Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's AntiSpyware Disabled by Spyware

Ruke writes "A trojan has targeted Microsoft's AntiSpyware program, deleting all files within the C:\Program Files\AntiSpyware folder, as well as logging keystrokes at several online banking sites." The good news is that it's a Trojan, so one still has to bother with running an attached file.

428 comments

  1. Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The news itself might be interest, but in the realm of well written articles this will not make the list. A choice nugget from TFA:

    <<< The password stealing Troj/BankAsh-A Trojan, discovered yesterday, is a spyware. It keeps a track of user activities on the computer. It spies on you. >>>

    Er, didn't we cover the spying part two sentences ago? Is A spyware? A spyware what?

    <<< The Trojan also removes important entries of the antispyware in the registry and thus literal kills the antispyware. >>>

    Literal? Come on - this reads worse than half of the AC posts in YRO. I hate playing the grammar nazi, but this was painful to read...

    --
    "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    1. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Literal? Come on - this reads worse than half of the AC posts

      Hay! I take uxsecption to that coment!

    2. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Xerp · · Score: 1

      They are simply aiming, correctly, at their target audience.

    3. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by JimmehAH · · Score: 5, Informative

      The description at Sophos (an AV firm) might be easier on the brain (i.e. not get anyone's grammar hackles up).

      Troj/BankAsh-A

    4. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by dwlovell · · Score: 5, Funny

      Literal? Come on - this reads worse than half of the AC posts in YRO. I hate playing the grammar nazi, but this was painful to read...

      See what happens when you RTFA!!!

      -David

    5. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Me fail english? That's unpossible!

    6. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by PatientZero · · Score: 3, Funny
      A spyware what?

      A designer suit that never wrinkles or gets dirty, of course.

      --
      Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
      I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
    7. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by joebubba · · Score: 3, Funny

      Irregardless, the article is written to be user orientated. ;)

    8. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck does irregardless mean?

    9. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, there's articles behind those links?

    10. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what the fuck does "orientated" mean?

    11. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't mean "It's the content, not the wrapping" would you?

    12. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by hdparm · · Score: 1

      Oh, the irony!

    13. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      The news itself might be interest,

      Is there a law stating that posts with corrections must contain errors?

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    14. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The artical was architected, you mean.

    15. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      This was obviously written by a native Indian in Hindi and run through the fish.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    16. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from dictionary.com:
      irregardless
      adv. Nonstandard
      definition: Regardless. [Probably blend of irrespective, and regardless.]

      Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

    17. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      again from dictionary.com:
      orientate
      v. orientated, orientating, orientates
      v. tr.

      To orient: "He... stood for a moment, orientating himself exactly in the light of his knowledge" (John le Carré).

      v. intr.

      To face or turn to the east.

    18. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A designer suit that never wrinkles or gets dirty, of course.

      The kind of suit James Bond wears?

    19. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      For those not in the know.. This a quote by Ralph Wiggum, son to Chief Wiggum of the Springfield police department. Lisa failed PE and Ralph failed English.. which we all know is unpossible.

    20. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Trojan also removes important entries of the antispyware in the registry and thus literal kills the antispyware

      Hey, don't doubt the usefullness of this trojan. In a few months when MS sticks its anti spyware stuff in a service pack that does a direct patch into the kernel, people will be using the virus as a tool to remove it :)

    21. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      You're begging the question here, but the argument you raise vis-a-vis spyware is very cromulent pro bono.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    22. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by KermitJunior · · Score: 1

      On another note: Microsoft's anti-spyware actually works after the trojan and deletes all files and folders in C:\WINDOWS

      --
      There is a Universal Life Value Check it
  2. Patch Will Be Available Soon by fembots · · Score: 5, Funny

    Preview here

    1. Re:Patch Will Be Available Soon by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
      Preview here

      I thought they already had that ... in Clippy!

      "it looks like you're trying to open a trojan attachment to your email, would you like to

      Quarrantine the file

      Delete the file

      Open the attachment anyway

      Have me wipe your files and route the contents of your savings account to Microsoft for safe keeping?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Patch Will Be Available Soon by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      o...m...g...

      I think you've just found the ideal use for Clippy! You're a genius!

  3. May I be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    [Nelson] Ha Haa! [/Nelson]

    Seriously, they had it coming. Microsoft needs to eat more of its own dog food.

  4. Yeah by The+Bungi · · Score: 5, Informative
    The good news is that it's a Trojan, so one still has to bother with running an attached file.

    Not that that has ever prevented Slashdot from reporting things like these as "vulnerabilities".

    1. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news, Linux systems are vulnerable to a well placed blow by a hammer.

    2. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      "vulnerabilities" is terse and more polite than the truth.

      User of microsoft windows continue to be diligent in running whatever piece of software comes in an email attachment. Sometimes the mail program will launch the file automatically, but independant reports show users will click on anything and everything presented to them. There doesn't seem to be this problem in the unix world where safegaurds exist to prevent the modification of files outside the users home directory. Given the abundancy of idiots in the world today, this problem is expected to persist for a long, long time.

      yeah, windows has a vulnerability, and that vulnerability is clueless users.

    3. Re:Yeah by jacksonj04 · · Score: 4, Funny

      There must be a joke about being able to fix it by configuring bash in here somewhere...

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    4. Re:Yeah by hdparm · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, bash is too slow for this - I use this firewall rule:

      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -i any -p hammer --state BLOW -j DROP

    5. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did ask me to "Hit any key to continue..."

    6. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Headline!: UNIX bashing vulnerabiliy, don't use hammers!

    7. Re:Yeah by dustinc20 · · Score: 1

      I have to say amen to this. This isnt a vulnerability, no more than a malicious batch file was in the dos days. If you ran it blindly you got what you deserved. MY windows box with MS's antispyware runs fine, and will continue to. That's sensationalist news brought you by elitist pricks for ya.

      --
      :: if you outlaw outlaws, only the.. no wait
    8. Re:Yeah by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      That's sensationalist news brought you by elitist pricks for ya.

      Is that supposed to be grammar?

    9. Re:Yeah by JaffaKREE · · Score: 1

      I think you were looking for "My bash shell is made of solid titanium and completely encases the system."

    10. Re:Yeah by dustinc20 · · Score: 1

      whoops.. it was late gimme a break. you got the point

      --
      :: if you outlaw outlaws, only the.. no wait
    11. Re:Yeah by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -i any -p hammer --state BLOW -j DROP

      With options like "--state BLOW" and "-A INPUT -i any" I just know there's a dirty joke to be made. Perhaps about bukkake.

  5. Trojan attacks MS software shocker. by BluhDeBluh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, nobody ever expected a trojan to attack a piece of free MS software. I mean, look at Outlook. And Internet Explorer.

    And in other news - "Google" gaining marketshare with "PageRank" technology

    1. Re:Trojan attacks MS software shocker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "PageRank"

      Cool. Does anyone have the W3C docs for the "" tag and its options?

  6. Best Antispyware... by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The best antispyware is buy a Mac, or install your favourite distro.

    Sorry, but there it is.

    It gets tiring fighting the broken dam, you can't hold all the water back forever.

    1. Re:Best Antispyware... by JQuick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The parent was moderated "Troll"?

      Obviously it touched a nerve for somebody.

      The bottom line is that currently spyware is only a problem on Windows. Thus, running any viable alternative to Windows is the most effective way of avoiding spyware at the moment.

      Running a GNU Linux distro, any of the BSDs, or Macos X are all viable options, and arguably the most efficient solution to the problem of spyware.

      Granted, many might find these options unsuitable for a variety of reasons. However, labeling that suggestion a Troll does not make it untrue. Wasting time and CPU to either spyware or anti-spyware software both seem objectionable. Systems which provide desired functionality, and do not require additional effort to continue functioning normally are a sensible choice for many.

    2. Re:Best Antispyware... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Sorry, but there it is."

      Believe it or not, a lot of us are running Windows 2k/XP without these problems. Yes, I'm not using IE. Yes, I'm not using Outlook Express. Yes, I'm behind a firewall. I'm not claiming to be 100% secure, but buying a Mac or switching to Linux would do little to improve my computing experience. Never mind the stuff I wouldn't be able to do because I use software that isn't 100% supported.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Best Antispyware... by bonch · · Score: 1

      No system is perfectly secure, but probably the best reason not to use Windows would be that you have to run with full administrator privileges most any app. Not that way on Linux, and even on OS X when you have an Admin account, you're not actually running as root.

      Frankly, I'm surprised that after ten years of development on the NT product line by some very smart people, the introduction of it as the consumer codebase with Windows XP still required administrator privileges for just about everything. Granted, a lot of it was a problem of how the applications were written, but they should have then implemented some sort of protective sandbox for older apps. Microsoft never pushed the idea of moving things into a non-admin account. I'm not sure if they're doing it for Longhorn, either (I haven't heard anything, and I follow the news on Longhorn).

    4. Re:Best Antispyware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most any app" is a lie.. Damn I wish people would actually use a RECENT copy of Windows to test out some of this crap that they like to spew off.

    5. Re:Best Antispyware... by JQuick · · Score: 3, Informative


      Believe it or not, a lot of us are running Windows 2k/XP without these problems.


      I believe you. Large numbers of users are not affected by these problems. However, a large percentage of users are adversely affected. Your experience appears to be atypical.

      Yes, I'm not using IE. Yes, I'm not using Outlook Express. Yes, I'm behind a firewall. I'm not claiming to be 100% secure, but buying a Mac or switching to Linux would do little to improve my computing experience. Never mind the stuff I wouldn't be able to do because I use software that isn't 100% supported.


      How ironic. You describe the safety of your current environment, and dismiss alternatives using identical criteria. You claim that an alternative to windows would not improve your situation, and support this claim by alluding to things which you could no longer do (presumably because you rely on programs which exist only on Windows.) What's ironic is that you do so after implying that you owe part of your safety not running several other programs.

      So, you are comparatively safe, and content with your environment. Good for you, I do not begrudge you that. However, your statements strike me as disingenuous. You blithely gloss over the fact that there are already things you cannot do (programs you cannot run) just to remain safer in your chosen environment.

      Call me old fashioned, but something is terribly wrong when a user cannot use the software bundled with their system, in the way it was intended to be used, without compromising the safety or performance of the system. Computers should serve their users. They should not break or degrade because the user actually runs the software as intended by the designers.

      Your anecdotal evidence suggests that you are not as cozy as you claim. A wider view of the situation suggests that your reported condition is far from the general case.

      A recent study commissioned by AOL and the National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA), suggested that the majority of home users are adversely affected by spyware and other malware.

      The NSCA is supported by the Homeland Security Department and the FTC. It is also supported by a large number of tech corporations with either financial or political lobbying interest in computer security: the board of directors includes representatives from Cisco, Symantec, RSA Security, McAfee, Microsoft, and Bell South.

      This group strikes me is far from impartial, as each member (public or private) has significant interest in publicizing (or magnifying) certain security risks. These vested interests should suggest we take the report with a grain of salt. Despite this, the results are quite interesting.

      They polled a random sample of (PC using) AOL subscribers and also gained access to their computers to inspect them for viruses and malware. They found that:

      77% considered themselves safe from threats.
      66% had been infected with a virus in the past.
      20% were currently infected with viruses.
      80% were currently infected by spyware (averaging 93 sypwares/host)
      89% of owners with infected PCs were unaware of these conditions.

      The survey's margin of error was +/- 5.4%

      These are home users, business users, and highly technical users are sure to be better protected on average.

      Despite this, the protection of businesses comes at very high costs measured in hardware/software/wages/training. Sophisticated home users also spend additional time and/or money protecting themselves.

      Here are links to pdf files containing a press release and summary of the raw data.

      http://www.staysafeonline.info/news/NCSA-AOLIn-Hom eStudyRelease.pdf
      http://www.staysafeonline.info/news/safety_study_v 04.pdf

    6. Re:Best Antispyware... by pr0c · · Score: 1

      jo_ham (604554): The best antispyware is buy a Mac, or install your favourite distro.

      I have to disagree, while there are ignorant users this will continue no matter the OS/platform used. Easily half of this stuff comes from users WILLINGLY installing it... see Kazaa, et al.

    7. Re:Best Antispyware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent is lying. Eh... I'm lying

      WTF!! why are you bothering reading AC comments?

    8. Re:Best Antispyware... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Granted, a lot of it was a problem of how the applications were written,

      No, the problem is *entirely* with how the apps are written. Almost all the software I use at work does not require admin privilegs, because it was specifically targetted at the NT line. How software, however, has always been targetted at the 9x line, where security was a bad joke. The upshot of this is that we have a lot of programmers and companies that know next to nothing about writing Windows software correctly, at least with respect to security and access privileges. That is slowly changing, but it's not going to happen over night.

      I agree that MS should have pushed the concept of non-admin account use harder; but they're hands are somewhat tied by the above. I would expect Longhorn to go a lot further in this respect, but am ready to be disappointed...

    9. Re:Best Antispyware... by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Show me an example of spyware that is installed on the Mac via filesharing programs or some other user initiated action.

      The only thing I can think of is the fake MS Office installer that is nothing more than a script that deletes your home folder.

      As far as I know, there is /no/ spyware for the Mac. Pretty sure there isn't any for Linux either. If there is, it's nowhere near the epidemic proportions that exist on Windows.

    10. Re:Best Antispyware... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Thank god for obscurity. By this I mean that as long as there is a "mainstream" OS that most people use, the other OS systems will enjoy being out of the malware spotlight, avoiding the brunt of the attacks.

      Elevate your favorite OS to the same market share and desktop percentage as windows and I guarantee that the number of viruses, trojans, spyware, malware, etc. for it will multiply insanely. In short order you will have the same nature of problems, just not with the same exact security holes.

      I am not saying that different OS models do not have advantages over Windows when it comes to security, BTW. That would be moronic.

      The reason I say this is because people have always done this sort of thing. If there is a way to sabotage, adulterate, hijack, or manipulate something for personal gain or mischief, someone will find out how to do it. Given that the people that have the ability to write code are pretty smart to begin with this just makes the problem that much worse.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    11. Re:Best Antispyware... by pr0c · · Score: 1

      In the short term which may be just weeks or months you are correct, there is much fewer malicious programs floating around for non Windows computers. Do not fool yourself into believing that it is not coming!

      Your statement however "The best antispyware is buy a Mac, or install your favourite distro." is no where near true, in fact it is pure bullshit... The best anitspyware is to educate yourself about 1.) the sources of spyware 2.) prevention (browser and software choices) 3.) and cleaning it.

  7. Trojan Man? by LordPhantom · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am I the only one who was humming the "Trojan Man" theme song while I read this?

    1. Re:Trojan Man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That commercial got canned for a reason.

    2. Re:Trojan Man? by merdaccia · · Score: 5, Funny

      God I hope so.

      --

      *blinking cursor*

    3. Re:Trojan Man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      i was humming "the muffin man"

    4. Re:Trojan Man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i was humming "the muffin man"
      A pox on you and your house. I wasn't, but now it's stuck in my head. Grrrrrr.....

    5. Re:Trojan Man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have owned many bitches on this day. Try again soon, and may others bear great witness.

    6. Re:Trojan Man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      When they talk about Trojans exploiting holes, what else are you supposed to think of?

  8. Old news by DietCoke · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This was reported on a ton of sites yesterday.

    There's no "new" in this news, fellas...

    1. Re:Old news by MankyD · · Score: 1

      I didn't know about it.

      --
      -dave
      http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
    2. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdot is not here to break news.
      Slashdot is here to point us to interesting things on sites which we would not normally visit.

      As a result of that, it is a _requirement_ for other sites to have covered the issue first.

      Don't complain just because you don't understand how slashdot works - by your UID you've been here enough years that you should have figured it out by now.

    3. Re:Old news by DietCoke · · Score: 1

      "Slashdot is not here to break news."

      No, Slashdot is here to break servers.

      I've certainly figured it out by now how Slashdot works. The point is that this story was on a lot of sites that are cited here every day. I enjoy interesting articles, but this one comes off as filler.

  9. how long before patch? by dealdetectives · · Score: 0

    lets hope microsoft gets patches out for their spyware/anti-virus software alot faster than their OS

    1. Re:how long before patch? by beerman2k · · Score: 1

      A patch? Its a Trojan Horse. You can't patch against this, there's no bug. If I gave you a binary that erases your hard drive...
      what the heck can the OS do to stop it?

    2. Re:how long before patch? by Tjoppen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about denying your user write access to system related folders?

    3. Re:how long before patch? by beerman2k · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that regular users can't write the "C:\program files" directory on Windows XP.

    4. Re:how long before patch? by rewt66 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Regular users"? Come on, this is Windows we're talking about here. Granted, you can run as other than administrator, and if your head is bolted on tight, you do, but realistically... how many people do that? One percent? And they're the smart ones, who aren't as likely to run a trojan in the first place.

      I think the trojan is probably pretty safe from that particular OS protection...

    5. Re:how long before patch? by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >I'm pretty sure that regular users can't write
      >the "C:\program files" directory on Windows XP.

      I wonder if the trojan is hard coded for that folder or get the default program forlder from Windows. some localized versions of Windows (for example the swedish one) uses another default folder name for program installation. MOst program handle that but some insist to go for "program files" no matter what.

    6. Re:how long before patch? by beerman2k · · Score: 1

      i would think then, if real programmers can't be bothered to get it right, then why would virus writers :)

  10. It could be worse.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They could have taken a working product, repackage it, only to have it compromised less than a month after their re-release.

    Wait, nevermind.

    1. Re:It could be worse.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      They could have taken a working product, repackage it, only to have it compromised less than a month after their re-release.

      Wait, nevermind.

      So how is this Microsoft's fault?

    2. Re:It could be worse.. by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is so bad. If all the trojan is doing is deleting the folder, they can just have it install in a different folder. It has to be re-downloaded and installed once a month so this shouldn't be a problem.

  11. Wait for it....wait...wait.... by WordODD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How long till the Slashbots come out in droves proclaiming M$ sucks and their spyware removal sucks and they should all go to hell because a trojan(more like a crappy little batch file) is able to disable their program. Nevermind the fact that with the way this program works it would be just as effective on AdAware or SpyBot...and nevermind the fact that before running this trojan the MS spyware program TELLS YOU NOT TO!!

    --
    Please do not let scientific accuracy interfere with the intended humourous/interesting/insightful value of this comment
    1. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Juanvaldes · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised it took this long and that it does not also target Ad-Aware / Spybot. But what downright shocks me is how a cute little troll was not added to the article and rather a calm statement that this is not in fact spyware.

    2. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by kngthdn · · Score: 2

      Well, I can see you're very excited about this!

      You are completely right, though. I'm sick of reading all the negative reviews of AntiSpyware compared to all the others. Hello? Whoever's writing these reviews? It doesn't matter if it doesn't "find" a piece of spyware. It *prevents* spyware from ever installing in the first place. Right now, it has 59 Win32 system hooks installed on my computer, and believe me, nothing is getting past. I have it pop up twice a day just to warn me when I try to run my DOS games...it detects the .bat files.

      It's quite good, and it also does not change your IE homepage to be msn.com. I know, because mine is still about:blank, the way I set it. Just click no when it asks...sheesh.

      Give it a shot, turn on the system hooks, and you might be impressed.

    3. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 4, Funny
      How long till the Slashbots come out in droves proclaiming M$ sucks and their spyware removal sucks and they should all go to hell because a trojan(more like a crappy little batch file) is able to disable their program.
      Well, it's been 40 minutes so far, and still no sign. How about you shut the fuck up?
      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    4. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How long till the Slashbots come out in droves proclaiming M$ sucks and their spyware removal sucks and they should all go to hell because a trojan(more like a crappy little batch file) is able to disable their program. Nevermind the fact that with the way this program works it would be just as effective on AdAware or SpyBot...and nevermind the fact that before running this trojan the MS spyware program TELLS YOU NOT TO!!

      Yeah! It's not like MS would have any more knowledge of the internals of Windows than a couple of tiny 3rd party outfits or have any undocumented hooks or techniques that would allow them to prevent this. Give the poor MS a break. Size != Capability.

    5. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by dubstar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I've found the MS AntiSpyware software has been quite good. I first tried it on a machine where Adaware and Spybot had already been run (with the newest defs available), the MS one still found 13 instances (some 67 files/keys) of known spyware AND was able to remove them. Adaware and Spybot just don't seem to cut it anymore.

    6. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have it installed and it has caught *nothing* since being installed... luckily AVG is up to scratch.

      I routinely run .bat files and it has never fired on one of those... why would it? Whoever heard of a .bat virus?

    7. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by rewt66 · · Score: 1

      "That would allow them to prevent this"? You're kidding, right? The only way to prevent this is to not allow MS Anti-spyware to be disabled - ever - once it's installed. Let MS try that and see how loud the screaming on /. is...

    8. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by kngthdn · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't have the system hooks turned on.And, yes, a batch file can destroy your computer. Think "format /s c:" here.

      Everybody seems to miss this:

      1) Open AntiSpyware's main window
      2) Click on "real time protection"
      3) Then click on each of the 3 agents...Internet (9 checkpoints), System (25 checkpoints), and Application (25 checkpoints)
      4) Enable *all* of the checkpoints...they are Win32 system hooks...
      5) Try installing some spyware. ; ) It won't work.

      Also, don't fool yourself, antivirus software does not protect against spyware.

    9. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are all these hooks on by default? Because all I can think is "great, another app that incessantly pops up dialogs that condition users to click whatever button makes the damn things go away"

    10. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The only way to prevent this is to not allow MS Anti-spyware to be disabled - ever - once it's installed.

      You clearly don't have a clue.

    11. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by ArgieNomad · · Score: 1

      1) Loved the "Slashbots" part 2) "the MS spyware program TELLS YOU..." c'mon dude, it's a MS product, since when do you pay attention to what they TELL YOU?

      --
      I just read /. for the sigs
    12. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Oh the delicious irony, the world's biggest, most powerful software company's response to a crippling spyware threat can be disabled by "... a crappy little batch file.." and you take 'Slashbots' to task. You have religion.

    13. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by WordODD · · Score: 1

      You would be surprised how much weight some of my users put into those little warnings XP gives you time and time again. Not that they pay any attention at all to what Internet Explorer or Firefox tell them though. I wish I knew why they don't put as much stock into those warnings.

      --
      Please do not let scientific accuracy interfere with the intended humourous/interesting/insightful value of this comment
    14. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh the delicious irony, a retarded zealot talking about "having religion"

    15. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      You have to watch being that cocky.

      When you're *so* sure that you're so safe, that's the day some piece of spyware is going to sneak in through a new MSIE exploit, log all your passwords, find all your credit credit card numbers, and swoosh them off to some hacker in [insert evil country here], where they'll proceed to read your webmail, buy porn and money orders with your credit cards, and lock you out of everything you do online.

      Every time I look at a Windows machine, I ask myself, "Is this machine safe?" The answer is very rarely "yes".

      What's more fun is the expression on your face next week. It's usually just about a week after you feel all cocky about something, that it'll come back to bite you. You'll end up turning to a friend like me (not me, but someone who knows their shit), and asking for help. That smug smile that you're wearing now, as you talk about the 59 Win32 hooks, will become tainted with the flavor of week old ego.

      And maybe that day, you will ask yourself, "So maybe all these *nix guys have it right. They don't get spyware, adware, and viruses. To keep their box secure, all they have to do is disable outside accessable ports."

      Since it's been mentioned, I'm considering putting antispyware on the machine immediately to my right. But I'm writing this from my Linux machine, where I don't worry that a piece of spyware may have just captured my Slashdot user:pass.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    16. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Whoever heard of a .bat virus?

      @for %%i in (a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z) do copy natalie_portman_hotgrits.jpg.bat %%i:\
      @explorer http://goat.cx/

      Enjoy!

    17. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Why would it even ask to change your homepage? What does this have to do with spyware removal.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    18. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by malfunct · · Score: 1

      And if your browser of choice had a flaw that was popular enough that someone decided to exploit it and they will steal any data that is readable by your user (credit card numbers ect would probably be readable by your user, I doubt most people would su to read data) and send it off where they want.

      Furthermore, you can turn off outside ports in windows if you so desire, there is even a nice gui to help you, its called the services manager.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    19. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Retarted"? Always good to see the pre-teens posting.

    20. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh the delicious irony! The slashbot pulls out a "pre-teen" flame and then misspells the word retarded in typical pre-teen fashion. Did I say "Oh the delicious irony!"?

    21. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Thorwak · · Score: 0

      I scanned a user's computer using MS AntiSpyware. It found 17000+ "infected" reg keys. However, only about 12000 were actually scanned (or so it said in the same report window) so it must be very good. :-P

      It did well though since all the "cute" toolbars etc etc were removed.

      --
      Connection closed by foreign host.
    22. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Thorwak · · Score: 0

      Easy: They already know they are doing something they shouldn't when they browse certain types of pages.

      --
      Connection closed by foreign host.
    23. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because many pieces of spyware will reset your home page to [insert porn site here]. You would be surprised - or maybe not - of the number of people out there that do not know how to change thier homepage. MS just makes it a bit easier for them by asking them if they want to keep the current homepage or change it to something else

    24. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      Parent is a troll. These trolls have been around for a while and yet moderators still fall for them. The How long until x slashdot user makes some statement... posts have been getting rather annoying and it always seems to be the same folks doing it too. If you don't want to see M$ sux0rz posts, then you need to view at +2/+3 because often times, those guys don't get modded up.

      Score:-1, Troll

    25. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.
      I just love Slashdot for the incoherent ramblings of illiterate teenagers.

    26. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by imroy · · Score: 1

      Under windows there is a list of "executable" file extensions. It includes things like exe, com, bat, cmd, dll(?), scr, pif, etc. If windows encounters one of these files and is told "open it", it will assume it's executable no matter what. It will look at the start of the file to discover what "type" it is and how to handle it. e.g binary executable to be loaded natively, a bat/cmd file to be sent off to cmd.exe, a VBS/WSH file to be sent off to the WSH interpreter, etc. So the contents of a file don't have to match the file extension. That's a trick that many worms use. They have a .pif extension or something that the user doesn't recognize. The unsuspecting user thinks "I wonder what this is?" and double-clicks on it. The file is actually an executable and it goes off to do its wormy evilness. All thanks to the naivety of the user and Windows' broad description of what an executable is.

    27. Re:Wait for it....wait...wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was sarcasm, hence the quotes. Get some rest.

  12. And in other news by cr0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Viruses shut down norton antivirus.

    I mean really, who didn't see this coming?

    --

    ItWasFree.com - Take the mystery
    1. Re:And in other news by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 5, Informative

      Believe it or not, someone's actually documented this.

      Norton 2005 gets pimpslapped by a .vbs file WITH SCRIPT BLOCKING ON.

      Warning: Link is to .swf file. Flash player required.

      --

      Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
    2. Re:And in other news by 3.09+a+hour · · Score: 1

      Who didnt see a trojan out before a program came out of beta? Me. Just another reason to install into non-standard folders.

      --
      Like the saying goes, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -Pyrotic
    3. Re:And in other news by Nik13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And they tend to do other nasty things like prevent running regedit and other system tools/AV, process hiding, using filenames that look like system processes, and a whole host of nasty tricks.

      It wouldn't be surprising if they started attacting other things like norton's expiry dates/licenses as well, or plain corrupting some registry entries necessary for apps to run. (How long before they replace legit windows keys with the FCKGW ones so people can't get updates anymore?) I won't be surprised either when they start coming up with more advanced techniques against other antispyware apps, or tools like HijackThis. It's pretty much inevitable.

      As most lusers run as admins (and use IE, to make things worse), they could do a LOT of evil things if they get imaginative. But that won't make the lusers learn or anything. They'll just keep putting up with it and do nothing.

      --
      ///<sig />
    4. Re:And in other news by Deathlizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hell. Spyware deletes Adaware if you want a precedent. There's a CWS varient that will close ANY antispyware app for months now. The most interesting one I've seen is one that host blackholes adaware to a site that downloads outdated ad-aware defs and redirects most of the popular download locations to one of the billion or so "The most wonderful spam me to death Search site in the world!!!" site.

      A lot of spyware out there disables the anti-spyware that exists either by deleting it or not allowing it to update to get the latest defs. Just because their now targeting the MS antispyware offering as well as the other offerings they target 1) doesn't suprise me and 2) shouldn't suprise anybody else.

      The real question is going to be if they can stop it from happening in the next beta release. I doubt they can, but it might be able to protect itself with it's real time scanning engine by not allowing you to modify the directory without your express permission or the registry keys it uses.

    5. Re:And in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha, you know how sometimes you read something wrong and think "that can't be right" and so you read it twice but again read it wrong?

      Twice I read this post as:
      Norton 2005 gets pimpslapped by a .vbs file WITH SCRIPT BLOCKING ON

      Warning: Link is to a .vbs file.

    6. Re:And in other news by ggambett · · Score: 1

      Well, you'd guess since the MS guys made the kernel and the tool, they should be able to at least stop some random piece of code from disabling it, right?

    7. Re:And in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to say that's a fairly crap feature to begin with because anything you can do from VBScript, you can do from any other language.

      As they say on Unixworld, root can always shoot himself in the foot.

    8. Re:And in other news by El+Gordo+Motoneta · · Score: 1

      MAN, that swf file takes long to reboot! ;o)

    9. Re:And in other news by Wizarth · · Score: 1

      Did you notice, he isn't running XP SP2 (it still uses the old startup screen). I wonder if that would have made a difference.

    10. Re:And in other news by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 1

      Because it's a VMWare container, that's why. No one in their right minds tests anything on their main systems.

      --

      Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
  13. Re:Are you surpised? by czarangelus · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know it's immature but...

    Let me be the first to say, PWN3D!!!1one!!1

    --
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
  14. And it's a sure bet... by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That by the end of this week CoolWebSearch "affiliates" will be bundling it with their software to ensure that they remain undetected (except by HijackThis, Ad-Aware, and Spybot).

    --

    Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
    1. Re:And it's a sure bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a simple script that deletes files.

      What makes HijackThis, Ad-Aware or Spybot immune to being deleted?

    2. Re:And it's a sure bet... by Synbiosis · · Score: 1

      Bah, Ad-Aware and Spybot are less effective against HSA (The new version of CoolWeb) than Microsoft Antispyware.

      I spent last saturday removing it, and after running HijackThis, Ad-Aware, Spybot, and Antispyware, MS caught things that neither Ad-Aware or Spybot did.

  15. Trojan MAAAANN by TheDarkener · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Hey kids, looks like you're about ready to infect!"

    "YEAH!"

    "Better use Trojan, the world's most trusted MSAntiSpywareDisabler!"

    "YEAH!"

    "...Now with extra lubricant!"

    "...."

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Trojan MAAAANN by purple_cobra · · Score: 1

      I have long remained curious about the reason for calling a condom 'Trojan'. Do a bunch of soldiers jump out of it when you open the packet? Or, worse still, *while you're having sex*? Perhaps they only fit (wooden) horses?

    2. Re:Trojan MAAAANN by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      A trojan is historically a program that does something malicious while appearing to the user that it is doing something good. Such as a game that also opens a back door for your computer to be remotely controlled. I have no idea why the condom company uses it. Maybe because when you least expect it, thousands of little men burst out and cause lots of problems.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Trojan MAAAANN by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, given that Paris was probably the most famous trojan, and stole the most beautiful woman in the world from her husband, I could probably outline a few theories.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    4. Re:Trojan MAAAANN by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Because ever since that fateful day in Troy, whenever someone gets wood, they think of Trojans...

  16. Re:Are you surpised? by rokzy · · Score: 2

    not surprising since their "focus on security" similarly led them to release a firewall that didn't activate until after the internet connection was established and could be remotely disabled anyway.

  17. I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Trojans were supposed to reduce the risk of viruses.

  18. Blocker blocker blocker... by Indy+Media+Watch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    None of this is a surprise and a series of new malware tools attempt to disable various protective services.

    For example, deleting the MSI Installer Service such that when you try to install something like SpySweeper the installer won't work properly.

    Alternatively, killing Antivirus or Personal Firewall processes or placing known good-guy websites in the restricted zone of Internet Explorer.

    The 'solution' IMHO is to have multiple layers of defence and to some extent, perhaps to use less popular tools (i.e. not McAfee and Norton) which won't be on the malware's 'hitlist'.

    I know security through obscurity isn't a solution, but in this case, security through not being one of the masses may be.

    I say this having spent nearly a whole day trying to remove Spyware from a friend's laptop.

    --

    Indy Media Watch-Proctologist of the Internet

    1. Re:Blocker blocker blocker... by Auckerman · · Score: 1

      "The 'solution' IMHO is to have multiple layers of defence and to some extent, perhaps to use less popular tools (i.e. not McAfee and Norton) which won't be on the malware's 'hitlist'."



      Why not have true user level file permissions and make it 100% impossible to delete applications without giving a password? Works for the Unix world. Works on this Mac I'm typing from. It still doesn't work for Windows? That's sad.
      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    2. Re:Blocker blocker blocker... by omicronish · · Score: 1

      It still doesn't work for Windows? That's sad.

      True file permissions do exist, but unfortunately most users run as Administrator, thus negating those permissions. That's the sad part :( But if you're a competent user, you can help protect yourself by running as a regular user account. You don't run as root all the time on Linux, and similarly on Windows, don't run as Administrator all the time.

      You can also get a Mac like the parent poster has.

    3. Re:Blocker blocker blocker... by Trepalium · · Score: 1

      And if you're very, very lucky, all your programs/games/utilities will work as a non-Administrator user. Very few apps are designed to run as non-Administrator even today (what do you mean, I can't write arbitrary values to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE?), and if you're constantly using "Run As..." you're not that much more protected than those who run as Administrator all the time.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    4. Re:Blocker blocker blocker... by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      I know security through obscurity isn't a solution, but in this case, security through not being one of the masses may be.

      Well, there is a difference between security through obscurity in the algorithm sense, and security through obscurity in the 'dont tell theives where you live' sense. Any malware that is able to determine what you are running is then able to decide if it can disable it or not. Take away step one, and they are just left with a hit list of things that are able to be disabled, and if 'the masses' use the same thing the virus maker will make an explicit attempt to put that thing on the hit list.
      It's the same thing that happened to Outlook, IE, and any program used by enough of a population. It's not security through obscurity, it's security through variety, the same phenomenon that happens with actual epidemics.

    5. Re:Blocker blocker blocker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security through obscurity...seems to have worked for Linux so far ;)

    6. Re:Blocker blocker blocker... by omicronish · · Score: 1

      Actually, very little of the programs I use need Administrator privileges, and I can go for days without running anything as admin. I code, debug, do CS homework, and yes, even play games as a regular user. Another comment on this story posted this interesting link on non-admin tips. For games, making the game directory read-writable by all users also helps in a lot of cases; this is because a lot of games for some stupid reason store save games in the game directory instead of the user's profile. The former is typically read-only to users since it's in C:\Program Files.

    7. Re:Blocker blocker blocker... by Fortran+IV · · Score: 1

      And if you're very, very lucky, all your programs/games/utilities will work as a non-Administrator user. Very few apps are designed to run as non-Administrator even today...

      Bollocks. The only time I ever run as Administrator--at home or at work--is when I'm installing, uninstalling, or getting at secure data on another machine, and I quit using "Run As" altogether because it screwed up so often. None of my users ever run as Administrator. We have several third-party apps, all of which can be run as User or Power User (although we do have one idiot app that uses DCOM, and tells you to use dcomcnfg to give everybody Full Control over a bunch of settings).

      And no, I haven't gone around tweaking security settings in the registry or giving everybody Full Control of C:\Windows.

      --
      I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
    8. Re:Blocker blocker blocker... by Indy+Media+Watch · · Score: 1

      It's a double edged sword unfortunately.

      I tried installing Windows into a directory called "Ni" instead (i.e. C:\ni instead of C:\Windows) to stop things attacking stuff in its default location.

      Unfortunately there was a lot of collateral damage where applications couldn't find DLLs where they were expected.

      Of course this does not happen on my various Mac whose Hard Drives (root directory) have been called everything from Homer to Cartman for the last decade :-)

      --

      Indy Media Watch-Proctologist of the Internet

    9. Re:Blocker blocker blocker... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Brings some thoughts to mind. The windows registry. Worst Idea Ever. There I said it. Let's store all the configuration for every single program, including the operating system a single file that can be read and written by everyone. Then, Let's make this file so incredibly complex, that once it a while it will become corrupted, and everything will have to be reinstalled from scratch.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:Blocker blocker blocker... by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 1

      Weird. For years I've run it from E:\WINXP, with only NTLDR, boot.ini etc. on C:\, and "My Documents" elsewhere still. Not to mention the differences between different language versions (nearly all recent installers know I don't have anything called "C:\Program Files".) I think all the DLL issues I had were due to multiple versions floating around (what with many apps coming with their own GNU tools or GTK DLLs), not due to hardcoded directories. Can't say I know how exactly this works, I'm just surprised going with a non-defaultish %windir% would cause problems.

  19. literally. by de1orean · · Score: 1

    R'ing TFA made me literally weep and gnash my teeth. literally.

  20. forgot link on MPAA site by Dr.Knackerator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    http://www.mpaa.org/CurrentReleases/2005_02_10_Bit Torrent_Lokitorrent_FINAL.doc

  21. Beta version by Indy+Media+Watch · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article: "Microsoft Antispyware is still in its Beta version (experimental version).

    It's a bit early to point the finger.

    --

    Indy Media Watch-Proctologist of the Internet

    1. Re:Beta version by irokitt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also worth noting, how many viruses/trojans/whatever have started by disabling Norton, or McAfee, or Network Associates? High profile anti-virus programs get targeted for removal all the time. So this isn't just Microsoft's bag.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    2. Re:Beta version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our software has ALWAYS been beta.

    3. Re:Beta version by KwKSilver · · Score: 1

      I dunno, MS has been giving us the finger for years.

      --
      If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
  22. Do you work using restricted accounts by McDutchie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    All the more reason to do all your real work under a user account with limited privileges and definitely never to allow others who use your computer to run with administrative privileges. Since nothing can touch C:\Program Files from a regular user account, the trojan would be ineffectual.

    For all its security efforts, Microsoft continues to let users run as administrator by default, which is downright irresponsible. I just spent an evening cleaning an acquaintance's computer of a persistent, multiple spyware infection because of this policy of Microsoft. Needless to say I created separate restricted user accounts for all members in the household, but the Microsoft installer should have done this from the beginning! You cannot expect regular users to do anything except go with the default.

    I also installed Firefox, and set all of the Internet Exploder security settings on "High" on all accounts except the administrator one (so that Windows Update can be run).

    1. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by cephyn · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that when a user tries to install something, like a game, or maybe TurboTax, they have problems. If they can't figure out how to keep their computer clean, they're not going to understand why they need to be restricted on their own personal system. And they definitely won't be able to understand how to log in as admin, install, set permissions on use, log out and then log back in as the regular user.

      It's just too inconvenient for the neurotypical user.

      --
      Moo.
    2. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately working as a 'mere user' in Windows is a complete pain in the ass. Sure, it has 'run as' functionality---which is crippled. You can't even start Windows Explorer with admin privileges. (Well, you can, but only with an ugly hack.) Pathetic.

      "Playing" as a mere user is even worse. Doom3 doesn't work. Most (or all) EA games don't work.

      Windows still is not a true multiuser system. Get back to me when I can run the damn file browser as super user, and Joe Six Pack can play games as a restricted user.

    3. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the question is, do these acquaintances have enough know how to go into the admin account and do their Windows Update? Is this system using the typical multi-login? If so do they knwo to go into Safe Mode to go into their Admin account? Do they know how to turn the multilogin off or have you done that for them already? If you haven't, it sounds like you are either adding to your workload when things break down, adding to your workload when they want to install something, or adding to your workload every bloody time a security patch comes out. Granted, they could do RunAs but that has never been THAT secure and most people won't bother with that and will go right back to making themselves an Admin at that point. Kind of defeats the purpose. We just have to face it, 90% (yes, pulled that number out of thin air) of the programs Windows users install need admin priviledges in order to place heaps of crap in the registry and system folders. Until programmers (including Microsoft) learn how to make installers which are user friendly (ie. user shit stays with user account completely, thereby limiting damage to systems) instead of wanting full rights to put anything and everything where it wants to, we will have this problem. All systems with any kind of security have these problems, some programmers have learned to deal with it better then others though. It's about time some of the UNIX practices made their way into Windows. Better yet, to all Windows programmers and software houses out there, start talking to *NIX and OSX developers and start a good dialogue as to how things can better be implemented. Personally, I'm not worried about DLL hell or library hell for that matter, as long as my shit stays with me and I can install things that won't bring the bloody system down.

    4. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by rokzy · · Score: 1

      yes, the system you describe is inconvenient, but what about the Mac OS X method?

      -can have admin prviledges on your regular account but require admin password enter for important actions
      -option to lock system settings via a padlock icon (to require password next time)

      the best of both worlds.

    5. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'admin' account on OS X isn't an admin account, its just an account that has the right to use 'sudo' and similar programs.

    6. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by omicronish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Windows still is not a true multiuser system. Get back to me when I can run the damn file browser as super user, and Joe Six Pack can play games as a restricted user.

      For things that do not work as non-admin, just use the "Run as" command on the context menu for the icon in the start menu. That's better than browsing or doing work as Administrator all the time. Additionally, for most games if you give Users read-write access to the game directory they'll run fine under a non-administrator account.

      The reason Explorer doesn't work well with runas is that by default it checks if it's already running, and quits if it is. The problem is that the taskbar is Explorer, so when you try to run Explorer as Administrator it'll see itself and immediately quit. The workaround is simple: login as Administrator, go to Control Panel, Folder Options, View, and check "Launch folder windows in a separate process." This only needs to be done once, and Explorer should work with runas afterwards. Furthermore, I believe this is the only instance in which runas is 'crippled' :P

      And finally, that games do not work under all users isn't a technical limitation of Windows. After all, games are applications just like Word, Excel, Photoshop, yet users can run all those programs fine. Based on what I've seen, the failure of games to run under non-administrator accounts is due to one of the following reasons:

      • Copy protection requires Administrator privileges to run.
      • Saved games are stored in the game directory. But C:\Program Files is read-only to regular users, hence the requirement to run as Administrator. If you're a dev, please store the damn save files in the user's profile.
      • Game has a lame Administrator check in addition to the above two.

      Note that in all these cases it's the fault of the game developer. Complain to them or don't play their games if this bothers you, but in no way is Windows restricting such games from running as non-admin.

      To those who are still running as Administrator, please reconsider. How often do you install applications anyway? Is an additional right-click, Run as, type in Administrator password that difficult? I do homework, debug applications, run games, etc. all from a regular account. It's not that difficult.

    7. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice in theory, but some programs require administrator privledges to run. Eg: certain FPS's. The only reason some people keep windows around is to play these games. Hence, they have no restricted accounts.

      It looks like windows application developers need a paradigm shift - stop expecting everything to be run as admin!

    8. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for writing the post I planned on writing. :)

      This isn't a problem with the anti-spyware apps at all, this is all about permissions. They could have just as easily deleted any other application or trashed the drive.

      Some of the comments on this post discuss that Windows doesn't run well with limited user accounts. There are some steps that a user can take to set up a machine well for this:

      Here's some links I recommend to friends:

      This one talks about multi-user setups:
      http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default .asp?url= /library/en-us/dnwxp/html/winxpfus.asp

      This one talks about limited privilege setups:
      http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default .asp?url= /library/en-us/dncode/html/secure06112002.asp

      This is one of the tools Microsoft ships that can help identify poor application behavior. Primarily meant to be run by a developer on their product.
      http://www.microsoft.com/windows/appcomp atibility/ default.mspx

      Edit: An MS employee has a blog specifically devoted to the topic of setting up machines in limited user mode:
      http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis

      Basically, I'd summarize by saying:
      Yeah, it sucks. But it isn't all Microsoft's fault. 99% of the problems I have on my machine (which is set up as a 2 user machine) don't involve Microsoft code; it is almost always a third party application that wasn't tested as limited user. We as the community need to be better at informing developers when their apps are broken so they are educated enough to fix it.

    9. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by renata.org · · Score: 1

      try to do some java programming without being and Admin.

    10. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by aero2600-5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "All the more reason to do all your real work under a user account with limited privileges and definitely never to allow others who use your computer to run with administrative privileges. Since nothing can touch C:\Program Files from a regular user account, the trojan would be ineffectual."

      You're forgetting one major problem. Let's do a hypothetical situation here to help you understand. Let's pretend that you've managed to get the average Windows user to use a regular user account and only user the admin account when they need to install something. In this fantasy world, guess what will happen? The average user is going to log out of his user account, log into the admin account, and install whatever retarded, virus-laden, spyware-supported software he just downloaded. You could argue that they would put more thought into what they install that way, but let's be realistic. They won't. The only thing that will help this is educating and training the average Windows user so that they understand that the internet isn't as friendly as they would like it to be. The only reason this training isn't mandatory like driver training is because the average person doesn't care if his neighbor is slowly killing his computer. If they were to do away with driver training, the average person would pitch a fit, as he doesn't want his stupid neighbor driving into his house. This is going to sound horrible, but the reason why GNU/Linux/Unix doesn't have such a large problem with users installing retarded shit is not because of the seperation between admin and regular users accounts. It's because of the much steeper learning curve with GNU/Linux/Unix. There are quite a few less idiots running GNU/Linux/Unix.

      Don't get me wrong. There are still idiots using Linux. Slashdot proves that every day. There are just less of them.

      Aero

      --
      Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
    11. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      "Playing" as a mere user is even worse. Doom3 doesn't work. Most (or all) EA games don't work.

      This is a problem with the way ID and EA wrote their games. Plenty of other games work just fine with normal user permissions.

      Yes, MS does a dumb thing letting home users run as admin by default, but on most corporate networks the users are NOT allowed to run as admin (or usually even know what an admin password is) and work gets done just fine. I don't let users admin their own boxes, except for a very few trusted/competent individuals.

    12. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using runas every time you want to run software like Doom or PalmOS is that difficult. If it was just installing that would be fine, but having to manually use runas every fucking time you want to run things is. Supposedly there is a third party app that lets you put all that in a batch file so you could just have doom3.bat which contains something like 'winsu -u Administrator -p Password doom3.exe but I am not sure how well that works.

    13. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by dioscaido · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you mean? I can do development in Visual Studio .NEt 2003 as a limited account no problem. I can even debug the code I execute.

      If you can't develop in Java... well that sounds like Sun or your IDE's fault... hardly MS'.

    14. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      The problem here is that when a user tries to install something, like a game, or maybe TurboTax, they have problems. If they can't figure out how to keep their computer clean, they're not going to understand why they need to be restricted on their own personal system.

      The folks I was referring to do understand now. Having a computer that spontaneously does a hard reset when going online does that to you. It also teaches them not to let their twelve-year old daughter online with administrator privileges.

      It's just too inconvenient for the neurotypical user

      Sure, security is inconvenient, it always is. Having a completely FUBAR system is far more inconvenient, however. Given the choice and some education and hands-on experience, most users eventually choose wisely.

    15. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      100% agreement confirmed in practice, but with one provision. Always reboot a machine before logging in as administrator. Malware can't install from a user account but it can remain in memory waiting for the opportunity. This procedure has served us flawlessly for years in a mulit-user 24/7 environment. In fact the only reason we installed anti-virus was adherance to corporate policy.

    16. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      And the question is, do these acquaintances have enough know how to go into the admin account and do their Windows Update?

      They do now. I showed them. It's not that complicated. The owner ran Windows Update and updated virus defs once a week to begin with. The kids were the ones messing it up.

      Is this system using the typical multi-login? If so do they knwo to go into Safe Mode to go into their Admin account?

      How would you run Windows Update or update virus definitions from your admin account in safe mode? You can't go online that way, you know. Talk about defeating the purpose...

      The system in question runs Win2000Pro so there was no need to go into safe mode to log in as Administrator. On WinXPHome I just make an extra account called "Management" or whatever and give it admin privileges, and ignore the hidden Administrator account. The rest are regular user accounts. Problem solved. No need to mess with anything else.

      I better skip the rest of your rant as I would just be repeating myself replying to it.

    17. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by CPUGuy · · Score: 1

      But how do you think the software got installed in the first place? The user has to install it somehow.

      Guess what will happen on OSX. The user will try to open up the file, it will prompt for the admin password, the user puts it in, and it does the same exact damage.

      There are still two facts that remain:

      One, that when you need to install something, you are going to go to the admin account.

      Two, a trojan, spyware, whatever, is just an application that gets installed, and it would be installed by having to go to the admin account to do it.

    18. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by Delusional · · Score: 1

      Whenever I'm cleaning up yet another Windows disaster (I run Linux myself), among other precautionary measures, I set ".vbs" extension files to open with Notepad instead of the "Visual Basic Scripting Agent". Seriously, has there ever been a legitimate use for vbs?

    19. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      You're forgetting one major problem. Let's do a hypothetical situation here to help you understand. Let's pretend that you've managed to get the average Windows user to use a regular user account and only user the admin account when they need to install something. In this fantasy world, guess what will happen? The average user is going to log out of his user account, log into the admin account, and install whatever retarded, virus-laden, spyware-supported software he just downloaded. You could argue that they would put more thought into what they install that way, but let's be realistic. They won't.

      I believe this is wrong. It takes just one accidental (or not-so-accidental) click on a "Yes" button to get malware installed through Hacktive-X in Internet Exploder - this is how it generally happens. People do not go out and download this stuff, it's pushed on them by malicious websites and they either misclick or act on impulse. Limited-rights accounts and Firefox effectively solve this problem.

      Going back from your hypothetical rhetoric to a real-world example of an average computer-using family: after having their computer rendered completely inoperable they are prefectly well prepared to use the setup I made for them properly. At least the dad is, and being the machine's owner, he's the only one with the admin password, so the rest don't exactly have a choice.

      They also get something back: their own personal desktop, wallpaper and all (yes, I asked what the kids like and downloaded corresponding wallpapers), which they can customize to their heart's content without messing up the system or the other accounts. That'll help them like the system; people like their own little nest, even on a computer.

      (Subsequent anti-Linux FUD ignored. I have neither the time nor the inclination.)

    20. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are just less of them.

      Fewer, not less.

    21. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by Foolhardy · · Score: 1

      PsExec can start a new process as admin with the password on the command line.
      SU/SUD is a more flexible program, including a setuid equivalent function.
      Also, SFU can launch Win32 processes as different users with su and can also do setuid.

    22. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by aero2600-5 · · Score: 1

      "There are just less of them."

      "Fewer, not less."


      You may be right about that, but I'm not sure. Any english professors what to chime in?

      Aero

      --
      Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
    23. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by aero2600-5 · · Score: 1

      "Limited-rights accounts and Firefox effectively solve this problem."

      You're absolutely right. It does solve that particular problem. But when they go ahead and install BearShare, Kazaa, DopeWars, and eXeem, they're going to get a ton of spyware and adware. They're not going to know what they're agreeing to. Without a doubt, the average user doesn't read a EULA or do research about what their software really does. Matter of fact, they likely don't care until it starts slowing down their computer.

      "to use the setup I made for them properly. At least the dad is"

      I'm glad every average Windows user has you to specially prepare their computer for them. Is this pro-bono work? Also, not every family has a Dad to take care of the admin account on a computer. A lot families, or to use a better word, households, don't have anyone computer literate enough to defend their computer against the baddies of the internet. Matter of fact, in my family, the Dad is just about the last person you want being in charge of the computer. (I love you anyway, Dad)

      "(Subsequent anti-Linux FUD ignored. I have neither the time nor the inclination.)"

      By definition, there was no FUD in my post. I'm not saying all Linux users are idiots. But there are some Linux users out there that are also idiots. If you can prove to me that there are no Linux users that are also idiots, I'll eat my shorts.

      Aero

      --
      Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
    24. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      I'm glad every average Windows user has you to specially prepare their computer for them. Is this pro-bono work?

      Why, thank you for making me feel special in your own sarcastic way. Meanwhile, you are nicely illustrating my original point: Microsoft is irresponsible for making users run as admin by default. QED.

      Meanwhile, feel free to continue wallowing in the belief that the average user is a complete non-educable moron while I remain having a life in somewhat less depressing spheres. Bye now!

    25. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up Insightful.

      The Linux trolls are out in force tonight and typically not bothering to read posts more than to determine if someone is what they consider Pro-Microsoft or Pro-Linux

    26. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by Foolhardy · · Score: 1
      Malware can't install from a user account but it can remain in memory waiting for the opportunity.
      That's bogus. Where could it possibly be hiding? All memory is contained in processes and the kernel.
      User processes can't write to kernel memory; there's no way for it to hide in there.
      NT always zeros newly allocated memory before giving it to a process, so it can't be hiding in freed memory.
      Winlogon kills all your processes when you log off, so that's not a usable hiding place.
      Processes have memory protection with ACLs guarding access to out-of-process writes, and normal users don't have permission to write to any processes that survive logoff.
      That doesn't leave anywhere for malware to be hiding. (short of a local vulnerability, in which case the machine is already owned)

      Other than that, you're right: normal users can't infect the system.
    27. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Limited-rights accounts and Firefox effectively solve this problem.

      Note that this is only effective now because most malware *assumes* it's running as an admin. Expect this to change in the coming years as malware authors modify their software to install itself into user-accessible areas.

    28. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      "Playing" as a mere user is even worse. Doom3 doesn't work. Most (or all) EA games don't work.

      This particular example is trivial to work around (and 100% the fault of id). Doom 3 doesn't work because it tries to put save games into a subdirectory of the program, which regular users only have read access to. The solution is just to make that one directory writable by Users (or use Run As to launch Doom 3 as an admin). Most software that won't run as a regular user suffers from similar developer flaws (like trying to write to system-wide parts of the registry all the time).

      Windows still is not a true multiuser system.

      NT has always been multiuser. The problems (like the one you describe) are almost solely the fault of lazy and/or incompetent developers.

      Get back to me when I can run the damn file browser as super user, and Joe Six Pack can play games as a restricted user.

      Been doing it for years.

    29. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by archveult · · Score: 1

      Most of what you did was right, but the administrator account is exactly the one you need Internet Explorer's security settings to be High on. Set it high, and then put the Windows Update site in the Trusted Sites list. I'd also recommend you check out the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer. It'll scan the computer and make similar recommendations. Visiting the Windows Update site alone is not enough. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mb sahome.mspx

    30. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      Set it high, and then put the Windows Update site in the Trusted Sites list.

      Actually that's what I did, just didn't feel like typing it out. :) Put everything on "high" (even "local intranet") except Trusted Sites which is at "Normal".

      I'd also recommend you check out the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer.

      That one I didn't know about. Thanks for the tip!

    31. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      The only reason this training isn't mandatory like driver training is because the average person doesn't care if his neighbor is slowly killing his computer. If they were to do away with driver training, the average person would pitch a fit, as he doesn't want his stupid neighbor driving into his house.

      Well, I do consider all those spam zombies hammering on my machines and on my inbox to be an attack. It is pretty much some form of "driving into my house" -- or, to be exact, constantly pounding on my door to check if I failed to lock it, coupled with constantly throwing garbage into my yard.

      In Poland, if my dog bites a bum on my yard, this counts as an aggravated assault, even if the bum was breaking into my house. Actions done by my dog can be punished more harshly than actions done by myself!
      While the case with dogs in Poland is certainly out of whack, there should be some penalty for having your computer be a danger to the others, just the way driving a car with faulty brakes can get your license suspended.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    32. Re:Do you work using restricted accounts by skeptictank · · Score: 1

      The development tools we use don't work unless you have admin. I have yet to see a game that will run as a restricted user under any of the NT variants.

  23. Free Microsoft? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    FYI Outlook isnt free. ( Outlook Express is.. )

    "They" dont just attack Free Microsoft Items.....

    But i agree.. no big suprise here..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  24. Very insightful my friends! by nerd256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "you have to consciously or unconsciously run the EXE to install the server side on your computer."

    This is opposed to your computer plugging itself in, tapping into the internet, downloading and running itself?

    Seriously, every peice of malware one gets is result of human action or inaction. If one were more conciencious of the threat, they would take necessary precautions. ( install Firefox/Linux )

    I also think this title tries to make a funny or ironic statement at the expense of accuracy. A Trojan is not what I consider spyware, or, something that sneaks it way in via website, javascript, etc... A trojan targets just teh fools.

    1. Re:Very insightful my friends! by Mr.Ned · · Score: 1

      "This is opposed to your computer plugging itself in, tapping into the internet, downloading and running itself?"

      Yes, it is. Ever tried to install Windows while on a network, especially while directly connected to the internet via a broadband line of some type? You'll get your computer owned before you can install patches from Windows Update.

    2. Re:Very insightful my friends! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      welll...sometimes i do it subconsciously and then try to repress it...sigh...

    3. Re:Very insightful my friends! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spend 30 bucks and use a bloody firewall then. Hell, I've got a hardware firewall built into my freakin motherboard.

    4. Re:Very insightful my friends! by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Install windows XP, turn on it's built-in firewall, plug in your ethernet cable. Works just fine.

  25. Re:**THREADJACK - LokiTorrent now owned by MPAA** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of those links work...

    Perhaps that is why your story was rejected?

    hmm...

  26. Beta Blame by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From the article: "Microsoft Antispyware is still in its Beta version (experimental version).

    It's a bit early to point the finger.

    What? Wait until tomorrow? This isn't a Spyware problem, it's a virus scanning problem for your incoming mail.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  27. it *is* vulnurability by RelliK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that you have to run as administrator to get any work done is a security hole big enough to drive a truck through. It is ridiculous that you can trash your filesystem just by double-clicking a mail attachment. *All* linux distributions I've used set up a user account for you and encourage you to use it. Mandrake, for instance, gives you a big red warning if you start KDE as root.

    Until microsoft fixes this it will be plagued by security holes. And don't give me this bullshit about usability -- Mac OS X got it right, why can't windows?

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    1. Re:it *is* vulnurability by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      The last version of suse i tried set yast as the default window manager, meaning it was by default not possible to log in and check mail as root (obviously there's still kdesu or even removing the /root/.dmrc file

    2. Re:it *is* vulnurability by zootm · · Score: 1

      You don't actually have to be administrator "to get any work done", it's just quite a difficult task to set up user accounts on a single-user machine. In a corporate or other multi-user environment (at least, those I've seen) machines are rarely run as administrator.

      Your point about running as admin all the time is a pretty valid one, though. But I'm not convinced that the UNIX user model is perfect either.

    3. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Software · · Score: 4, Informative
      It takes a little work, but you can use Windows as a non-administrator. The best resources I've found for setting this up are at Aaron Margosis's blog; see http://weblogs.asp.net/aaron_margosis/ and specifically http://weblogs.asp.net/aaron_margosis/archive/2004 /07/24/193721.aspx

      It's not as easy to use as OSX (or KDE), but it works. I use it everyday on my primary computer. I'll grant that it's not going to help most users (the ones who run every executable sent to them), but for people who want to use good security principles and still install software every once in a while, it's a good thing.

    4. Re:it *is* vulnurability by lasindi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that you have to run as administrator to get any work done is a security hole big enough to drive a truck through.

      This is true, but let's face it. To say that this is a real example of how GNU/Linux is superior is kind of a cheap shot. If GNU/Linux were mainstream, what would the normal user do? Download goodies.tar.gz from your email, compile and su to install it. Tada, your system is screwed. This is what an "average," unsuspecting, Unix user would do. Buffer overflows and the like are legitimate vulnerabilities, but to blame Microsoft for a trojan being written is just not a legitimate criticism. Any operating system that lets the user install anything is "vulnerable" to trojans.

      lasindi

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
    5. Re:it *is* vulnurability by thockin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How many MacOS X users just type their admin password whenever it is requested? Most of them. It's just an annoying part of running MacOS X

    6. Re:it *is* vulnurability by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      You can make it as impossibly difficult for the user to do stupid things and they'll still crap out their computers. These are the people that, by your reckoning, would be perfectly safe running Linux. I'd like to see that one day.

      Microsoft has a lot of design problems with security issues as a result, but opening an email attachment and running it (or installing crap that in turn installs other crap) is not one of them.

      If you think you can engineer away user stupidity I have some beachfront property in Switzerland that I'd like to sell you.

    7. Re:it *is* vulnurability by isecore · · Score: 1

      I agree totally. One can make a system as bullet-proof as possible, but if you give the user even a remote chance of shooting himself in the head (metaphorically) at least one will do exactly that.

      Really, the only way to make computers "safe" (whatever the hell that entails) is to not let people use them.

      --
      I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    8. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You CAN run as just a normal user. That's how I have my laptop set up. Of course, I also disabled the default Administrator account and made an account named root to handle all admin aspects.

      There are a few programs that do not work when running as a normal user, but most of these are not needed to get real "work" done at my work. For the ones that don't work I try to find alternatives. If there is no alternative one, then I give my login account access to run that program. For example, I installed Filezilla and it wouldn't save settings until I gave my personal account rights to write and alter the settings file. Another example is Zinf media player, which flat out doesn't work unless you have full admin rights to certain files in the Zinf directory.

      If you are griping that you HAVE to run windows as an administrator to get work done, you obviously haven't looked into it. If anything, use the "run as" function (which doesn't always work the same way as logging in as root I have experienced, but it does the job for a lot of things).

      Microsoft needs to eliminate admin rights for the standard user to prevent a lot of crap, but it won't work until the standard user get educated about it. When people at work refer to their computer as the CPU unit and don't understand you when you say reboot the machine (what the hell does that mean, you mean restart?), you are never going to get them to understand the difference between running as an admin or just a user.

    9. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      you have to run as administrator to get any work done

      Not true. I don't know who modded you up, but this is a lie. Let me guess, you last used Windows in 1995, right?

      I run Windows XP in a non-admin account every day. Some apps don't work but you know what? That's their problem, not Microsoft's. If an app doesn't work that way then there's no point in using it, period.

      Windows has the means to be secure. It's not the company's fault that every two-bit developer out there wants to write to the system directory.

    10. Re:it *is* vulnurability by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has no interest in doing so because it would make Enterprise config tools more difficult to use. They relegated home users to the back seat of R&D years ago.

    11. Re:it *is* vulnurability by badriram · · Score: 1

      I realize MS does not force people to run as non admins. However I do configure machines at my work to allow users only priviledges as user, and it works very well. Just about most applications run fine. Ofcourse there are a few like PageMaker 6.5, Meeting maker, and other apps that have problems with it. But all of them can be solved with a few GPO based ACL modifications.

      There is also GPO settings that allow admins to block/restrict certain applications from running. Software restriction, not for home use ofcourse.

      Also look at this article on msdn, it gives lot more information on how to use software restriction.

    12. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you reading your mail as administrator, dumbass? And don't give me this bullshit about usability without administrator priveleges.

    13. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there is the crux.. Linux advocates spouting FUD about not being able to run as administrator.. apparently they haven't heard of Runas command for Windows.

      Anyway you highlighted the real problem in your last paragraph.. The REAL problem is the average Joe user does not really think about security and doesn't understand the ramifications of a lot of the internals of the computer.. If you think simply requiring a Root password before allowing people to install crap is going to stop spyware, perhaps you need to spend some more time in some form of technical support talking to some of these people.

      Remember, these are the people who send their credit card and bank account information willingly in plaintext across the internet via email to Phishers.. (I suppose that's Windows fault too huh? )
      Stupid.

    14. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It takes a little work, but you can use Windows as a non-administrator.

      Yes, it's just that half the applications you want to use, including Microsoft software, require admin privs just to run.

    15. Re:it *is* vulnurability by oldgeezer1954 · · Score: 1

      Too difficult to set up user accounts? Oh c'mon it takes about a half dozen clicks through a wizard.
      And you don't need to run as admin to get anything done. I haven't run as an admin in XP since I started using it a couple of years ago except to do admin work. I have one app that needs to be run as admin as it's outdated and I'm too cheap to send the 500 to buy an version that supports 2K or XP. Not Microsoft's fault.
      And it is a vulnerability if part of your security is knocked out. It may not be an exploit but it sure is a vulnerability. There are a crap load of trojans and spyware that gets knocked out without users intentionally installing software by taking advantage of flaws in other MS products. While a user may currently have to install something that will change within the next few days as this new flaw is taken advantage of.
      The user can be blamed once Microsoft cleans up it's act so that it is actually a fact that users can control their machines and not have software installed without them knowing it (Yes I did RTFA and I already acknowledged the current state).
      And for those who grip that detractors complained that MS didn't do anything except buy the product but now want to blame MS, well guess what. When they bought the product they bought the problems and responsibility. You need to pick a side instead of making excuses for this company that has historically flooded the market with sub standard products.

    16. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded insightful? You can run Windows as non administrator.. in fact many of the computers at work are setup that way for people who are not powerusers (myself) I guess I better go tell all those people that they are living a lie.

      Linux Shill.

      Another thing: Requiring Root Password =! Elimination of Spyware\Malware

      If you even read the subject of this:
      The good news is that it's a Trojan, so one still has to bother with running an attached file.

      Basically this means the User willingly clicked on the file. They wanted to see what it is when they clicked on it.. you think that a root password prompt is really going to deter them?

      Man you are really out of touch with reality...

    17. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Interesting
      This is true, but let's face it. To say that this is a real example of how GNU/Linux is superior is kind of a cheap shot. If GNU/Linux were mainstream, what would the normal user do? Download goodies.tar.gz from your email, compile and su to install it. Tada, your system is screwed. This is what an "average," unsuspecting, Unix user would do. Buffer overflows and the like are legitimate vulnerabilities, but to blame Microsoft for a trojan being written is just not a legitimate criticism. Any operating system that lets the user install anything is "vulnerable" to trojans.

      Bingo, the problem isn't Windows, its Windows Users.

      There are folk who try to avoid spam by making everyone who sends them email 'pass' a Turing test. There are folk who avoid security problems that requires a monumental effort in makework learning to use.

      Linux is nowhere near as secure as open genera where security measures are superflouous, there are only 200 or so people who know how to hack it and we know where they all live.

      Or even more obscure, ITS with no security at all, but again the number of possible candidates is very very small.

      There is a way to fix this though, write a trigger in the O/S so that any process that attempts to delete program files/microsoft/anti-virus is automaticaly halted. Or install the software with admin privs.

      My three year old son does not have admin privs on his account for this very reason.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    18. Re:it *is* vulnurability by tengwar · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately MacOS does not get it right by default (IMHO). I've just been investigating a problem on my machine, and noticed that system files are "-rwxrwxr-x" in group admin. If you are an administrator (default for the first user to be set up) you are a member of admin. This means that you (or more relevantly a Trojan running with your privileges) can delete or alter this file without entering a password - it is not necessary to sudo, for instance.

      It's actually easy to fix this. Set up a new account with admin privileges, and remove your own privileges. Now if you need to do things like removing an app by dragging it to the waste bin, you are asked to enter the user name and password of an administrator - no hassle at all. The command line is slightly more effort as you will need to first "su -" into the new administrator account before being able to sudo.

      BTW, the reason I was looking in to this was that over the past week or so a small number of system applications have been replaced by zero-length files (my data files were not affected). Usually this means that the icon bounces a couple of times in the dock, then does nothing. My key binding for the optical drive eject stopped working as well. Has anyone else seen these symptoms? I'm not sure if this is an obscure OS bug or a Trojan, but changing my privileges as above should prevent a Trojan from operating un-noticed.

      Of course the Mac remains the only real computer despite this!

    19. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, virtually all games require Administrator because the stupid CD-Check thing needs low-level drive access.

      But I think you'd have trouble finding any Microsoft business software that didn't run as a regular User.

    20. Re:it *is* vulnurability by neil.pearce · · Score: 1

      ...I gave my personal account rights to write and alter the settings file
      ...unless you have full admin rights to certain files in the Zinf directory

      Pardon my ignorance, but can you do what you're saying with XP home edition? I thought per user/per directory access configuration was only possible with XP professional?

    21. Re:it *is* vulnurability by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      You can still do it on the command line even with WinXPHome, try:
      cacls /?
    22. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I think you'd have trouble finding any Microsoft business software that didn't run as a regular User.

      Businesses usually have admins to do things like set up firewalls and prevent viruses etc. This anti-spyware tool is aimed at home users, and there are a hell of a lot of applications that home users have that simply won't work with anything but Administrator.

    23. Re:it *is* vulnurability by mrjohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Your point about running as admin all the time is a pretty valid one, though. But I'm not convinced that the UNIX user model is perfect either."

      What is? I guess we'll just have to settle for "massively better." :-)

    24. Re:it *is* vulnurability by neil.pearce · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply. Is this the mechanism used to restrict access to individual "My Documents" directories amongst multiple users?

    25. Re:it *is* vulnurability by dirk · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the hell you're doing on your system, but I run my system quite fine not running as admin. For the times I do need admin, I just use RunAs. The whole myth about having to run as admin is just that, a myth. Yes, there are some programs that require you to run as admin, and those programs should be fixed. It is not a vulnerability in Windows if a program requires admin access.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    26. Re:it *is* vulnurability by JediJorgie · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is a vulnurability, but not in the OS; It is in the way people tend to use it.

      There is nothing in os (XP/2K) that forces you to run as an admin. There is a lot of third party software that requires that you are admin to use it, but there are even move that do not.

      Most software written for xp only requres admin rights to install.

      We have more then 1000 XP machines in our computing sites that people use all day long without being admins and we have over 200 different software programs on them!

      When you create a new user in 2K Pro, they are in the User group, not the Aministrators group. Yes XP defaults to new users being admins, but it in no way forces you to do too leave them that way. Is it really so complicated to change a radio button in the wizard?

      Jorgie

    27. Re:it *is* vulnurability by McDutchie · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's the mechanism for all access control on NTFS file systems, as far as I know.

    28. Re:it *is* vulnurability by jackbird · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They are if AutoCAD is involved. Or Quickbooks. Or any number of other high profile productivity apps.

      Of course, it's the application vendors' fault for failing to understand that this is a huge problem and they should probably learn to play nice with the documents and settings folder, but MS doesn't seem to be doing much screaming at them about it.

    29. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Until microsoft fixes this it will be plagued by security holes. And don't give me this bullshit about usability -- Mac OS X got it right, why can't windows?

      Because Microsoft want users to be able to use more than one mouse button... :)

    30. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but shouldn't the Operating System files be PROTECTED from such trojans? i.e. setting access privileges or something?

    31. Re:it *is* vulnurability by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      You don't actually have to be administrator "to get any work done", it's just quite a difficult task to set up user accounts on a single-user machine.

      Control Panel, Users, Add New User.

      I'm not sure it can get much easier than that...

    32. Re:it *is* vulnurability by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      The fact that you have to run as administrator to get any work done is a security hole big enough to drive a truck through.

      You don't. I've been happily using NT as a regular user since NT4's first beta release.

    33. Re:it *is* vulnurability by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Sure. But most of the time, the user sees it coming. Applications rarely ask for admin access, and most that do are unix app. installers (like MySQL, TeX, and the like) and software updates. The vast majority are (normal) user installable. Requesting admin access is a serious issue, and most Mac users I've met are aware of that. (Not to say that there aren't morons running Macs)

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    34. Re:it *is* vulnurability by weapon · · Score: 0

      Do you count microsoft software as third party software? I have a Microsoft Strategic Comander (a big left hand mouse designed for strategy games) and the software for it needs to be run as admin on XP (not even runas, but loged in as admin). It may have somthing to do with the fact that the hardware is quite old, and that it acts as a virtual keyboard (assign keys to buttons on the fly), but still it was not writen corectly

      Weapon

    35. Re:it *is* vulnurability by JQuick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I will play devil's advocate.


      Bingo, the problem isn't Windows, its Windows Users.


      Really, this stance strikes me as the antithesis of the problem. It is programmers who bear the blame here. I'm not singling out Microsoft programmers (despite the large and tempting target they present). I'm talking about most people who write system software or applications for general use.

      Here on slashdot, we are predominantly geeks. We enjoy technology and learning about technology. In some cases, a large minority of us mistake our interests in these as evidence that these activities are somehow inherently important. Those who do so gain certain psychological and social pleasure from this knowledge and interest. This is part of being human. We consider ourselves special and important.

      Computers and software are marketed to and used by the general public. People, being people, think that their interests and their knowledge is important. Learning about hardware/software/security, etc. is not interesting to them, therefor the fact that they tend not to spend time doing so should come as a great surprise. Geeks tend to see this lack of interest as evidence of a problem (and at times as an affront to their own sense of self worth). This seems a rather shallow and unproductive view. Human beings focus on those things that interest them. Pleading with them to attend to things we think are important, or looking down on them for this lack of interest, is a fruitless path.

      The problem is not users. The problem is that we have created hardware and software which does not adequately match the needs of the users. Software should match the requirements of its users not require them to change their typical behaviors to meet the needs of the software.

      Some people are destructive and malicious. Well designed software takes this into account, and provides authorized users with reasonable protection from those who would try to harm them. Well designed software behaves in consistent and predictable ways so that users of varying levels of experience, knowledge or interest can benefit from its use.

      Software should be designed for the people who will use it. Most programs suck, because they are designed for a particular business goal, or designed by geeks based on their own knowledge of how they would like to use it. It is no wonder, that most software leaves the average person cold. It is arcane, inconsistent, and requires too much knowledge. Users are not stupid. They are not lacking in intelligence or ability. They are lacking in a sense of enjoyment and sufficient interest to use software the way the geeks designers intend.

      Great software takes its users interests and expectations into account.
      Great developers strive to understand users and write software which serves them.

      So, we are the problem, not the users. Blaming people for their own human nature is not the way to go here. Projecting our own failures of understanding onto the users is a misguided attempt to pass the buck.

    36. Re:it *is* vulnurability by strikethree · · Score: 1

      My kids can not play Gunbound unless I give them administrator access. *shrug* Needless to say, the computer that they play Gunbound on is quarantined from the rest of the network.

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    37. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cleans up it's act

      "its".

      If you were really born in 1954, before our public education system went to Hell, then you should know this. (By the by, you're not an old geezer if you are only 50 or 51 years old.)

    38. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > system files are "-rwxrwxr-x" in group admin. If you are an administrator [...] you (or more relevantly a Trojan running with your privileges) can delete or alter this file

      You can't delete the file unless you have permission to write to the directory in which it resides. It doesn't matter what the permissions are on the file itself, or who owns it.

      --
      Your friend,
      Mr. Pedantic

    39. Re:it *is* vulnurability by hyperion454 · · Score: 1

      The problem is most home users have Windows XP Home, which as far as I know uses "simple file sharing" and doesn't allow file permissions to be changed, allowing everyone access to every file. Kinda defeats the purpose of seperate user accounts.

    40. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1

      It is interesting - which is psychologically simplier - install Linux and willingly restrict yourself just to opensource programs, or install Windows and willingly restrict yourself just to programs which are well-written enough to allow work as user (I suspect that in later case you end up using software which is available for Linux anyway).

    41. Re:it *is* vulnurability by tengwar · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I know that. The directory has the same permissions, and yes I did check that you can delete the file.

    42. Re:it *is* vulnurability by the_womble · · Score: 1

      It takes a little work, but you can use Windows as a non-administrator.

      So why should I switch to Windows when Linux just works out of the box?

      If we were talking about a feature windows had, and some posted a comment like "Linux will do it with a little work", there would be a hundered comments claiming that this was evidence that Linux is too difficult for Joe average

      This is precisely why I prefer chose Linux for small business use. So far our experince of the advantages and disadvantages of desktop Linux are:

      • Advantages: easy to secure, cheap, huge range of apps also cheap and bundled with the OS (Mandrake 6 CD set).
      • Disdvantages: my assistant can not watch the windows media videos (sometimes embedded in Word files!) his girlfriend keeps emailing him
    43. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You not heard of Lakes?

    44. Re:it *is* vulnurability by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      You can't do that on Windows XP Home. However if a system file gets deleted XP puts it back on again. I don't know what happens if a trojan hijacks it though. It would be nice if I could just ban everything without admin rights from accessing certain folders but I guess you need Windows XP 'Professional' for that.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    45. Re:it *is* vulnurability by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      XP Pro is fine, XP Home has no ACLs or much else in the way of security and it's the home users that this vulnerability will target.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    46. Re:it *is* vulnurability by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      Yeh because Joe Average is gonna do that *sigh*

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    47. Re:it *is* vulnurability by ettlz · · Score: 1

      XP Home does have ACLs on NTFS and other objects, but no Explorer user interface elements to manage them. Use cacls on the Command Prompt.

    48. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen, most users don't even know there's a control panel, much less an "add user" thingie" and wouldn't know what to do with it anyway.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    49. Re:it *is* vulnurability by eleknader · · Score: 1

      My kids cant play _Microsoft Midtown Madness 2_ without admin rights. Ain't that funny?

      Their own software does not work without admin rights. Talk about using computer with limited user account, then?

      Eleknader

    50. Re:it *is* vulnurability by supergnom · · Score: 2, Informative

      The difference is that on a Linux system the user is aware that she is installing software. In the windows world, you try to open an email ("the_numbers.xls" with a ton of spaces and ".scr" at the end). You do NOT think you're installing a screensaver!

      Firefox, for example, has a dialog that says that you are about to install extentions - the "install" button is timed to a few seconds before being enabled, so the user does not accidentally click it.

      Getting spyware by installing a malicious application is harder to prevent, and such software should probably be installed in the user's home directory, not as root.

      --
      This signature available under the Creative Commons
    51. Re:it *is* vulnurability by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      Install mplayer (with some nice frontend like kmplayer) or maybe even VLC, and there will be no problems with the WMV videos. In fact it'll be able to play videos that the real Windows Media Player would have to get separate codecs installed to play.

    52. Re:it *is* vulnurability by paultt · · Score: 1

      this is pretty different from the action "clik-clik" (read double click) on an icon....
      and osx ask you a password whe doing adminitration level things... the same for the su command
      obviously i can also throw my computer on the floor then cry because the AV didn't work....

    53. Re:it *is* vulnurability by zootm · · Score: 1

      The point was that it's not done by default, and hence isn't "as easy" as it being done at installer stage. Once again, though, the main problem with Windows security is its users - the NT security model can only be criticised so far. On single-user machines the difference between mincing things as admin or as the only user are often trivial anyway.

    54. Re:it *is* vulnurability by zootm · · Score: 1

      Really? I'll have to look into that one (I know someone who uses AutoCAD at work so it shouldn't be too hard to find out). That's just stupid though. I'd err towards saying that it's not MS's responsibility to ensure all Windows developers make "good software", though.

    55. Re:it *is* vulnurability by marsu_k · · Score: 1
      As a former Mandrake user (I still like it and reccommend it to newcomers) the first thing I do upon a fresh install:

      1. point my browser to http://easyurpmi.zarb.org/, type in my settings, select sources near me (make sure you select contrib and plf as well), run urpmi.removemedia -a and add the urpmi sources (if a source fails for some reason, pick another mirror).

      2. type "urpmi mplayer libdvdcss", which gets you Mplayer with all the codecs you could think, and encrypted DVD support. These can't be included in the distribution for obvious reasons, but PLF isn't technically a part of Mandrake.

    56. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      install Linux and willingly restrict yourself just to opensource programs

      You don't have to restrict yourself to open-source software just because you run Linux. Plenty of closed-source software runs on Linux. It's just that in most cases, the open-source software is either sufficient or better.

    57. Re:it *is* vulnurability by zootm · · Score: 1

      Better, yes. But the only thing that really needs to be changed about the Windows model is making the default user account of the "limited" type, as opposed to "administrator", and it's essentially equivalent. The problem is that most Windows users don't understand why they need to type a password to install a program, or change settings. Maybe it'd be of benefit to them to learn to do that, but if they refuse it's hardly productive.

      Also, if a user is used to typing a password to install things, it's not gonna stop them typing the same password when "Type your install password to get this cute desktop buddy!!!" pops up on them clicking a file attachment.

    58. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Marthisdil · · Score: 0

      And don't give me this bullshit about usability -- Mac OS X got it right, why can't windows?

      Yeah - took Apple how long to even get something remotely right? And like all other *nix distributions, it's in a MINISCULE minority when compared to Windows. When *nix (if ever) becomes as popular and usable (in terms of software available) as Windows, then you'll start seeing mass problems with the same type of thing.

      Problem is, with *nix, even if a hole is found, and a patch is downloaded, depending on the flavor you're running, you might have to recompile stuff (possibly lots of stuff if it's a library vulnerability)...Not a problem for us geeks, but for Joe Blow home user without a clue, things aren't quite there yet.

    59. Re:it *is* vulnurability by heybo · · Score: 1

      This is a good idea but it doesn't work with programs such as QuickBooks. Restricting the used of the system files to read and excute of users kill QuickBooks. When you call them thet instruct you to use an Admin account. And they call this secure????

    60. Re:it *is* vulnurability by heybo · · Score: 1

      You missed something. Yes something can be set to auto download, unzip, and compile automatically BUT when it gets to the su command someone MUST enter a pasword to install. It cannot install without it. Windows isn't built to do this so things can be installed without your knowledge. (Windows calls this ease of use. It isn't a bug but a feature.) When the password box pops up on Linux this tells you "Something is trying to install." Now if you are so stupid to enter the root password then well you need your system screwed up.

    61. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Deideldorfer · · Score: 0

      I had most of AutoCAD 2005 working under a Power User account on three different XP Pro computers. Obviously it must be installed as Admin, and I recommend temporarily bumping the user account to Admin the first time it is run as that user. The only thing that really did not work under Power User - once it was set up - was the online updating, which makes sense.

      Why do I use the past tense? I had to bump the users to Admin privs because of the batch printing utility that came with our new plotter.

      --

      Power off before disconnecting connecting connector. Seen on a cash register
    62. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Really, this stance strikes me as the antithesis of the problem. It is programmers who bear the blame here. I'm not singling out Microsoft programmers (despite the large and tempting target they present). I'm talking about most people who write system software or applications for general use.

      I agree with this as well. I am not saying that the users are at fault, what I am saying is that there is a strong statistical bias here. The Linux community does not have the slightest interest in doing what it takes to attract non-technical users.

      It is very easy to design a security interface for people with strong technical skills. Designing a user interface for the typical user is very very hard.

      Most people do not want their lives to be taken over by the machine which is what UNIX demands. They don't want to think about running the computer, they want to think about the problem they bought the computer for or to play games or any other important use.

      Linux just does not target the core demographic that the Internet criminals are trying to reach, mostly rich retirees and people who think they need body part enlargement. Not only is linux 5% of the market it is an uninteresting 5% for the criminals, mostly students and 20 somethings.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    63. Re:it *is* vulnurability by waltsj19 · · Score: 1
      Great software takes its users interests and expectations into account. Great developers strive to understand users and write software which serves them.

      Yes, but how much more can the developers dumb it down for the more technically challenged users without making it utterly useless for the less technically challenged. I'm not a mechanic, but I still know that doing a neutral drop is bad for a car, so I don't do it.

    64. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Great software takes its users interests and expectations into account.
      Great developers strive to understand users and write software which serves them.

      So, we are the problem, not the users. Blaming people for their own human nature is not the way to go here. Projecting our own failures of understanding onto the users is a misguided attempt to pass the buck."

      Yes, and when I am trying to make great software I will keep this in mind.

      When they develop their own software, or when they PAY ME to develop software for them, I will keep their needs in mind.

      When I am developing software for myself, I will keep my needs in mind. Sometimes my nees overlap with their needs.

      Why should any developer do differently?

      I don't expect to go out and buy a gun and use it in ignorance. Guns are way more simple than computer systems. We are not at the point yet where they can be used safely in ignorance.

      So, users are the problem. They believe the marketing without doing due diligence. They use a complex system in ignorance and in ways that cause harm to themselves.

      When you give advice to use something else that should be a bit more safe, they ignore it because they do not want to learn anything new. Then they suffer for it and ask for help. Then you fix a few things, give some good advice (which must not in fact be good) and they once again ignore it.

      Lather, rinse, repeat.

      As a user, I fall into this same trap, I don't always follow my own good advice.

      Here is where we are all to blame. We multiply complexity on purpose (think ever changing EULAs etc) to the point where people know they can only operate in ignorance and hope for the best.

      A Nony Mouse

    65. Re:it *is* vulnurability by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --Great software takes its users interests and expectations into account.
      Great developers strive to understand users and write software which serves them.--

      DVD X Copy Platinum was a perfect example of this anyone could/would like to use it.

    66. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The absolutely massive difference is that *Nix comes with sufficient tools to allow you to remove any crap you may happen to get.

      i.e. ALL running processes are revealed by "ps -A". Root can shut down all processes. Root can remove all files. End of story.

      Windows on the other hand has all these stupid designs e.g. "Sorry, you can't stop this system process". "Sorry, you can't delete this system file". "I know you've just deleted this trojan but system restore is going to put it immediately back in place for you".

      And whilst we're at it just look at the number of ways malware can get itself started at Windows boot time. Utterly ridiculous. They couldn't have made it easier for "the bad guys" if they'd have designed WIndows specially for them.

      Sorry but Windows is just shite. You can't make any excususe for how bloody awful the state of Windows computing is when it comes to Virus/Spyware infection.

      And what's Microsofts answer ? Fix the OS ? No. They produce their own anti virus and anti spyware software with an eye to charging you for updates.

      I really, really, really hope somebody comes up with a really evil killer worm/virus/whatever that starts killing Windows boxes dead.

      "For crazed Alien space deity JHVH-1 did look upon the works of man and found them pitiful and inept. Thus did he smite then again and again with his stark fist of removal." Verily.

      Praise Darwin.

    67. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, Hear.

      That is one of the best posts I've seen on Slashdot in a long, long time.

      After all if your toaster didn't make toast properly you'd take it back for a refund. Why should a consumer OS be treated differently ?

    68. Re:it *is* vulnurability by JQuick · · Score: 1

      Pssst, your bias is unzipped.

      Your choice of words is revealing. They speak directly to the geek mindset I described in my earlier post. They reveal a subtle trap that we create for ourselves by thinking about the problem domain from our own narrow perspective. Programmers who view the problem through the filter of domain specific knowledge often fall into this trap.


      Yes, but how much more can the developers dumb it down for the more technically challenged users without making it utterly useless for the less technically challenged.


      Your use of the phrase "technically challenged" indicates that you are thinking about the problem in terms of technical knowledge. Additionally, your mention of a possible solution, "dumb it down", is telling. Together, these reveal that you are looking at design from a peculiar perspective. I call it peculiar because it is so prevalent despite the fact that it appears not to be very useful.

      Program design and interface design is a form of communication. The relative success or failure of a message in any medium is measured by its effect on the recipient. Does it convey the intended message readily? In what ways can it be misinterpreted? Is the message a pleasant experience? Enjoyment, senses of understanding or accomplishment, boredom, confusion, or frustration are subjective and often ignored by geek designers. However, they are perhaps the only real measures of worth as measured by users. These subjective experiences are the only tangible effect (outside of the computer) of the program in the real world.

      So, do not "dumb things down". Is the "knowledge" you require of your users inherent to the real world problem domain and all possible solutions? Do your users commonly misunderstand the concepts and thus fail to use the program effectively? If yes, your job as a designer is to redefine your presentation in order to make this information discoverable and teach the user as they use the program. Another possibility is that the information required of your users is not useful to them. In this case, it is often possible to find features in the problem domain which users readily recognize with very low rate of misunderstanding. In this case you may restructure your interface to decouple the arcane solutions from the tangible, easily recognizable problems.

      Simplicity does not involve "dumbing things down" it involves rethinking the problem to make the problems and solutions recognizable and discoverable to your intended user. Failure to do so is the designers fault. They have communicated poorly to their audience. If information is absolutely required they have failed to inform their users in ways they readily apprehend. If information is an arbitrary requirement (imposed by the designer for self serving reasons such as laziness), it reflects needless complexity.

      People are intelligent, resourceful, and capable of learning new things. They enjoy mastering new things, but typically only when this is both interesting and relevant to them. If you do a good job as a designer you play into your users strengths, leverage their existing knowledge and abilities, and convey new knowledge in ways that they will readily and eagerly apprehend. If you do this job poorly, you will only confuse and frustrate them.

      Simplicity need not be stupid or confining. It can be elegant and support complex domains. Great designs lets users employ their intelligence and existing knowledge towards solution of a problem, and expands their knowledge when required. Poor design forces users to apprehend the intention of the developer's conception of a problem, even when this singular viewpoint is not very powerful or useful to them.

    69. Re:it *is* vulnurability by jackbird · · Score: 1
      I'd err towards saying that it's not MS's responsibility to ensure all Windows developers make "good software", though.

      Autodesk is, last I checked, the 3rd-largest software company in the world, and very, very deeply commited to Windows platform lock-in in a way that affects an entire IT-heavy industry.

      It would behoove MS to encourage them to get their shit together before Microstation et al. eat their lunch. Most of the people I've talked to about the forced upgrade from 2000 to 2005 are just ripshit about it, and seriously exploring alternatives.

    70. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Laz7 · · Score: 1

      I work for a school district and I have a lab of students runing Autocad without being Admins ... we also *shudder* use Quickbooks for local school accounting and my secretaries certainly do not run as Admins.

    71. Re:it *is* vulnurability by oldgeezer1954 · · Score: 1

      "it's"

      Oh the grammar police. You're quite right of course but it's insignificant.

      "By the by, you're not an old geezer if you are only 50 or 51 years old."

      Whereas you are both anonymous and a coward?

    72. Re:it *is* vulnurability by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      What you seem to be missing in your logic, is quite ironic.

      Users do *not* want to learn anything new. Most people *are* inherently *very* lazy. You cannot get people who hate learning to learn anything new. Most of them are so caught up in their own cycles just like we geeks are caught up in ours, that they find it impossible to fathom logic beyond that of their jobs and familial units. While geeks will learn about anything and everything, that is exactly what it was that kept many of our kind from getting girlfriends or getting laid while in high school and college... we were too busy learning about things in and outside of our job focus. Learning takes time and effort, and focus. Most people cannot focus on their own jobs, and for most that is the primary thing they focus on. Others can't focus on anything.

      Few people look outside the box because, in general, what they see is painful and difficult to understand. (Or it leaves their tiny minds shattered and depressed, with suicidal tendencies).

      There is a reason why there are so many unemployed computer science graduates. Many of them went in seeking the glamour of 6 figure a year jobs, only to find themselves in front of the runaway truck of "you need a brain or your job is going to a guy or girl in the east who HAS one".

      I recently dealt with a batch of users who couldn't possibly fathom that "no sir, your files are in only two locations, not six... you are simply clicking on links to the same location".

      Their eyes glazed even though I completely dumbed it down to their level with a "looking through several windows into the same room.. the window name is different, as is its location, but they all open into the same room" These "tech savvy" users who thought they were "hip" couldn't understand something SO IDIOTICALLY SIMPLE!!!

      These are your typical users... and it isn't that the software isn't properly designed (though I agree that a lot of it needs some work) it is that software has to travel a huge path of PATENTS and other BULLSHIT which, because some idiot at Microsoft or elsewhere has decided to patent, you cannot use in your program. And because THEY bungled their implementation, their patent prevents someone from making a better one with those words. (You have NO idea how many users want to keep the 3000+ documents in their "recycle" bin or "trash").

      They even threaten to sue when their .pst and .ost get over 3 gigs and much as the microsoft knowledge base site points out, they WILL 100% of the time get corrupted after they hit 3 gigs or more).

      Users suck, they're stupid, and they don't want to learn. Quite like the idiots who you claim want to learn but they unknowingly drive their car to death without changing the oil after buying it new off the lot. There is a manual. But the manual is hard to read, and that drivers' ed class was SO hard to stay awake in... who wants to learn about such trivial things like "change your goddamn oil every 3000 to 5000 miles!!" People don't like dealing with this because it is hard to remember... in an ideal world, most users would have to NOT use their brains at all and yet glean much cash rewards for stupidity... period.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    73. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1
      Yes, you don't. It is why I wrote willingly.


      It is a second and separate decision.

    74. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Software · · Score: 1
      One thing you can do is to run QuickBooks as an administrator, but run everything else as a normal user. This is what I do. You do NOT have to logoff and logon to do this. Create a script like this (taken almost directly from Margosis's blog):
      @echo off

      REM This batch file starts a command shell under the current user account,
      REM after temporarily adding that user to the local Administrators group.
      REM Any program launched from that command shell will also run with
      REM administrative privileges.
      REM
      REM You will be prompted for two passwords in two separate command shells:
      REM first, for the password of the local administrator account, and
      REM second for the password of the account under which you are logged on.
      REM (The reason for this is that you are creating a new logon session in
      REM which the user will be a member of the Administrators group.)
      REM
      REM CUSTOMIZATION:
      REM The following values may be changed in order to customize this script:
      REM
      REM * _Prog_ : the program to run
      REM
      REM * _Admin_ : the name of the administrative account that can make changes
      REM to local groups (usu. "Administrator" unless you renamed the
      REM local administrator account). The first password prompt
      REM will be for this account.
      REM
      REM * _Group_ : the local group to temporarily add the user to (e.g.,
      REM "Administrators").
      REM
      REM * _User_ : the account under which to run the new program. The second
      REM password prompt will be for this account. Leave it as
      REM %USERDOMAIN%\%USERNAME% in order to elevate the current user.

      setlocal
      set _Admin_=%COMPUTERNAME%\Administrator
      set _Group_=Administrators
      set _Prog_="QUICKBOOKS_OR_YOUR_PROGRAM_HERE"
      set _User_=%USERDOMAIN%\%USERNAME%

      if "%1"=="" (
      runas /savecred /u:%_Admin_% "%~s0 %_User_%"
      if ERRORLEVEL 1 echo. && pause
      ) else (
      echo Adding user %1 to group %_Group_%...
      net localgroup %_Group_% %1 /ADD
      if ERRORLEVEL 1 echo. && pause
      echo.
      echo Starting program in new logon session...
      runas /savecred /u:%1 %_Prog_%
      if ERRORLEVEL 1 echo. && pause
      echo.
      echo Removing user %1 from group %_Group_%...
      net localgroup %_Group_% %1 /DELETE
      if ERRORLEVEL 1 echo. && pause
      )
      endlocal
      It's worked on almost every program I tried (the one exception was for an uninstall program started through Add-Remove Programs). It's a pain to do this for lots of programs, but if you have only a few, it's not too bad.
    75. Re:it *is* vulnurability by Software · · Score: 1

      See here for a top on how to resolve this. You may have to give them administrator access, but you don't have to give it to them forever (however, this tip works best for Win XP PRO, not XP Home).

  28. have to be administrator by dioscaido · · Score: 1

    You have to be running as Administrator for it to affect your system. It works by writing files to the system directory, deleting the MSAS install directory, and writing keys to HKLM, among other things. All of these are blocked if you are not administrator.

  29. Re:**THREADJACK - LokiTorrent now owned by MPAA** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a /. issue, it adds spaces to URLs so they'll word wrap, thus breaking the URLs... take out the %20 symbols and they work. AFAIK links in stories don't do that.

  30. Re:**THREADJACK - LokiTorrent now owned by MPAA** by Dr.Knackerator · · Score: 1

    you're going to have to cut and paste man, im too drunk to mess about with html. and oddly they seemed to work in the story preview when i submitted it. perhaps plain old text formatting works better for story submissions

  31. Here's the fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    STOP LOGGING ON AS ADMINISTRATOR!

    Problem solved.

    You wouldn't log in and do everything as root on your Unix machine, and run random scripts, would you?

    1. Re:Here's the fix: by VeneficusAcerbus · · Score: 1

      How many Windows users do you think will actually do that? Realistically. Answer: NOT MANY.

    2. Re:Here's the fix: by Mishura · · Score: 1

      Whats worse? The first normal user account on XP is FUCKING ADMINISTRATOR! Even worse than that, I didn't know until I started noticing that it wasn't asking me for passwords to install stuff; so I did some checking. Sure enough, the Mishura account was labeled "administrator". Fuck. Lets just say I fixed that discrepancy right quick. Friends don't let friends run as root/administrator.

    3. Re:Here's the fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easier solution, don't run untrusted files...fuck the admin account bullshit, plenty of us run that way with NO problems....THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM..clicking on stupid shit indiscriminantly IS.

  32. This reminds me of the Alien V predator tagline... by rattler14 · · Score: 1

    whoever wins, we lose

    --
    my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
  33. Download? by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anyone have a link where I can download this at?

    1. Re:Download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has somebody setup a torrent yet?

  34. Why did this make it to the front page news? by Jugalator · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So, someone developer an application that deletes some files and installs a keylogger. Whoop-de-doo... :-S

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Why did this make it to the front page news? by MustardMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's on the front page because it gives an excuse to take a cheap shot at MS, troll for a flame war, get lots of hits, and bring home some advertising dollars.

  35. The bad news by Morning+$tar · · Score: 0
    The good news is that it's a Trojan, so one still has to bother with running an attached file.
    The bad news is that the people most commonly infected with spyware also execute attached files.
  36. The OS can stop it by vkapadia · · Score: 1

    As long as you're not logged in as an Administrator or root.

  37. Re:**THREADJACK - LokiTorrent now owned by MPAA** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did copy and paste them into IE, and they no worky.

    Perhaps in the future you should try less drinking while submitting ;)

  38. irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't ironic that their own software they make to prevent other software from self-installing get disabled?

    My opinion is you should just buy software such as Norton internet Security to protect yourself, but most of all, people should be more aware of the "dark side" of the internet and should NOT RUN THE EXE IN THE MAIL...

    I think sticking to that rule should prevent lots of viruses and headaches...

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

      My opinion is you should just buy software such as Norton internet Security to protect yourself,

      Yeah, nothing will get through Norton.

  39. You sir, by N.Muntz · · Score: 3, Funny

    are an ass....

    --
    You know it....
  40. Re:**THREADJACK - LokiTorrent now owned by MPAA** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how the guy collected $$ from his fans for legal defense, and then caved immediately.

  41. Re:**THREADJACK - LokiTorrent now owned by MPAA** by willieray · · Score: 0

    http://www.lokitorrent.com/

    If it was shut down by court order, then why the hell does the MPAA get control of the domain?!? If the courts are enabling the MPAA to propagandize* on sites it deems violate copyright, we are in BIG trouble.

    * The page states you cannot download legal material from lokitorrent. I am certain i've seen seeds for ooffice and slack10.1 there.

  42. Talk about misleading by Fringex · · Score: 2, Informative

    It isn't spyware it is a Trojan. Spyware are programs either secretly installed by a base program to monitor your habits of browsing and usage or installed but mildly covered. This is a Trojan intent on stealing banking passwords and such. Two completely different things.

    1. Re:Talk about misleading by Drantin · · Score: 1

      Spyware are programs either secretly installed by a base program

      ...You are aware that that is, by defnition, a trojan?

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    2. Re:Talk about misleading by Phisbut · · Score: 1
      ...You are aware that that is, by defnition, a trojan?

      Just because a spyware is a trojan doesn't mean a trojan is a spyware.

      GP post was talking about how inaccurate the article actually is in saying a spyware disabled the anti-spyware tool, while it's actually a trojan.

      Anyway... it wouldn't be the first time Slashdot screws up and posts stuff that is totally false on the front page...

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    3. Re:Talk about misleading by Amorya · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It may well be a trojan, but if something steals bank passwords it is spyware. Spyware by definition is programs, whether they also have a legit function or not, that spy on you in some way. In this case, that way is by stealing passwords.

  43. Re:**THREADJACK - LokiTorrent now owned by MPAA** by Dr.Knackerator · · Score: 1

    if you cant get lokitorrent.com working then i think you NEED a beer lol

  44. Not a problem.... by MBraynard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I imagine if the OS could prevent you from writing a program that deleted files in a directory and enabled a keystroke logger, you clowns would whine that MS is limiting your ability to use their OS.

    You *should* be able to install such a program on your computer. You *should* also be smart enough to know what you decide to put on your machine.

    1. Re:Not a problem.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You *should* be able to install such a program on your computer. You *should* also be smart enough to know what you decide to put on your machine.

      If you are smart enough to know that you want this malware on your computer, you are smart enough to know how to get around any restrictions that the OS puts in your way.
      What? The OS does not restrict this in any way? Is this like building bridges without guardrails?

  45. Thank you Symantec by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So thanks to today's news that Symantec programs may execute programs that should be flagged, one must now only use a solid product like Symantec Anti-Virus to load up software to remove Microsoft's anti-spyware software. Beautiful. Perhaps I should save everyone the time and hassle and just make a website with a malformed jpg or gif that loads an ActiveX script to then download the trojan and thus get it all done in one shot. Vulnerability after vulnerability after vulnerability. Perhaps this guy wasn't so far off.

    Of course, I can't help but point out the obvious: rumors keep abounding that M$ will charge for its anti-spyware and anti-virus softwares. So let me see if I'm clear on this... they write shitty code that I'm forced to use (since the apps I need only run on Win32), and then I have to pay again for software to keep people from exploiting the software that was shitty to begin with. Isn't that a bit like selling you a piece of shit car, then charging you to use your warranty when the clutch fails on day #2 of ownership? You know, many of us thought that the day would come that M$ would charge for access to WindowsUpdate. Is there anything they won't charge for? Don't they ever say "we fucked up... here's a freebie on us"? Or "you already paid $300 for our OS... here's a way to secure it for free".

    1. Re:Thank you Symantec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My attorney and I are _waiting_ for the day Microsoft charges for Anti-Spyware and/or Anti-Virus software. Just WAITING

    2. Re:Thank you Symantec by Shippy · · Score: 1

      So let me see if I'm clear on this... they write shitty code that I'm forced to use (since the apps I need only run on Win32), and then I have to pay again for software to keep people from exploiting the software that was shitty to begin with. Isn't that a bit like selling you a piece of shit car, then charging you to use your warranty when the clutch fails on day #2 of ownership? You know, many of us thought that the day would come that M$ would charge for access to WindowsUpdate. Is there anything they won't charge for?

      So let me see if I'm clear on this... Have they charged for their Windows Update or Anti-Malware tools yet? No. Do the apps that are so 'shitty' still save you time over doing whatever it is you do manually so you still use them? Yes. Are you using 3rd-party apps that could be the shitty code and not Windows? Probably. Are you whining about some old version of Windows instead of the latest, which actually works pretty darn well? Most likely.

      Don't they ever say "we fucked up... here's a freebie on us"? Or "you already paid $300 for our OS... here's a way to secure it for free".

      Yeah, it's called a 'Service Pack'. Oh yeah, not to mention their FREE Anti-Malware tools.

      Sure, Windows isn't perfect, but they're obviously still trying to make things better. Every OS has flaws. If you think you're so perfect, go write your own and we'll see how it scales to enterprise use.

      --
      -Shippy
    3. Re:Thank you Symantec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill? Is that you?

    4. Re:Thank you Symantec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the anti-spyware vendor's attorney's are just waiting for the day Microsoft releases that software without charging for it (so they can bring an anti-trust suit against them).

    5. Re:Thank you Symantec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, it's called a 'Service Pack'.

      I thought it's called a 'new version of Office because last one sucked', it isn't? Oh, then how about new version of a 'Operating system because last one wasn't the be-all-end-all, best of the best we promised you'?

      Oh yeah, not to mention their FREE Anti-Malware tools.

      Like, say, Microsoft AntiSpyware? What, isn't that an anti-malware tool? Then what is it? Oh, it is but it's not "FREE", okay... why isn't it free, why some MS anti-malware tools are but not this? Because we must pay some extra cash to make windows less insecure?

    6. Re:Thank you Symantec by Shippy · · Score: 1

      I thought it's called a 'new version of Office because last one sucked', it isn't? Oh, then how about new version of a 'Operating system because last one wasn't the be-all-end-all, best of the best we promised you'?

      People sure like to tout Linux as the be-all-end-all, best of the best. You know what, though? They keep releasing new versions. Why's that? Because it's not perfect. It has bugs, too.

      Like, say, Microsoft AntiSpyware? What, isn't that an anti-malware tool? Then what is it? Oh, it is but it's not "FREE", okay... why isn't it free, why some MS anti-malware tools are but not this? Because we must pay some extra cash to make windows less insecure?

      What is your freaking point here? You should just say it instead of trying to be clever. Their AntiSpyware tool is free... so wtf are you getting at? You obviously have a hard time finding good information, so let me help you out:

      Microsoft Anti-Spyware FREE download
      Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool FREE download

      Linux is just as insecure when it comes to most of this stuff. If I can get you to run something I send you, I can delete shit. Maybe not your entire / because you're running as someone else, but I could sure as hell screw up all your personal settings, delete your email, etc. Don't act like you're immune just because you run another platform. I'm sure if the user base that typically runs Windows switched to running Linux (heh, yeah) you'd see a jump in problems over there.

      --
      -Shippy
  46. Symantec + Microsoft, damn amazing! by JackPo · · Score: 1

    "The good news is that it's a Trojan, so one still has to bother with running an attached file."

    Haha, that's assuming you aren't being safe and also have Symantec Anti-Virus :-D

  47. Hardly a new concept by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 2, Informative

    We've seen viri/trojans that delete antispyware before. All the more reason to install software somewhere other than the default location, and to run more than one antispyware/antivirus solution.

    Also, when software starts disappearing from your computer you might want to look into it.

    1. Re:Hardly a new concept by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      All the more reason to install software somewhere other than the default location

      You can do that in Windows?

      and to run more than one antispyware/antivirus solution.

      Until Microsoft drives commercial anti-spyware providers out of business by bundling anti-virus and anti-spyware with Windows.

      Which is why we need an OSS Windows anti-spyware utility that can run on Knoppix, cleaning the registry et al without any Windows interaction.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  48. C:\Program Files\... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This is one of the main faults (along with running as Administrator) in the MS world. The default location is easy to target, and everyone's PC is set up the same. C:\Program Files\... can be hardcoded into the malware to delete or otherwise cripple the target application.

    Install elsewhere. I've found very, very few applications will not accept another partition to install to.

    1. Re:C:\Program Files\... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if everyone did that then all you would have to do is make your malware a little smarter. Like reading the correct directory from the registry or simply searching for your target application yourself. Seriously, the simple location of "c:\program files\" doesn't rank high on my list of the main faults of the MS world.

    2. Re:C:\Program Files\... by Mishura · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK. That's all and good, but what if a trojan/virus scans the REGISTRY? Even if you install said software to C:\usr\local\, it is still going to find it.

      MS needs to get rid of the damn registry first. Then we can start talking about other methods. Although I will say that it is a start. I myself, usually install in subdirectories outside C:\Program Files\ like C:\Games, C:\apps, C:\pr0n, etc..

      Also, I neat trick that I used to do with win9x PCs is instead of using C:\WINDOWS for windows-centric files, use: C:\WOS (As in Windows Operating System--a jab at its DOS roots.) Not sure if it really helped, but its hard to tell since I was never hacked, virus/spyware-infected or anything else. Still I'd get bluescreens but thats because of shitty apps/games or MS's memory management.

      That is all.

    3. Re:C:\Program Files\... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's trivial to use environment variables to find where you put those pesky windows os files:

      echo %SYSTEMROOT%

      or:

      echo %windir%

    4. Re:C:\Program Files\... by compwiz3688 · · Score: 1

      Or, in this case, %ProgramFiles%

    5. Re:C:\Program Files\... by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Install elsewhere. I've found very, very few applications will not accept another partition to install to.

      Given it's just a simple API call to find out the actual location of %PROGRAMFILES%, I wouldn't count on that protecting you too much.

    6. Re:C:\Program Files\... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay asshat - I'm too drunk to remember my username and password for /., but...

      Standards for file locations and config files and etc are bad? What the fuck are you smoking?

    7. Re:C:\Program Files\... by Shardis · · Score: 1

      No kidding, fix the actual security rather than shitty security inplementations...

    8. Re:C:\Program Files\... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      This is one of the main faults (along with running as Administrator) in the MS world.

      Yeah, more obscurity to the OS!
      Lack of security through obscurity is the main fault in the MS world...

      *sigh*

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    9. Re:C:\Program Files\... by real_smiff · · Score: 1

      he didn't say change the location of Program Files, he said install somewhere else (so %PROGRAMFILES% still points to its default or wherever, the app just isn't there!). malware can't get the location from the registry unless the app stores its own path there... or uses a start menu shortcut or some other trick. i think.
      personally i just use the default location and take other precations (like not running as admin), i'm not that paranoid.

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    10. Re:C:\Program Files\... by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >C:\Program Files\... can be hardcoded

      And you end up geting it all wrong in some localized versions of windows that use a different folder name.

    11. Re:C:\Program Files\... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, of the dozens of programs I've installed, only 1 of them has insisted in being at c:\program files\, and it was my printer support software. I have all my other programs spread through 5 partitions at different folder depths. That's what happens when you keep telling yourself you're gonna change hardware and reformat so you start installing to "left-over" space in different partitions.

    12. Re:C:\Program Files\... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/openwin/bin and /etc are also standard directories with pretty predictable content. Standardization like that is useful to make a system more easily maintainable. Squirreling away your program files into dark corners of your system is only useful as an obscurity measure, and will usually serve more to confuse users and admins than anything else -- not to mention potentially breaking patches you try to install.

  49. Using VS.NET without Administrator? by m11533 · · Score: 1

    The problem is that lots of software REQUIRES Administrator simply to function properly. You can argue that one should simply ditch that software, but unfortunately its not always that easy.

    Case in point: Visual Studio .NET 2003. Debugging managed code in a Web Application/Web Service, or a Windows Service pretty much requires Administrator access.

    1. Re:Using VS.NET without Administrator? by badriram · · Score: 1

      Well for web service not exactly. IF you configre the web service you want to debug to run under your credentials(ie app pool as you) you do not need Admin acces. (remote debugging still does though). I have never had to debug a service, so i do not know about that.

    2. Re:Using VS.NET without Administrator? by dioscaido · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why should a limited user be able to attach to a system process and debug it?

      You can develop with VS.NET2003 as a limited account just fine. The case you mention is special, and you either need to run the webserver's application pool as your identity to debug, or run VS.NET2003 as Administrator. Not a huge deal, just do 'runas...' and start VS.NET as Administrator.

      No reason to abandon running as a Limited Account.

    3. Re:Using VS.NET without Administrator? by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      Case in point: Visual Studio .NET 2003. Debugging managed code in a Web Application/Web Service, or a Windows Service pretty much requires Administrator access.

      Uh, someone programming in Visual Studio .NET 2003 should be someone you could trust not to install anything that smells fishy. I'm talking about regular users here (and their kids using daddy's computer), for whom the malware issue is rather more pressing.

  50. Sure it's a Trojan? Is it spyware? by Chordonblue · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't ask anti-virus people for a straight answer - they're terrified. If one of these apps seems to have a legitimate purpose than no matter how it gets on your computer, no matter what else it does, it seems like it's immune from deletion by AV.

    The AV people are tyring to walk an increasingly thin line between malicious spyware and malicious viruses. Pretty soon, they're going to have to make some hard decisions.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:Sure it's a Trojan? Is it spyware? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think this is very ease to solve in its preferences.

      A simple role selection box.
      Make it default to current "careful" practice.
      Allow the option to change to tolerate all known valid adware, but remove trojans, this leaves the mild things on for kids with desktops and novelty crap.
      Possibly a stronger option for workplaces etc which basically deletes anything even remotely compromising.
      Have the strongest option locking the machine to the working set of executables at installation time.

      Windows is with us, running as admin is unfortunate, but a great many people worldwide do, we can't change that, so lets protect them as much as possible :)

      Let the user decide.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Sure it's a Trojan? Is it spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If one of these apps seems to have a legitimate purpose...
      Well, it does remove Microsoft software.

    3. Re:Sure it's a Trojan? Is it spyware? by skeptictank · · Score: 1

      Oh man, I love your sig! That is a really good ideal.

    4. Re:Sure it's a Trojan? Is it spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bollocks.

      Give the user absolute choice of what runs on their computer full stop.

      It's my computer and I'll decide what runs on it.

      If you think you're running anything on MY computer without my express premission you can fuck off.

      And if you try it on I'll send you a bill for the electricity/bandwidth you've used

  51. Aha.... by dousk · · Score: 0, Troll

    The good news are that it's Windows, so you are used to that kind of shit :-D Sorry, couldn't resist...

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

      Wish I had some mod points...I say +5 Funny

  52. Social Engineering by vertinox · · Score: 1

    So my email stating "Click start and then run and then type CMD and then click OK and then in the nifty black box type 'del C:\Program Files\AntiSpyware\*.*' and then hit Y on your keyboard and then forward this to 10 of your friends so Bill Gates will send you $100" is getting around a bit.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  53. Can't have it both ways. by b00m3rang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Microsoft released their Antispyware, everyone said, "Oh, well, Microsoft didn't do anything, they just bought the software from Giant.". Now that there's a problem, "Whoa, Microsoft's software really sucks. It's sure is all their fault."

    Pick a side, people.

    1. Re:Can't have it both ways. by ack154 · · Score: 1

      But would this trojan or "spyware" still go after MS AntiSpyware if it wasn't purchased by MS? I think in a way, saying Microsoft software sucks still applies to this.

      If people's computers didn't get loaded with spyware and cause them to buy this other application out, then this thing likely wouldn't remove it.

    2. Re:Can't have it both ways. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Your hatred of Microsoft must make it hard to think thoughts through clearly.

      If people's computers didn't get loaded with spyware GIANT wouldn't have EXISTED for Microsoft to buy out.. and sorry to say it, but the majority of spyware is installed willingly by the user (although they are clueless as to what it is, and are usually the "Click Yes" drones that don't actually read the dialogs).. Evidence Bonzai Buddy and Gator..

    3. Re:Can't have it both ways. by randallpowell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I blame the hackers, users, and Microsoft equally. MS should have changed AntiSpyware somewhat or a user could hae placed it in a different folder or a hacker could have done something productive and make a Firefox extension. All 3 are to blame.

    4. Re:Can't have it both ways. by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You DOLT... its BONZI buddy, in reference to the purple gorilla thing that is not as popular as weatherbug (whom a client argued with me about) and then reinstalled it and claimed I hadn't cleaned out her computer completely and she wanted a refund!!

      Secondly! You are not familiar with Active X are you? Most computers by default do not allow Active X unsigned plugins. Okay, downside of all that is that Active X and its only existing interpreter (official one at least) being Internet Explorer are both more exploit prone than 1 year old PHP implementations done by microsofties in a GUI environment (we all know how clean THEIR code is).

      All in all hatred of microsoft is bred of three things... Linux is better and they're trying to kill the movement... microsoft marketing is made of lies... microsoft enforcers are all based on greed or stupidity... very little else goes behind their reasoning.

      P.S. I have seen some pretty bad ass implementations of spyware kids, and most of them rely on "microsoft technologies" or that are "cutting edge" so cutting edge in fact that they cut themselves.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    5. Re:Can't have it both ways. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah your right, Bonzi not Bonzai.. BFD you knew what I was talking about.

      Funny how your response included a story about how a client knowingly installed spyware again. After arguing with you even.

      My point exactly.. people WILLINGLY install this shit.. it isn't the "IE exploits" that cause half of this.. it's users WILLINGLY clicking Yes, install this crap on my computer.. because they don't know any better.

      Root Password will not fix that problem..

  54. Anyone else... by jpellino · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... thinking of Tim holding Gareth's stapler out the window when they heard this?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  55. Re:**THREADJACK - LokiTorrent now owned by MPAA** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, probably because the few pennies his fans tossed him were not enough to pay for the legal battles he would face.

    To think pirates weren't cheap skates..

  56. Ah well by nahnkari · · Score: 3, Funny

    In another news, the CIA was considering using Micro$oft Antispyware to keep out North Korean spies.

    Alas!

  57. Re:**THREADJACK - LokiTorrent now owned by MPAA** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what the hell are you guys complaining about. If MPAA would have time or the nerves to track down anyone sharing their movies they could just might as well download azureus, go to some torrent page, download the torrent and track every ip downloading that movie from azureus. Then I would like to see what you'd be saying. Be happy that they don't get after you. The people who run torrent sites know the risk.

  58. MS Software crap? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me about how you all bitch about how Microsoft's software is buggy and has security holes. I think this trojan serves as a nice example that things like this happen only because they produce one of the most used software. They _bought_ this software from GIANT and litteraly only changed the logo - I don't remember anyone attacking the same application when GIANT owned it.

    I bet my ass that if they'd release their own version of FreeBSD completely untouched with just a MS logo on it, it would get headlines all over the web and eventually be where Windows is now (regarding virus, spyware,...).

    1. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Windows runs in root. That means that by default all user accounts are created will full administrative access.

      OSX and Linux (and nearly every other OS under the sun) creates user accounts with limited rights. That means things cannot happen without your specific permission.

      In Suse 9.2, for example, when I need to do something like that requires root access, I'm asked to supply a password.

      A similar thing happens in OSX. When you install software you're asked for a password.

      Accordingly, by default Windows is less secure as programs can install and system settings can change behind your back and without your permission.

      I admit that Windows gets a lot of attacks because it's a big target. However, everyone has to realise that a lot of the attacks occur simply because Windows is insecure by default.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    2. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I partly agree to this.

      It is a big shame Microsoft choose Administrator as default, but I guess they underestimated what this could bring with time. But Windows can be run in userspace just as unix, there are a lot of settings for various groups/permissions,... in Windows. Just half the people don't know about them.

      There is a line between security and ease of use. Microsoft just can't afford to ship a desktop OS where you are expected to do chmod 755 for every executable you want to run.

    3. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      I set up my father inlaw with a user acccount. He went from getting tons of spyware each month to NO spyware each month.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    4. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by srb123 · · Score: 1

      Runs on root? What are you talking about. With Win NT, 2000, and XP, go into local users and groups and add a user. Does the user automatically have administrative rights? No. Does the user have power user rights? No. If your using Active Directory, add a user in there. Does the user automatically have any kind of administrative rights? No. If you're still running Windows 98, well that's your problem

    5. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      When you install Windows the account automatically created has administrative privileges. Sure you can change them later. But by DEFAULT they are administrators. That is what I mean by DEFAULT.

      Default: computing preset option: an option that will automatically be selected by a computer if the user does not choose one

      The fact that Microsoft offers an OPTION for restricted accounts obviously is having very little impact on the stopping of malicious software. That is why it should be done by DEFAULT. Do you get it now?

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    6. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what she is trying to say. If it'd be default on user instead of admin there wouldn't be such huge problems because:

      a) cassual user doesn't know or care what user accounts are or where to change them, and
      b) a power user knows all this but he is only the minority

    7. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by Perky_Goth · · Score: 1

      i'm wondering... can't an app just pretend to be kdesu and ask for your root password?

    8. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and nearly every other OS under the sun
      Yep, I think Solaris creates user accounts too.
    9. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      That is why it should be done by DEFAULT.

      No, stupid users only deserve to suffer. It's one of my joys in life.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    10. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by JoeyNumbers · · Score: 1

      What everyone fails to think about (especially here) is that in the world of us knuckle dragging, bad sinus having, anti-social, beer swilling techno-geeks we don't mind having to be Ruler of All Things Computer (ie: root) to get any work done. The average computer user and yes there are a few million of them out there, do not want to be bothered with having to enter passwords everytime something needs changed. We as techno-gods deal with this every day "what button do i press to make it do my job?" Viruses, Trojans, Spyware, and Adware were not written to attack the "I is smart cause i work with puters" bunch...it's written to attack the VP of marketing whose computer you have to go fix cause he is a moron surfing porn on his lunch break or your Mom who wanted to send you that email because someone really did wake up in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney. Do not make the mistake of being so arrogant as to think that we are the ones that are meant to be effected by malware...we are the ones that end up cleaning up the mess. FYI...I have had great success running M$ Antispy in tandem with Kaspersky AV on XP pro systems where the people just won't listen.

    11. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When you install Windows the account automatically created has administrative privileges.

      So? The same thing happens when you install Linux, only they call it "root."

    12. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by srb123 · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that when you install Linux that you can do it without creating or ever using a root account? Its exactly the same thing. Now do YOU get it? With Windows, one Administrative account is created during installation. Subsequent accounts created do not have administrative rights by default. Please explaing how you can install Linux or OSX without creating an administrtive account? Stephen

    13. Re:MS Software crap? Really? by srb123 · · Score: 1

      Well, to me it sounded as if she where saying that by default, new account where automatically given administrative rights. I do agree with you, but I wonder how things would be for a typical joe sixpack end user for their home Linux installation? Don't you think they'd create the root account during installation, and then continue to use that account for subsequent access? Most Linux users are technically savy, thus this issue doesn't often exist. But, as Linux's popularity grows, the issue may become the same. Stephen

  59. Re:Are you surpised? by rikkards · · Score: 1

    Dude this isn't fark :)

  60. Muffin Man? by wasted · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wasn't sure I knew that song, so I was sitting here asking myself "Do I know the Muffin Man - the Muffin Man, the Muffin man?..."

    Turns out I do know that song.

  61. Readable version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  62. Official story title by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    "Domination of your PC II: Revenge of the Spyware"

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  63. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha Ha

    _Nielson

  64. Re:Are you surpised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it wont help, sine all those morons will use windows no-mather what...what a waste..

  65. Fight Fire with Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fight Fire with Fir......wait a minute.....

  66. Wait a sec.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why doesn't MS have hidden kernel code for granting "powers beyond god" to a program on the machine?

    Oh wait. yeah, some virus would figure it out... and totally destroy your machine. Or just really annoy you.

    It just seems wrong that MS programs are able to be bitchslapped by malacious code...

  67. Quoth TFA: by uhlume · · Score: 5, Funny

    "you have to consciously or unconsciously run the EXE to install the server side on your computer"

    Damnit. I always knew my sleepwalking would get me in trouble some day...

    --
    SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
    1. Re:Quoth TFA: by Deideldorfer · · Score: 0

      I believe sleep-clicking is the problem here, not sleep-walking. Of course, I am assuming you sleep with your computer in the bed like the rest of us.

      --

      Power off before disconnecting connecting connector. Seen on a cash register
  68. Writing a batch file is easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me a break! If you can type the runas command manually, you can write that batch file yourself.

  69. Final solution? by creysoft · · Score: 1

    I would like to see an operating system feature that offers what amounts to "Undo" for disk drives. VirtualPC has had this for years, and there are (or were) a handful of third party programs available to do the same thing. Basically, it keeps a running log of changes to the disk. At any time, you can go "oops" and back up a configurable number of steps. Some backup programs offer a similar feature, but they're again third party, and the interface is confusing to new users.

    This should be completely integrated into the operating system, and the data log should have root permissions. The OS itself could even watch for suspicious activity, and ask the user if he/she would like to roll back. Of course, this would require some architectural changes, and - in the case of Windows - a proper implementation of a multiple user environment. Still, I think it's the only final solution to the problems offered by viruses and their ilk.

    --
    Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
    1. Re:Final solution? by cnettel · · Score: 2, Informative
      There are what's called Volume Shadows in Windows XP and later (naturally more accessible in the server version). It's basically what you describe. You can revert a disk to a previous state, or mount it and copy specific files back.

      Naturally, this feature is not unique in any way to the NTFS implementation of Windows, but as we're discussing MS problems here, that's the most directly relevant thing. Any journaling FS could/should be able to do this. And, still, remember that the only safe thing if your system really has been compromised is a physically separated backup.

      There's also (even in...shrug... Windows Me) System Restore, which does provide a degree of restoration of Registry and files to a previous point in time.

      The problems here are things like for how long you should go on keeping old versions, how do you know when the malware change was done, how sure can you be that the malware in question isn't capable of injecting itself into the previous versions, and so on.

    2. Re:Final solution? by creysoft · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are what's called Volume Shadows in Windows XP and later (naturally more accessible in the server version). It's basically what you describe.

      Then make it more accessible in the home version. Slap a cute GUI on it, give it an animated talking animal assistant, or give it a built in version of solitaire. Whatever makes it easy and practical for Grandma.

      There's also (even in...shrug... Windows Me) System Restore, which does provide a degree of restoration of Registry and files to a previous point in time.

      That's just for the operating system, and even still, it's kind of a pain in the ass.

      The problems here are things like for how long you should go on keeping old versions, how do you know when the malware change was done, how sure can you be that the malware in question isn't capable of injecting itself into the previous versions, and so on.

      The length should be adjustable, and should default to about a month's worth of changes. As for knowing when the malware infection occurred, that would probably require some new, currently unthought of system. Perhaps the system needs to start keeping hashes of files around, and doing regular checks for unexplained changes. When it finds a something fishy, it asks the user if s/he wants to undo recent changes to that file. Nobody's saying it would be trivial, but proactive management is almost always better than reactive management.

      As far as keeping it out of previous versions, that's what write access controls are for. As I said in my post, it would require some architectural changes for Microsoft.

      With regard to physical hardware separation, that would be something hardware manufacturers would have to help out with.

      The fact of the matter is that protecting any network-enabled system is work, and users don't want to do that work. It becomes our job, as the tech industry, to do it for them. Not out of altruism, but to prevent their failure to act from harming us.

      --
      Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
    3. Re:Final solution? by jdeluise · · Score: 1

      Why not use Symantec GoBack for this purpose?

    4. Re:Final solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then like Adaptecs "Go-Back" it would constantly thrash the disk which would soon after fail.

      Sorry, bad idea. The problem is the trivial ease with which a Windows OS can be compromised. That's what needs fixing. Adding even more complexity will only make things worse.

    5. Re:Final solution? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Of course, this would require some architectural changes, and - in the case of Windows - a proper implementation of a multiple user environment.

      Define what you mean by "proper".

  70. total control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to ask - isn't a big part of window's security problem the fact that general users need to have write permission to the program files and the windows folder?

    Well maybe it isn't absolutely necessary; but I've found that lots of things don't work right if they don't. MS office is an example. Our version of office, admittadly a little dated office 97, will not allow a user of configure their toolbars unless they have write access to the winnt folder.

    The advice of several different mcse's that I've spoken with is to make each user a local administrator on their own machine. I'm sure lots of other people, especially home users do this as well. Now wonder viruses have a field day.

    I still find programs designed to write their data files to the progam files folder where they are installed as a default. This in nuts in a multi-user system.

    If the users only have write access to their own profile, won't that make the systems more secure. The whole window's architecture and the way apps are written seems insane to me.

  71. Re:Runas doesn't let you specify the password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Windows XP you can not do a runas in a batch file as the runas command does not let you specify the password. The third party su implementation lets you specify the password on the command line which makes batch files much easier to do. That is assuming the app is compatible with runas in the first place.

  72. as if.. by Mahamadmustafa · · Score: 1

    as if we expected anything less of a microsoft product..

  73. Good news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The good news is that it's a Trojan, so one still has to bother with running an attached file.

    C'mon! With all the vulnerabilities in Windows and IE that allow any executable to be run on the machine? How long before we browse to a web-site, open a malformed picture or even just connect to the Internet to allow another "buffer overflow" to give up our banking information?

  74. Pretty Stupid by ImacG5osx · · Score: 0, Troll

    you know,,if your microshaft peecee winblows machine was a digital camera or a tv or a car and had problems like winblows does with spyware adware viruses trojans and every other hack under the sun, the american people would revolt and sue and burn and kill.....whats up with you winblows users taking this sort of crap from some 2 bit software company....i know i know,,,iam on a mac and yadda yadda yadda,,,but its pretty simple.......my mac works...period!...and dont give me any crap about macs being 1% of the market and all the other mumbo jumbo you people spew...that has no bearing on anything,,,,its just allot easier to exploit the 1000 or so security holes on winblows......time to get it together people....imagine,,,a trojan to delete the application thats suppoesed to protect you from trojans,,,,thats sweet....lololololololol.....

    1. Re:Pretty Stupid by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      I applaud your awesome troll. You should catch like 4 different slashdot cults with varying lacks of a sense of humor. I sorrow for your Karma, though.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    2. Re:Pretty Stupid by dqbiggerfam · · Score: 1

      Try writing in multiple sentances with paragraphs.

      OS X is not immune either. It only takes one line in the terminal to delete your home directory, and it can a really small script file, or you can be tricked into typing it yourself, if you aren't smart.

      Unfortunately, apple shares this with M$: the first user is an admin. Luckily root is diabled by default.

  75. Thanks by McDutchie · · Score: 1

    ...for that tip!

  76. heres my fix... better than some MBA GRAD fwit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what you get with those stupid
    hiring processes that only hire SO CALLED
    genius morons. ALl managers hire YES people, not
    smart "i dont listen to orders or rules" people.

    Heres my added spec which wont need 9 layers of Master grad + managers to approve.

    1. Install the damn software in a folder that is semi random with some numbers or different layouts, that are still human readable but not predictable by a trojan. And a different named .exe too.

    2. Use NTFS to the max to LOCK IT IN so you cannot remove it. or make it hidden "cat file.exe file2.exe:hidden" try that.

    3. supply free german beer, not useless Mdew or coke crap corporate products.

  77. It's times like this by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 1, Funny

    that I think about how bad Trojan is for a name of a condom.

    1. Re:It's times like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, it's a wonderful name

      how else are you going to sneak through the guarded gates?

  78. Webroot spysweeper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Webroot spy sweeper is still the best all around.

    Giant had promise, but I'm sure MS will #$% it up.

  79. security agents by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

    Actually, something keeps disabling my Security Agents in Microsoft Antispyware. Could this be the cause? Or something else?

    --
    Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
  80. If (Not oMicrosoft.bHasClueStick) Then ... by kiddailey · · Score: 3, Funny


    Honestly, did anyone NOT see this coming?

    I jokingly predicted this exact situation in a post when they first released the beta of the app (though admittedly I thought it'd take a little bit longer before it was actually in the wild). Rest assured that it is only a matter of time before you see this in a non-trojan form that is automatically installed via an IE exploit delivered by some ad-serving company.

    Microsoft's move of buying up and releasing an anti-malware application of their own is IMO nothing more than an attempt to improve public perception of their so-called efforts towards improving Windows security.

    Amusingly enough, I believe it to also be an example of how much they simply don't get it and/or don't care -- the insecurity of the underlying OS is the direct cause of the probem, not the spyware.

    No amount of anti-malware software targeting the effects (automatically installed spyware) of the problem (insecure OS/Web Browser) will have any positive impact because it's the problem itself that allows the effects to continue... and have enough power to take the anti-malware software and just turn it off.

  81. Parent-inspired article summary by McDutchie · · Score: 1
    Blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker FUBAR FUBAR

    Blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker FUBAR FUBAR

    Fake! Fake! Oh, it's a fake!

    Blocker blocker blocker (etc. ad nauseam)

  82. 'Don't run as root' argument is crap.... by 1000101 · · Score: 1


    A few people have pointed out that you can set up limited user accounts in XP, and the default user account is admin. Everyone screams and moans 'but how many normal users will set up a limited account?'. Their argument is that 'normal' users don't have the wherewithal or desire to set up a limited account and that Microsoft should do this for them. The problem with that argument is that 'normal' users like that are also the same exact type of users who would simply type in the root password to install the trojan or spyware anyway. If you think someone is too dumb to set up a limited account (which is one of the easiest tasks to do in XP), then why would you give them the benefit of the doubt to not type in their password whenever the window pops up????

    1. Re:'Don't run as root' argument is crap.... by NPN_Transistor · · Score: 1

      Still, most people don't even know what the administrative accounts are because there isn't one. On a UNIX/Linux box, there's a root user, and the person who uses the computer knows what it is because when they set-up their computer, a root password box pops up and they have to make up a root password, and the installer says that the root account is for administrative purposes, and the installer DOES warn to create a complicated password and to not do work as the root user because it could mess up the computer. Now this is required in every installation, but with Windows it isn't, so the user ends up not knowing anything about limited user accounts, even though it is easy to make one. Now when the user is installing RPM's and configuring things in the Mandrake Conrtrol Center/YaST/KDE Mission Control/Some other Control Panel, the user will notice that he/she needs the root password, and he/she then knows that it's used for configuration and installation. Based on the knowledge the user learned above, if a program just asks the user for a root password for no reason at all, I think that the user probably wouldn't just type it in. Even if he/she installs it using RPM, you have to run the program to make it work, not like M$ where it automatically runs programs without user consent. And, even then, when the user runs the program, it runs without root priveledges and it doesn't pose a major risk to the computer at all.

    2. Re:'Don't run as root' argument is crap.... by Rightcoast · · Score: 1

      When Linux becomes mainstream, your kidding yourself if you think people will be doing thier own installs. Just like XP now, Dell ,Gateway or HP will be. The user will be given a crippled "recovery disc"

    3. Re:'Don't run as root' argument is crap.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, your right! Users always read and comprehend what the installer tells them! Then two months later (when they actually need to use the admin account for the first time) I'm sure they'll remember exactly what that complex password is and why they need to use it. Brilliant! Micro$oft is so dumb!

  83. Amusing? I don't think so. by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

    Well, here's MY catchy thing of the day.
    I've run Adaware with latest defs and voila... those system hooks didn't help... a client's computer was CRAWLING with spyware and adaware is what removed them... strange since Giant... *cough cough* MICROSOFT antispyware was running with all settings enabled... strange indeed... oh well, guess some things get past it...

    goes to play that since Microsoft put all the dummies, morons and assholes on the 'net... they now have to deal with irate, moronic assholes and idiots who think they're "compewtah gawds" (read, idiotic asinine MORONS!)

    Besides, has anyone besides me found that Antispyware simply flags legitimate apps half the time (VNC, NetopHost, etc, PC Anywhere, you name it all get tagged as spyware)

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  84. The Truth is Out There by defishguy · · Score: 1

    You know. I honestly believe that if Microsoft released it's own MS branded virus that some enterprising coder from the eastern area of Europe would write an anti-virus virus that exploited some unbelievably obscure buffer overflow vulnerability and Slashdot would pick up the story.

    It wouldn't end there because the anti-virus virus writer would complain to his ISP which happens to be hosting his website where he geefully took responsibility for the anti-virus virus and chastised Microsoft for their inability to code a secure, virus. The anti-virus virus writer would also praise the extreme security of Linux by hypothesizing that if it had been a Linux virus he couldn't have destroyed it the way he had the MS one.

    As the webserver that hosted the site of the anti-virus virus begins it's thermal meltdown, the ISP calls Cowboy Neal to ask him to PLEASE cache the site for their customer. Cowboy Neal (being the astute person he is) notes the anti-virus virus writers name and writes it down. Cowboy Neal then realizes that Microsoft has posted a $134 Gazillion dollar reward for the capture and mutilation of the anti-virus virus writer and quickly shoots off an email to Bill.

    Bill calls the BSA Death Squad and they march on St. Petersburg, finding the anti-virus virus writer sitting at a local Burger King with a laptop. They drag him outside and mercilessly beat him with rubber hoses until, lying in a pool of his own blood the anti-virus writer dies.

    Bill, in his infinite gratitude sends Cowboy Neal a check for $134 Gazillion dollars which Cowboy Neal uses to flee the country with his mistress.

    Despite all of the drama here a couple of lessons will be learned.

    1. Slashdot STILL doesn't cache sites.

    2. Microsoft isn't the target because it's big. It's the target because it's EASY!

    3. Cowboy Neal can not be trusted with large amounts of cash.

    4. I haven't seen my wife since he got paid.....

  85. Not Worried. by Alien+Venom · · Score: 1

    A trojan has targeted Microsoft's AntiSpyware program, deleting all files within the C:\Program Files\AntiSpyware folder...

    Good thing I installed it in C:\Program Files\Microsoft\AntiSpyware.

    1. Re:Not Worried. by zeylisse · · Score: 1

      Good thing I installed it in C:\Program Files\Microsoft\AntiSpyware.

      Good thing *i* installed it in C:\Program Files\AntiSpyware. ;)

  86. Re:Today is a just a good day to be a Mac user... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good day to be a Mac user, indeed. Well, aside from not being to play games on a overpriced computer. Macs are not targeted because they are pieces of shit.

  87. The smartest dumbasses in the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't seen anyone here post about something this trojan did that hasn't been reported in a while. It deleted a bunch of files. This episode wasn't it, but once a virus comes along that doesn't care about being a spam zombie and propagates itself out to wherever it can get via whatever the means and starts writing splotches of zeroes across the victim's hard drive, then we'll see some real suffering and screaming going on. It'd be all to easy.

  88. Viruses by NPN_Transistor · · Score: 1

    Now some people say that Microsoft software is has more trojans, etc. because it is more popular. But - MS antispyware is a lot less popular than other spyware products, yet it is the only one that is really easily disabled by a trojan, so that makes the "Microsoft is more popular" argument invalid! Well... this wasn't surprising considering Micrsoft's security track record.

  89. Can't even post a bug for the beta by dr_db · · Score: 1

    Public download, but can't provide feedback without becoming a MVP. Sigh.

    I have my taskbar on the left edge of the screen, and any "toast" windows that popup in the bottom right corner just quickly scroll up and off the screen.

    But, I guess someone else will have to report it.

  90. That didn't take long. by big-giant-head · · Score: 3, Funny

    M$ when you want software really bad, we have really bad software.

    --

    So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
  91. I've always wondered why nobody tries _this_... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    A virus or malware, which cripples, but does not actually disable any security tools which may be on the system so that the user is still compelled to believe that their antivirus and antispyware tools are functioning normally, but in fact the tools have been altered slightly to simply behave as though the one particular piece of malware in question wasn't actually present, and meanwhile the malware performs exactly as normal.

    1. Re:I've always wondered why nobody tries _this_... by teknomage1 · · Score: 1

      no bragging rights, because it's not dramatic.

      --
      Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
    2. Re:I've always wondered why nobody tries _this_... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The idea being that something like it could go undetected for a potentially very long time, ensuring wide-scale infection before finally executing its payload.

  92. put your money where.. antivirus programs ARE viri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a bit late to point the finger.

    Today I bought 550 shares of Mandrake. The total trading for today is 550 shares.

    It is a small world(?).
    Surprise to me.

    I bought ALL of the Mandrake trading today !

    I do not know if I should be elated or jump off a bridge.

  93. Re:Final solution? Nazi style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    My thought about this issue is that the hard drive is a stupid place to run an OS from in the first place. With the advances in flash rom one can concieve of running a bios like OS that does everthing needed. Added programs could then be used from the hard drive and leave the OS alone!

    There is no reason why this could not be possible anymore. The only reason it has not yet taken over the PC market is legacy operating systems like Microsoft's.

    Perhaps the flash memory cartel people have been squeezed by Redmond not to alow this to happen. To install the OS one could just use a boot cdrom, if given a protected and fixed bios section in the flash, or even a simple fixed bios that boots the OS flash chip Heck that way you could treat MS windows for what it is just another piece of software!

    In my way of thinking nothing has held up the advancement of computing more than Microsoft.

  94. True enough, but remember the meatware issue too by lorenlal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, IE has plenty of holes that allow exploits to ravage a system. That definately falls on the maker.

    But, if you're a jackass who's making software to spy on people, claim it's something else, and then put in measures to ensure that the programs run "no matter what..." Well, I'm willing to put plenty of responsibility on you.

    It doesn't matter what platform the author is targeting, nor what company makes that platform. You're still trying to find unethical (an in many cases illegal) ways to get your stuff to run on an unsuspecting target, and you plan on stealing with it (be it bank account numbers, passwords, or something as little as bandwidth to push ads).

    Spyware targets whatever will attempt to remove it. I've seen trojans that prevent some scanners (Ad-Aware and Spybot especially) from detecting that the spy process even exists. I've seen processes that create backups to make sure that both keep each other running if one ends or gets cleaned out. It's something new all the time with these people. It was only a matter of time before something like this targeted Giant's product regardless of whether MS got involved or not.

  95. Ah, So What by Cruxus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't trust your PC to this Microsoft micro-trash. My crack team of security experts (my pet cat and a 5-year-old nephew who mentioned something about bug squashing at a Christmas gettogether) and I have developed malware detection and removal software that will kick any other anti-crap's hindquarters. Spending unheard of manhours (many of which were used to make late-night caffeine runs and failed attempts to get laid) over a span of nearly a week, my team and I developed a program that will secure your information technology from those evil evil hackers out on the big bad Internet. Now if your current ad removal system or firewall says my program is keylogging to send your credit card information to me, this is only because it's jealous. I suggest you remove other spyware removal tools and anti-virus programs as soon as possible!

    I'd like to proffer the URL for my program now, but it would seem my host has mistakenly taken the site down for the moment. I intend to call them soon and have this terribly injust mistake rectified immediately.

    --
    On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
  96. Re:it *is* vulnerability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    But until they are, it is NOT possible for many users to run as admin.

  97. Nonsense.. by PurpleXanathar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) If Windows had protected the antispyware program in some special way, we were now all complaining about antispyware being considered "special" by the OS and thus being in unfair competition with other spyware programs.

    2) On any Unix machine you have to be root to install most of the software (you usually have to be root before rpm or make install) : a simple trojan relying on *stupid* user behaviour can be written for any platform and this is not a security problem of the platform, is a security problem of the user's brain.

    3) From 2, even if the default user was not administrator, most people would simply try to install this new porn-lemmings game they received and they would "run as" it (just like you su - make install on linux).

    4) It's not even only a problem in the user brain. I wonder how much would it take to discover 5 malicious lines inserted in some big open source project. This *is* a possible evet, it could be an angry sourceforge employer, a security hole somewhere, a

    5) It seems to me whatever the choice of MS is in any particular matter, there is always someone who takes it to bash it down. When the fact is ridiculous like in this example, this kind of behaviour is detrimental to the whole community. Do you live to make Linux great ? Than use your time to make it the perfect OS, not to make Windows appear the worst OS ever - 90% of users have chosen it as the best product for them and they will not change their mind because you are bashing it down, they will change their mind when they'll see something better *for them*. ..Go and flame me now.

    1. Re:Nonsense.. by jswalter9 · · Score: 1

      Go and flame me now.

      But would it be worth the effort?

      --
      Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
  98. This already exists in Outlook Express by emailpete · · Score: 1

    In Outlook Express 6... Tools:Options Security Tab Tick "Do not allow attachments to be saved or opened that could potentially be a virus" OK This looks like it should do the job for most people - those who don't need to receive executable attachments by email.

    1. Re:This already exists in Outlook Express by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      Most of the viruses that I receive by email come in zip archives. And yes, I'm just a regular Joe, I don't ask people to send me viruses.

      Maybe if Windows wouldn't be so fucking stupid as to display wrong icons for files, (or, as in my case, not be able to delete a folder that ends with . period)... well, maybe world would be a better place

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
  99. Antispyware now has an expiration date by splitinfinity · · Score: 1

    Apparently, Microsoft now has offical plans to begin charging for Antispyware (like they didn't before). This morning I noticed this new message: This version expires in 170 day(s). This version of Microsoft Antispyware expires on July 31, 2005. Please contact Microsoft for an updated version.

    1. Re:Antispyware now has an expiration date by rush22 · · Score: 1

      Apparently, Microsoft now has offical plans to begin charging for Antispyware (like they didn't before)

      1.Create vulnerable software.
      2.Sell antispyware software to protect said software instead of fixing the holes.
      3.Profit

      Ah now I get it, I had step 2 wrong this whole time!

      (Granted, the "expiry date" could just be to prevent security lapses and will also be free. And why can't I html "strike" things here :/.)

    2. Re:Antispyware now has an expiration date by http101 · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen this "anti-spyware" (term used lightly) package yet, but am wondering if anyone has read the Terms of Agreement that are included with the software license for the now, currently-addressed, "Trial Version". Is there any mention of a "trial software" or "pre-release" in the TOA?

      --
      -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  100. Re: Trojan by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    It's not just software (pun intended). If you think of the original meaning of a Trojan horse, it's still not a very inspiring name for a condom. Good thing we don't have those here in Finland. A typical Finnish condom is called Sultan, btw, which I think makes a lot more sense. Of course being a true Slashdotter I can only speak from a theoretical viewpoint.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  101. Wachovia too by timjdot · · Score: 1

    Talked to my father-in-law on the phone yesterday... Wachovia was targeted too. The support guy had no ideas about it other than "it's your computer". Of course but this just shows the big companies are in no way prepared for what is starting to happen: an all-out crippling of computer systems by hackers.

    Our profession will not take off with commodity computing due to hackers! We have to fix them.

    BTW, anyone know what can fix the Wachovia keylogger?

    --
    Expect Freedom.
  102. Film at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Wow, imagine that- a spyware that disables an anti-spyware program. how shocking.

    Next thing you know, they will start coming out with viruses which disable virus scanners

  103. Yes we *can* have it both ways by Laebshade · · Score: 1

    Most said 'boo' when they found out MS was releasing antispyware software, but said 'ok that's fine' when they found out MS didn't write it. Microsoft bought the rights to engineer and 'have' a specific piece of software and is therefore responsible for the contents.

    Personally I've found MS Antispyware to be completely unnecessary, and in fact may lead to more problems than it can fixed. Anyone remember reading in a previous article how it produces a lot of false positives, even going so far as to detect Spybot S&D protection as spyware? (And yes, I believe I tested this).

    We lived fine without MS Antispyware before, and we can live fine without it now.

  104. Press any key to boot from CD... by http101 · · Score: 1

    I guess this just goes to show exactly how well they know their own product!

    --
    -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  105. Not a fix. Runas sucks ass, su does not. by Werrismys · · Score: 1
    Problem is, if you use ANY legacy apps you probably need to have write access to system directories etc... and windows runas is a hassle. That's why most end up running Windoze with admin rights.

    Hell, the whole process of tuning permissions is so obfuscated in Windows that no Joe Average can do it even if he wanted to.

    Whereas on Unix it's very easy to elevate user privileges when necessary. Windows simply was not designed that way - its rotten roots are all too obvious still.

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
  106. Final Solution is already here. by Werrismys · · Score: 1
    VMware offers (in version 5 multi-level) snapshot of the entire machine. VMware has had undoable virtual disks for ages.

    VMware also now offers possibility to create easy-to-install complete virtual environments.. for clients etc.. in installer form. Check it out.

    I run Windows at work exclusively under VMware. It's faster to run sandboxed Windows in virtual machine than it is to run it natively with all the resource-hodging kludgework (anti-virus, anti-spyware etc) on top.

    Other plusses of VMware include, but are not limited to:
    -Easier backups (just copy the VM partition files somewhere)
    -Easier deployment and testing (keep a 'clean' Win2K / WinXP image, clone it).

    The server version is kinda expensive, and requires blessed hardware, but the workstation version is a bargain.

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    1. Re:Final Solution is already here. by creysoft · · Score: 1

      I don't get viruses or spyware - even on my Windows machines. I'm sure you don't either. We're talking about grandma here. Or your sixteen year old sister, with an entire partition of her hard disk devoted to her collection of smilies. #___L#33338440117[kMGR44]:OMFGLOL[MM483^)]

      You know what? Forget what I said about making it easy to use. It should be automatic. When the system detects something dangerous, it rolls back to a safe state and instructs the user to take any necessary steps. Experienced users should be able to turn it off, but Joe Stupid will just have to live with the consequences of his failure to act.

      --
      Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
  107. Hold on.. by FrostyCoolSlug · · Score: 1

    THIS THING KILLS MS ANTI-SPYWARE (oh, btw, it logs key presses too.. kthxbye)

  108. Thank you! by heybo · · Score: 1

    Thank you! Thank you! Best help I've got on this! It would seem that for the price of support you pay for with QuickBooks (one of my clients pays for it for their company) They would know this and happily give you this information. But wouldn't life be simplier if everyone followed the basic security rule of "Do nothing under root or Administrator except setup".