would know that once some weird web page comes up that they maybe should be careful. But what if it looks like the picture above? You only see an installer and no webpage and you just want to play a file? At that point its not even clear that you were directed to a website since a webpage can be easily hidden leaving only the installer visible. Chances are most people just think they are agreeing to a media files licensed terms.

    So yea its debatable what's at fault here, but by design WMP is flawed if this is what can happen if you simply try to play a Windows Media file. Scary stuff.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  90. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod up. Good point. Features disabled Windows is like Windows 95.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Features disabled Windows is like Windows 95.

      No, it's not, numbnuts, unless disabling features caused it to crash every two hours. 95 was so unstable it was unusable. XP can actually be referred to as an OS. Got it, 'point and drool' boy?

  91. Still very disconcerting by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    So if you don't trust the video source, or set WMP to not download codec you will be safe

    Well, no you actually won't be safe...it isn't the codec that is the issue here, it is the acquisition of a license, and as in all Microsoft applications without exception when they added this feature they initially set the defaults to an automatic and hazardous setting.

    You are right, however, that if you disable automatic stuff and not be so trusting that you will not be at risk ffrom this vulnerability. I STILL find it quite disturbing about the MS platform that vulnerability seems to be engineered right into the system, even at this late stage in the game when everyone knows better. Yes, you can nail things down and disable bells and whistles, but how usable is that to a typical end user? And if "trusted" computing and DRM is embraced by content suppliers then we'd have no choice--in order to use that content we'd be forced to use a flawed DRM mechanism.

    I don't mean to bash Windows specifically because Linux and MacOS could be vulnerable as complexity increases as well. Point is, that DRM really contributes nothing to the user's experience whatsoever so it is useless complexity. Windows is full of useless complexity--moreso than any other platform, and not all of it is driven by pressure from the content industry.

    There is a blog called "the new old thing" or something along those lines that I find a fascinating read. It seems that MS has historically been hellbent on being all things to all people, which you can be to a degree when you are a behemoth corporation. Problem is, in MS's case it tries to make *each product* be all things to all people. The hoops and kludges and quirks outlined in that blog that show what that mentality has done to Windows is both fascinating and scary. MS employs some of the smartest, most talented developers on the planet and some of these stories demonstrate their genious--misguided as it is. This quest for compatibility and accommodation has gotten so bad now that typical apps--even "small" integrated ones like WMP--have dozens to hundreds of options buried levels deep in menus. This as much as any buffer overflow or open TCP port is a root cause of the security and reliability problems we have today.

    I think we hit the "sweet spot" for the PC "user experience" in about 1995--that is when MS was at its best (but not perfect) with the Win95 interface, and when the MacOS was both pretty and elegant. Since then software in general has slowly been sliding back into the depths of hell in terms of being pleasant to use. Mac OS X is still a great platform, but even it seems to stand out in the crowd less prominently than its ancestor did 20 years ago. The whole reason? It is getting too complex again. I don't wan't my media player to have more switches and indicators on its UI than the Altair and IMSAI had on their front panels.

    1. Re:Still very disconcerting by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Your post is very insightful - either the feature will not be embraced, and having it default to accept license will cause problems - or the feature will be embraced, and to view any content you will have to accept licenses you know nothing about.

      Either way, security is gone unless you never download content.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  92. Someone need to explain this by alexislashdot · · Score: 3, Informative

    It seems that 99% of slashdotters didn't understand the article. The article author also has no idea about the subject. Even the "research note" is not perfectly clear.

    This is not a security breach in Windows Media Player.

    Here is what happens. A wma/wmv DRM protected file needs a license to be played. When WMP plays a file that does not have a license it will open a dialog with a web browser control inside and navigate to the "license store url" that was written inside the file. This feature is called "superdistribution" and it is present in other DRM enabled players as well.

    That is all that Windows Media Player does. At most WMP can be acused of not displaying more information about why the dialog was opened. If even the slashdot crowd has problems understanding this, imagine the rest of the computer users.

    Once the IE opens the web page it is no different than going to that url yourself in IE.

    1. Re:Someone need to explain this by Steve+B · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is not a security breach in Windows Media Player.
      Here is what happens. A wma/wmv DRM protected file needs a license to be played. When WMP plays a file that does not have a license it will open a dialog with a web browser control inside and navigate to the "license store url" that was written inside the file.

      A program that can be directed to navigate to a URL listed in some file without asking for user verification is "not a security breach"?

      What is a "security breach" in your world?

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    2. Re:Someone need to explain this by alexislashdot · · Score: 1

      Internet users are directed every day to many web pages they did not choose to go. Think about ads or other information displayed in pop-ups and iFrames. You may consider this a security threat but it does not mean it is a security breach.

      Once you start typing an url in the browser you don't know where it will go from there.

      The problem is with IE that is not idiot proof enough.

    3. Re:Someone need to explain this by Rie+Beam · · Score: 1

      If you're on any major P2P network surfing for...unmentionables, then about a third the Windows Media files will be encoded with some sort of spyware or other prompt taking advantage of the DRM. However, keep in mind several things -

      1) Windows Media Player will open the page in your default browser, and thus, IE exploits aren't much of a danger
      2) This is only a problem in Windows Media Player, anyway - products like Winamp, IrfanView, and the like present little problems

      So all you have to do is keep Firefox chuggin' along, or avoid downloading suspicious WMV files.

    4. Re:Someone need to explain this by cpghost · · Score: 1

      The problem is with IE that is not idiot proof enough.

      Hmmm... if IE bugs were then only problem here, it would be absolutely meaningless. As you point out, redirections happen all the time, and who's still using IE nowadays knows what to expect from a security point of view.

      The point here is a breach of privacy. A program jumps to some obscure and unknown website without asking you in the first place. If IE does it, well, that's what a web browser is expected to do. But most naive or uninformed users don't expect Media Player to leave a trail behind it on servers they never heard about. That's the real problem that should be tackled. Microsoft's lawyers probably tugged a provision regarding this in their EULAs, so users are as always powerless to do anything about it, but they should know about such tactics on a largest possible scale anyway.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  93. Re:Unsuspecting??? by rgriff59 · · Score: 1
    What does Firefox have to do with ending Spyware via WMP? Absolutely nothing.
    Wrong. A more correct answer might be "absolutely everything." WMP uses IE to run the dialog that ultimately downloads and executes the trojan code. True, a simple Firefox install in itself is insufficient to break this union, but simple old IE exploits ARE the problem, just obscured with the WMP front end.
  94. Not Crackers! by rednip · · Score: 1

    Crackers are what poly wants. If we ever want to 'take back' the work "hackers" we need to stop using a word which looks and sounds so much like it. Instead call a person who uses technology for nefarious purposes a 'Black Hat' (or 'black hats' for plural).

    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
  95. Re:My issues with Windows 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /q makes it go even quicker

  96. Development with DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been developing around DRM, rights management, etc. It's hell in binary form. The SDK is terrible and not so flexible outside of VBScript in certain scenarios (flexible being examples in C++, C#, VB.NET, etc.). It's terrible and even worse, the licenses can be revoked at any given time (but i'm sure this crowd knows that one). It's VERY easy to set up the file to give you spyware. Nothing magical about it. Just package the file with a licensing url that points to something that kinda tells you you have to get it to get the license, and the user is none the wiser. Even more so, license aqusition supports full IE in hidden form (allowing cookies to be used, nice during demo development for clients) so it's quite easy to sneak it by the user. Personally, I hate DRM. It's a joke and a waste of time. It's terrible to work with, terrible to support of multiple license solutions, 9/10 you lock out users when you start going custom on the way you handle it.

    Upside is, it is quite flexible when you're trying to implement solutions when you want to force use of _your_ client (like this project). You'll see it hit the market soon and it will piss you off. You'll know it when you see it. Stay away from it. Boycott anything that uses DRM. It's evil as it doesn't give you control over anything that you purchase using the system.

    Sorry for the rambling, but just my two cents.

  97. Ocean's 11 - Bernie Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When I saw "cracker", I initially thought of "the white slave driver who would crack the whip".


    I thought about it again, realized my mistake.


    Nonetheless, I enjoyed the mental imagery.

  98. Tell me something new by adeydas · · Score: 1

    In other news, Microsoft's products has been declared mega crap.

  99. Stale, but not dead. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    The evidence supporting your points is good, but your conclusion is faulty. There's nothing stopping people from using linux 2.4 even now. In my experience the updates even in 2.4.28 from linux2.6 don't cause problems. The bottom line is 2.4 is still way better than anything microsoft has to offer, and 2.6 is as well (for most systems)

    The linux bsd comparisons are not really relevant. Nobody hoped linux would replace Unix. In the same way users were unaware of the sucess of linux back in the 2.4 "era", they are unaware of problems in the 2.6 kernel.

    This isn't too bad as long as distributions can stabelize the current half assed vinella kernel.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  100. this is amazing..and a business opportunity by zogger · · Score: 1

    on the linked to research note reference,after first identifying one of the infected sites/downloads, he states

    "On a fresh test computer, I pressed Yes once to allow the installation. My computer quickly became contaminated with the most spyware programs I have ever received in a single sitting, including at least the following 31 programs: 180solutions, Addictive Technologies, AdMilli, BargainBuddy, begin2search, BookedSpace, BullsEye, CoolWebSearch, DealHelper, DyFuca, EliteBar, Elitum, Ezula, Favoriteman, HotSearchBar, I-Lookup, Instafin, Internet Optimizer, ISTbar, Megasearch, PowerScan, ShopAtHome Select, SearchRelevancy, SideFind, TargetSavers, TrafficHog, TV Media, WebRebates, WindUpdates, Winpup32, and VX2 (DirectRevenue). (Most product names are as detected by Lavasoft Ad-Aware.) All told, the infection added 58 folders, 786 files, and an incredible 11,915 registry entries to my test computer. Not one of these programs had showed me any license agreement, nor had I consented to their installation on my computer."

    $^&*((()! Frikking amazing!

    man, fatcity for all the whitebox windows repair guys out there. Guaranteed job security! Hey, you California guys! Take advantage of the new antispyware laws that went into effect, a lot of loot there possibly if you follow through with complaints perhaps!

  101. Key word is "software" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello!?!?!?! Any software based system is junk and as secure as a wet paper bag. You need hardware to get trust.

    Trusted computing is set up with hardware on the client side so that Amazon doesn't ahve to store your credit card information anymore. Why should they? Who has access to that? Who the heck knows?

    There is no trust without the server, so the server side is set up to verify the client side to make sure the client PC or platform has not been altered for destructive purposes by liars, cheats, hackers or terrorists.

    This is all good and I would gladly pay $10 when I buy my PC to have it. Good luck to those that don't but its like going into battle with no armor and no ammo. Pretty dumb.

    1. Re:Key word is "software" by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      I'd hope you're being sarcastic. Since modding hardware isn't that much more difficult than modding software, it usually just requires a bit more physical work than cracking software.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
  102. 523rd "Crackers == White People" post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crackers? Like trailer park dwelling white folks?

    Huh huh. Huh huh. I made a funny. Pretty original, huh? Huh huh.

  103. /. readers not necessarily swayed by source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If AOL would open the WinAmp source, after it was examined by a horde of cranky Slashdotters bent on porting it to Linux, it would be at least believed to be less buggy than WMP.

    I'm not so sure that belief would necessarily follow:

    Final versions are available of the 100% open source Helix Player & RealPlayer 10 for Linux, with RealAudio & RealVideo 10 and MP3 support.

    Admittedly, this might have more to do with the vocal contingent who hate Real than /.ers who can/do read source and be swayed by it...

  104. Re:Unsuspecting??? by dbacher · · Score: 1

    Weatherbug does not pretend -- at all -- not to be advertiser supported. When you run it, it tells you it's advertising supported, when you view the reports, you see the advertisements, etc.

    Most anti-spyware companies either classify it as a non-threat and ignore it, or as is the case with Giant and Microsoft's new derivitive (and Sunbelt's) classify it as a low threat with a default of "ignore."

    Similarly Wild Tangent (the other typically named AIM "spyware") reports back playing of Wild Tangent content files to Wild Tangent. As it turns out, the creator id in the wild tangent file is important to them, because they charge per-view for the use of Wild tangent. This charge goes to the content provider, not to the content viewer, who gets to see the content for free.

    Again, it's a matter of definition. Weatherbug tells you up front it's going to deliver ads, delivers ads only when you're using it, and has well documented (on their website) information on what data it sends, when and how.

    If you don't want it, there are plenty of alternatives, and AOL doesn't force you to install it.

    --
    If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
  105. uuhmm by big+daddy+kane · · Score: 1

    i think we all know that 'crackers' is a derogatory term by now

  106. The General Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you want to understand Microsoft, there's a very simple principle you just need to keep in mind when dealing with this company:

    Data is code.

    The file-open menu option in all their apps, might as well be titled file-execute. Likewise, whenever you click on an icon in their file manager, don't mislead yourself into thinking that this action just means "load this file into the appropriate application" because what it really means is "execute this program." When someone sends you a file, or you download a file, or you insert removable media that contains a file, don't think of it as just a "file." Think of it as a program. Everything is software. Clicking on a link in their web browser or entering a URL into the location bar, is your way of telling your computer, "I want to download and run that."

    Look at it that way, and it all makes sense. There simply aren't any news stories about Windows security, once you understand this. There aren't any security-related bugs either -- this is a feature, not a bug.

    If you think Microsoft's programmers are totally incompetent, then you're deceiving yourself, and you're just not looking at things the right way. This is a design issue. Heck, it's a requirements issue. Microsoft has defined the needs of users in such a way, that things simply have to be this way, and as long as you think of Microsoft as a leader, you are subscribing to this point of view. When you buy a Microsoft product, you are stating to the market, that you agree with this principle -- all data should potentially be code.

    It is very powerful, I'll give it that. When all data is code, you can do amazing things with computers. And they don't even have to be your own computers. ;-)

  107. Even more reasons... by mkyboy01010 · · Score: 1

    Even more reasons not to go legit for downloading music from the internet.

  108. Re:DO I REALLY HAVE TO DISABLE ALL WINDOWS FEATURE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a puss.

    Get a real operating system. I'm sure you'll still be able to run Habbo Hotel. I'm not sure about the Sims, but you'll get over it.

  109. Readable version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  110. Re:My issues with Windows 2000 by crabpeople · · Score: 1

    You have to run spybot and adaware in safe mode. if you dont do that it misses things.

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  111. MPAA Scare tactic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know about the rest of you but this sounds more like a MPAA scare tactic to me. Keeping people from downloading "risque" files off the internet that may contain viruses!

    It's simply a link in a file that WMP is stupid enough to autolaunch for "ease of use". The problem is more so that it is a means to get to a site that has spyware on it. Which is a problem with WMP, but if IE is secure (and I use the term loosly) then you should be fine. (also assumes you're not an idiot who clicks yes to everything. Specially on files you downloaded that you know full well arn't "safe".)

    This "feature" is easy to turn off and if you're not the type that succums to installing spyware in the search for these movies, you're unlikly to have the spyware installed after you've got the movies.

    So to reinterate my topic. This is just a MPAA propoganded article to attempt to limit file downloads.

  112. Re:SELinux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you want is SELinux, which gives you the ability to individually set what an app can do. For example, you could set your mp3 player to have read only access to all mp3 files, read/write access to it's own config files and the sound device (if not using a sound server), and internet access to freedb, and no other permissions. That way even if the player were compromised by a malicious mp3 file, it couldn't do anything other than trash it's own config files or try to DoS freedb.

  113. You mean - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    |)161t4|_ |200t Manglement :)

  114. Management does not mean being controlled by tallbill · · Score: 1

    There is a very old addage that says if you want to lead you have to know how to follow.

    It is true that there are a lot of bad managers. You must have experienced a few.

    However, a good manager intuits who has what skills and then they trust that person and follow.

    A good manager is a great leader.

  115. Re:My issues with Windows 2000 by Wyzard · · Score: 1

    What's sad is that you've accepted this as a normal part of using your computer.

    Right now I'm using a Debian system that's been installed for four years -- and running the "unstable" branch, so there are new versions of packages (sometimes containing bugs) almost daily -- and it with a little care and feeding on my part, it's still running cleanly. I certainly wouldn't want to have to reinstall and lose all the work I've put into getting my system set up the way I like it.

  116. Re:My issues with Windows 2000 by peragrin · · Score: 1

    It is sad. That's why I have run linux, and am typing this from my powerbook.

    it's normal for my windows machines, I haven't owned the apple long enough yet, and well linux doesn't last cause I change distro's because i was bored.

    My windows don't last due to use, my linux os's don't last cause i keep changing them.

    What comes next?

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  117. This is hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember posts on boards that I visit predicting this would happen when M$ first released their descriptions.

    M$'s response: "nawwwww..."

  118. My own record's 1684 items. by KMSelf · · Score: 1

    Another system had a few hundred copyies of Netsky and MyDoom variants on it.

    --

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

  119. Jason Spence: The black hat community is drooling by KMSelf · · Score: 1

    I've had the following in my signature file rotation for some time. Looks as if it's starting to be fulfilled:

    The black hat community is drooling over the possibility of a secure execution environment that would allow applications to run in a secure area which cannot be attached to via debuggers.
    - Jason Spence, on Palladium aka NGCSB aka "Trusted Computing"
    --

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

  120. Administrator... by KMSelf · · Score: 1
    Login to the computer using the administrative account when you want to install that stuff. Isn't that obvious?

    Sure: sudo aptitude install foo

    Oh yeah, can't do that in legacy MS Windows. Don't talk to me about "Run As". Should be called "Run as...maybe, if I feel like it...but it will probably break." A little long for an advertising jingle, but accurate.

    Sorry, but the idea of losing 60 windows worth of state, including several editor and mailer sessions, and nine browser windows with on the order of 100 open tabs, just to install/update software, sucks.

    My desktop session's been running for over a month. In the meantime I've updated my system almost daily, as well as several others on the local network. Without having to physically access those other boxes (unless using one as a footrest counts).

    --

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

  121. Group policy to block 'smart' family. by TetryonX · · Score: 1

    For those who prefer group policy over screwing with the wmp settings (good for hiding settings from family) and can't find it: it's in Computer Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Windows Components -> Windows Media Digital Rights Management. My family is smart enough to check options, but not smart enough for gpedit.msc. muahahaha.

    --
    [!] No, I can't see my comments. They are not worthy of +3 moderation.
  122. Irony? by csk_1975 · · Score: 1

    Its ironic indeed when someone trying to explain the meaning of irony is confused and mistakenly thinks that unexpected and incongruous are the same thing. Unexpected events are not ironic, unexpected incongruous events are - a black fly in your chardonnay is not ironic, as part of a greater chain of incongruous events it may well be, but in and off itself it definitely aint.

  123. Re:Opting out by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

    This is one reason why I've stuck to Windows Media player 7.1 and Win98SE. Yes, I'm serious.

    However, on the Linux side I use mplayer, xine and xmms...
    :)

    --
    .
    == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  124. Popups and UIs. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    There was a really insightful bit I read in some GNOME (was it GNOME?) interface guidelines handbook, which said that people don't want confirmation dialogues, they want to be able to undo things. Which is why the 'recycle bin' is the right solution to the accidental-deletion problem, and the confirmation is not, as people in the process of deleting something will regard the confirmation as simply another step in the process, and hit enter automatically.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  125. mplayer on win32. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    The only real solution is a usable windows port of xine-lib or mplayer

    Worked out of the box for me.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  126. Licenses? by Austin+Milbarge · · Score: 1

    The trouble begins when software requires outside assistance. Whats with all this outside assistance anyways? Since when do we all of a sudden need a license to listen to stuff. I never needed a license to make a copy of music on the radio or record a TV show on my VCR.

    Don't you think companies are taking this encryption and licensing crap too far? Perhaps Notepad or Calc should be licensed too. Helk, I may have the need to add some numbers and type some text and God only knows who has the patents on the letter 'H' and the number 7!!

  127. Because it's a surprise attack by ekhben · · Score: 0

    I keep my Windows box behind a NAT firewall. I don't run IE, and I don't run Outlook. I don't install stuff I downloaded from the Intarweb. But I tried to watch a movie, and lo! for the first time in two or three years of running Windows XP, I got infected with spyware. The reason this is such a big deal is because a movie file is just media data. It never occurred to me, and probably never to you, that I should hunt around WMP to find the option to stop it automatically fetching other data. That there is the crux of it. Why the fuck would I ever consider a /media player/ a likely source of trojan installation? And if I, who has gone to some lengths (though not as far as I could have or should have gone) to protect myself, and knows not to click "Yes," can be caught by this happening silently (no, I never clicked 'Yes' or accepted an option for this to happen by default; WMP installed like this, silently) how the hell is someone less technically inclined supposed to get by? Worse yet, what else is going to do this sort of thing? Will ZIP files start executing arbitrary code? Will images start requiring 'licenses' too? Should I hunt around the multitude of configuration options in every program I run, in all the odd places and incomprehensible terminology those options can be, trying to stop them doing anything as stupid as this? No, Microsoft fucked up big by allowing media data to be more than media data. The fact that I can never entirely get rid of IE doesn't help either, because everything Microsoft and a bunch of other things also use the IE engine. See the WinAmp skin exploit, for example.

  128. Stereotypes (sic) by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or did this title make anyone else think of a bunch of rednecks sitting around on a front porch, drinking beer, talking sports, cars, and coon dawgs, with a 196s clock radio tossed off the end of the porch and a computer sitting on a wire spool with car speakers jury rigged to it, and Windows MediaPlayer running on a 13" monitor in 640x480 mode?

    [Run-on sentences a specialty]

  129. Re:Opting out by zachdms · · Score: 1

    ^-- That doesn't equate. WMP7.1 has DRM too. Heck, even WMP6 does.

  130. Re:Opting out by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

    If it does, I've never seen it. And you have to admit, even if it has some DRM, it's nowhere NEAR what WMP 9+ has.

    --
    .
    == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??