Slashdot Mirror


How VeriSign Could Stop Drive-By Downloads

emcron writes "Ben Edelman has been doing great forensic work looking at spyware, adware, and malware. His latest piece, How VeriSign Could Stop Drive-By Downloads, turns the harsh light of public scrutiny on VeriSign's grubby practices in issuing digital certificates to vendors who try to install spyware by tricking users into clicking 'yes' with low-down dirty lying dialog boxes. Now, Ben wants VeriSign to clean up its act: it should refuse to issue certificates to companies that use obviously fake names (such as "CLICK YES TO CONTINUE") or that use those certificates to deceive consumers."

16 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Meanwhile by cynix.org · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The beauty of certificates is, you decide who you trust. If you object to VeriSign's practice of issuing certificates to spyware/adware makers, simply don't choose to trust VeriSign's root certificate. This is only a temporary measure, I guess.

    1. Re:Meanwhile by insert_username_here · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you expect an clueless computer user, who's just learning about this interweb, to understand the importance of trust when downloading software?

      Even ignoring people who've never used a computer before, a lot of people are, unfortunately, very trustworthy.

      Having partly software-verifiable certificates (i.e. signed by Verisign instead of self-signed) goes a long way to helping a browser tell a user whether or not they should be able to trust this mysterious "gator.exe" (of course, people will always find ways around it).

      --
      -- Dramatisation - May Not Have Happened
    2. Re:Meanwhile by strider44 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tell me then, what's the point of having a certificate when you can get it under any name you want, for any (possibly) malicious piece of software? If it doesn't give any indication of being trust worthy at all then it's absolutely worthless!

      It's ironic that a Microsoft representative a little while ago criticising Firefox not paying for a certificate for the download. What is to stop someone registering "Firefox Browser" or "Click Yes to Download" instead? Certificates when they are so easily abused like this are only detremental - they create a fake level of trust.

    3. Re:Meanwhile by elgaard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would help Joe Sixpack if he used a browser that did not trust the VeriSign CA per default.

    4. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aside from the enormous inconvience actually practicing this with high security settings.

      If Versign is making certain claims about their trust worthiness, and that of the people they certify, they should be held accountable when those claims are demonstratibly false. They're lying for money. No it might not be the end users money, but it's their time that's being stolen, and Verisign is doing it for money. And while there certainly is some wisdom in being a wary buyer, I think their is something to be said for forcing people to keep their promises to the larger marketplace. "Oh, they're rich, it's good for their business.", doesn't exactly put me in a benefit of the doubt kind of mood.

    5. Re:Meanwhile by sbryant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes well, that doesn't help Joe Sixpack who reads "CLICK YES TO CONTINUE" and does it.

      At least he read it! I know plenty of people who will just click OK without even looking at what they're agreeing to.

      The trouble is that lots of people don't understand what is being asked of them (so many give up reading at all). Signed certificate? While I could explain what it is, how do you teach people to be able to choose the good from the bad? Some are definately not so easy to spot.

      Ol' Joe should be more distrusting of these things, but isn't.

      -- Steve

    6. Re:Meanwhile by kawika · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Verisign charges $400 for a code signing certificate. It doesn't appear they do anywhere near $400 worth of work at the moment. Even if it's true that catching scam names in advance is hard, revoking them should be easy. The "Click YES to continue" cert is still valid, and I can assure you that Verisign is quite aware of it.

  2. That would slow things down by tjlsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And since the purpose of opportunistic companies like Verisign, who's keys are no better than anyone else's, is to make as much doe ray me as fast as possible, why are they going to do this?

    --
    Mumia Abu-Jamal is *laughably guilty*. Check the evidence.
  3. Sounds logical but... by nuclear305 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't deny that VeriSign should be doing a better job with stuff like this, but I certainly don't believe in the claim that by taking their certs away that drive-by downloads will cuddenly stop.

    The real problem is the fact that nobody bothers to read the window that has just popped up in front of them. I'm guilty of this myself, there have been times I've not even recognized a problem with certs on my own servers the first few times clicking through.

    My saving grace is that I never ever click an OK or YES button unless I'm expecting one. That simple rule has kept me from ever having anything installed using this method. The problem is that not everyone understands that they should not agree to every popup window they see. It's not going to matter if it claims to be authorized by God himself; if it has a YES/NO/CANCEL option and the user is not security-aware the person will probably say yes. I think educating people would be more effetive than trying to get the CAs to revoke the certificates.

    I'm sure there will be plenty of the "Use FireFox, Problem Solved!" comments as well. I have experienced, rarely, where a drive-by site is impossible to say "no" to when under Firefox and eventually crashed the browser but IE under SP2 handled itself very well on the same page.

    1. Re:Sounds logical but... by ZiZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure there will be plenty of the "Use FireFox, Problem Solved!" comments as well. I have experienced, rarely, where a drive-by site is impossible to say "no" to when under Firefox and eventually crashed the browser but IE under SP2 handled itself very well on the same page. Right, IE just calmly and quietly installs the software for you if you're not computer-savvy enough to say 'yes' to the dialog box to start with. ;) Seriously, though, I think that the /possibility/ of letting computers auto-install software that doesn't /directly/ come from a company that you've already approved - that is, Microsoft updates for Windows, Mozilla Foundation updates for Mozilla or Firefox, Adobe updates for Photoshop - causes more problems than it reduces headaches. Make people go through extra steps if they want to install FREE PR0N EXPAND YOUR PENIS NOW or A COOL SCREENSAVER FOR YOU, since computers have long been training your average user to just say 'ok' to any dialog box that pops up.

      --
      This flies in the face of science.
  4. Why should Verisign oblige? by littlem · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Now, Ben wants VeriSign to clean up its act: it should refuse to issue certificates to companies that use obviously fake names (such as "CLICK YES TO CONTINUE") or that use those certificates to deceive consumers."

    Come on! Verisign's whole business model is to sell as many certificates as it can - it's simply not in their interests to show scruples like that. Verisign have the MicroSoft seal of approval, so for the average desktop user that makes their reputation beyond suspicion, so they have nothing to lose.

  5. Re:Verisign is not at fault. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Here's how MY browser works: It displays webpages

    My Sister-in-law runs redhat 9 (because I installed the system)

    She tells me that she often goes to sites which offer games which she (or her son) would like to run. Most of the time they don't work either because they need java or activex, or because they are just broken

    Either way it is my fault for giving her a PC which doesn't do all these things

    You and I have reasonable expectations about technology. The person in the street has different expectations and they drive the market

  6. A dumb users first experience of the internet... by buro9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is to trust everyone.

    They have to.

    Every site that they visit will have embedded Flash, embedded Java, embedded QuickTime, embedded Real, embedded midi (FFS!).

    They are taught on their first few days to trust everyone, and that nothing that they want to achieve can be done without trusting that the site is legit in asking you to download and install stuff.

    And when they speak to their geek friends (or friends of their kids), they get told dismissively and condescendingly that YES, they must install to see the site properly, to do what they want. You can bet that they won't ask a second time!

    Is it really a surprise then, that we have a problem later with dumb users downloading spyware, adware, and malware in general?

    The problem could be much alleviated by simply pre-installing all of the key technologies in advance.

    Some Linux distros do this... my mother knew from the first moment she used Simply Mepis that she didn't need to download anything else... I told her this, and because nearly all of her sites worked (just not pogo.com) she hasn't downloaded anything else.

    But you can't do this with Windows... because Windows gives you nothing, and certainly nothing from Apple, Real, Macromedia, Sun, etc... and then to compound it, Windows is an open playground for malware once downloaded.

    If Windows RME were permitted to be shipped with not just alternatives and pre-configured competitor offerings for media, but also with common plugins for the web... and... maybe even Firefox to give choice... then this would do more to prevent malware spreading than Verisign being forced to change their practices.

    Of course... hell would freeze over, pigs would fly, and the Bush would have an epiphany on social welfare before all of the above happened.

  7. Re:A dumb users first experience of the internet.. by TractorBarry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > And when they speak to their geek friends (or
    > friends of their kids), they get told dismissively
    > and condescendingly that YES, they must install to > see the site properly, to do what they want. You
    > can bet that they won't ask a second time!

    Not this geek friend. I tell people not to trust anyone on the internet and to never download any crappy plugins as 90% of them will simply be used for serving up intrusive advertising. And if the site doesn't work without their plugins them go elsewhere.

    After I've removed the first load of spyware and repeated the advice they usually listen. If not they don't get a second visit from me. I just point them to the internet and say "You're not interested in my advice so you can fix things yourself".

    Sorry I've gone half tilt Amish on the idiots of the internet. If you can't get your message over to me using plain old HTML and static images you can stick your message up your arse.

    The internet is not digital TV.

    Personally I can't wait 'til someone invents some sort of uber bandwidth media-tastic bright & shiny "Hyper Net" (now with unbrakabul DRM (tm)). Then all the drongos can go and happily consume on it whilst leaving the rest of us with our "good old" internet.

    Plugins ? I spit on you all.

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  8. Quit treating certificates as indications of trust by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The other solution is to quit treating digital certificates as something to do with trust (the authorization-vs-authentication fallacy). Microsoft's stupid "security zones" model takes this blatant idiocy further than anyone, but all browsers have adopted some similar conceptual structure.

    A certificate doesn't tell you anything about whether a web site is secure, trustable, or anything else. It simply provides a slightly better verification of identity.

  9. Re: Java? by archen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You'd be surprised. Our company bought a product from UPS logistics that uses the Sun Java runtime but doesn't work in Firefox. (yes I'm serious). Turns out they have a bunch of IE only javascript that sends parameters to the applet, whithout the parameters it doesn't initalize. I dug around the system for like an hour trying to figure out what it was doing, but in the end just gave up. Lazy programmers will always bone you, no matter how portible something is supposed to be.