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.

53 of 428 comments (clear)

  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 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

    3. 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

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

      Me fail english? That's unpossible!

    5. 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!
    6. Re:Its the content, not the wrapping, but.... by joebubba · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  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
  3. 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 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. 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

  5. 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 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. 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 merdaccia · · Score: 5, Funny

      God I hope so.

      --

      *blinking cursor*

  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.
  9. 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 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 />
  10. 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.
  11. 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!
  12. 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

  13. 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.
  14. 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 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
  15. 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.

  16. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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

    4. 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.

  17. Download? by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anyone have a link where I can download this at?

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

    are an ass....

    --
    You know it....
  19. 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".

  20. 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
  21. 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.

  22. 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."
  23. 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.

  24. 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!

  25. 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.
  26. 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.

  27. 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
  28. 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.

  29. 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.
  30. 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.

  31. 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.