Slashdot Mirror


Zone Alarm Vs 180 Solutions: Zango hooks?

Sub-Seven writes "Found at Vitalsecurity.org, they detail how a Microsoft MVP pulled the Zango file to pieces, and discovered some interesting facts about exactly what a "simple" fun and games application does to a machine that its running on. Hooking into Windows OneCare and Microsoft Antispyware? What's that all about? "

166 comments

  1. Re:Wow first post? by HulkProtector1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You must be new here.

  2. First Time I've ever seen that... by dtolman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is it just me, or is the friggin slashdot summary got more information than the linked article?

    Thats gotta be a first...

    1. Re:First Time I've ever seen that... by Ooblek · · Score: 1
      The article didn't make much sense, but I *think* someone figured out that some downloaded POS program uses the CBT windows hooks. CBT is for [C]omputer [B]ased [T]raining. If I had to guess why they would do this, it is so their program can react to content that trigger's their CBT hooks. If I recall correctly, you can imbed this type of CBT stuff in Windows media files. So their memory resident POS program sits their and reacts to video streamed off their affiliates sites?

      Of course, the problem here is that other parites will be able to figure this out too. I bet someone finds out that Zango can launch external programs based on content in WMV streaming media. If so, this will be the next Sony-DRM-type scandal.

    2. Re:First Time I've ever seen that... by Bob_Villa · · Score: 5, Informative

      On the blog, just click the link that says "Very thorough runthrough", which links to the following url: http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/temp/zango.htm

      I think this link is actually pretty good. I agree, the blog wasn't the most clear.

    3. Re:First Time I've ever seen that... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, not sure why they linked to that blog. The blog does however have a link to the useful info. This is it.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    4. Re:First Time I've ever seen that... by Prog_Burner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is an awful article, people we've never heard of, telling us things we already know. 180 Solutions = Bad. Thanks random blogs.

    5. Re:First Time I've ever seen that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is Videodrome"

      [While watching the ###th amateur snuff movie he downloaded from the net, a fiendishly hexen but still strangely attractive woman seems to ooze herself out of the video player window and adresses him directly...]

      "Mister Doe, we know all about you. There is no escape. We want your domain name. We w_a_n_t your domain name. Either you go directly to your DNS administration site and cancel your registration or we will show the world the most morbid fantasy homemovies you've ever made and your business will be HISTORY...!"

      [While he gasps for breath, software on his computer stealthily sneaks around his hard drive and marks all his recorded videos, ready to pass them on to a pattern recognition engine, to be uploaded to shadycreepygoons666.com's server...]

  3. Re:Wow first post? by Fordiman · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ohhhh... it's saying 180Solutions is Spyware.

    One word: Duh.

    --
    110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  4. I'll paraphrase the article for clarity: by Crizzam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Zango dango bo-bango, banana fana fo-fango fe-fi mo-mango, Zaaaango.

    1. Re:I'll paraphrase the article for clarity: by Yaa+101 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It shows that mods have no sense of humor at all in most cases...

    2. Re:I'll paraphrase the article for clarity: by Linker3000 · · Score: 0

      Wil, is that you?

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
  5. Just like the Kennedy Assassination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zango is not the same as ZoneAlarm. ZoneAlarm is prosperous and protects against spyware and firewalls. However, because ZoneAlarm contains hooks, the phishers go wild for vulnerabilities. It's vulnerabilities, folks, that I'm talking about. And if you don't believe it, call me a goatse spammer or something.
     
      A poem about microsoft goes like this.
    His name is Bill Gates
    His os makes for long waits
    So does his ISP
    But you
    are through

    1. Re:Just like the Kennedy Assassination by frinkacheese · · Score: 1, Funny
      ZoneAlarm is prosperous and protects against spyware and firewalls

      We all need protecting from those nasty firewalls ;-)

  6. It's not just you by winkydink · · Score: 2, Funny

    The linked-to blog article is clear as mud

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:It's not just you by croddy · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, that's not muddy. That's the New Journalism. It's supposed to be nonsensical and unreadable.

    2. Re:It's not just you by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The linked-to blog article is clear as mud

      No kidding. The blog article has ZERO content, apart from linking to two other sites about some program that purportedly is being flagged as spyware.

      If slashdot is accepting lame "my blog entry" submissions like this (and what's with the "Microsoft MVP" comment in the submission? That's like trying to give credibility to a blog entry by purporting it to come from a "high school graduate"), then I'm going to start submitting every entry I make. Maybe I'll blog about this blog entry that blogs about a blog entry and submit that.

      Ah well, like I - esteemed high school graduate and Blockbuster cardholder - said - most blogging is bloggers talking about blogging. (Yes, hypocrisy runs deep with this)

    3. Re:It's not just you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the mike burgess guy *is* an MVP...

    4. Re:It's not just you by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      but the mike burgess guy *is* an MVP...

      Perhaps I'm missing a joke, however both the linked blog entry, and the linked Burgess entry that he links to, are MVPs. Good for them, but it really doesn't designate quite a level of accomplishment or credibility that it merits mention in the submission.

    5. Re:It's not just you by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 0

      Surely that makes it Post Modern Journalism ?

    6. Re:It's not just you by Donut2099 · · Score: 0

      Oh Noes!

    7. Re:It's not just you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      no, i think thats New Jersey you're thinking of.

      New Journalism is when you write the article first, then look for sources after.

    8. Re:It's not just you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well possibly not, though the boyd guy is well known for hitting big "busts" - last one was this http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1888714,00.as p and he had the bittorrent thing some time ago. i'd say thats a pretty decent accomplishment. and what sounds better - "security mvp" finds x, y and z" or "some random guy"? Surely a little background info goes a long way?

    9. Re:It's not just you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The shot about MVPs is unwarranted, in my opinion. At least for C++, I thought they did a reasonable job of vetting them -- all of my experience with the other C++ MVPs showed them to be very knowledgeable about the language. Certainly, the standard was higher than merely "high school graduate." And Microsoft had an obvious incentive for that to be so, both because they spent money on the program, and because the MVPs were sort of a proxy support group for MS and their quality reflected back on the company.

      Personal bias -- I was a VC MVP for two years, and I earned that status by providing a lot of good, free advice on C++ programming with VC in the newsgroups. My status lapsed after I had a significant downturn in involvement in the groups.

    10. Re:It's not just you by Pollardito · · Score: 2, Informative
      just to show that it wasn't a one-time thing, here's a quote from his entry describing his blog :
      If you want a full on, voice of God raging from a thunderstorm malware apocalypse complete with stupid pictures, pressure cranked up to 11 and the now obligatory sound and vision link, keep it tuned to Vitalsecurity.org.
    11. Re:It's not just you by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The shot about MVPs is unwarranted, in my opinion.

      I didn't intend to make a shot at MVPs (and I'm sure there are a lot of kick-ass, very talented people with the designation. Usually it's one of their many designations). All I was doing was questioning whether it really gives any additional weight to the submission (most of the people who are linked have a BSc - how many times do submissions say "BSc holder John Topley says that...". A BSc is a much greater accomplishment than a MVP).

      There are any number of accomplishments that people in this field have achieved, but unless they are pertinent they really don't usually get mentioned in a Slashdot submission. In this case the "Microsoft MVP" thing just looked ridiculous (especially outside of a Microsoft only forum).

    12. Re:It's not just you by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      i'd say thats a pretty decent accomplishment. and what sounds better - "security mvp" finds x, y and z" or "some random guy"? Surely a little background info goes a long way?

      It said "Microsoft MVP" (which could mean an MVP in any number of very isolated technologies) rather than Microsoft Security MVP. In any case, if someone has that sort of history a simple "Noted security expert" would be vastly preferrable to "Security MVP", as least IMHO.

    13. Re:It's not just you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fair enough - though in this case, Mike Burgess is not what id call a "noted security expert" - though he *is* noted security mvp.

    14. Re:It's not just you by afabbro · · Score: 1
      Ah, another fine example of Slashdot "editing".

      The link that should probably have been put in the article is: http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/temp/zango.htm

      Of course, if Hemos had actually looked before posting...

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    15. Re:It's not just you by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      So, New Journalists get their training right here, and graduate when their karma goes negative due to adverse moderation??

    16. Re:It's not just you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point taken.

      (Although I would tend to consider an MVP to be a more significant indication of competence than a BS -- I've worked with people who had a BS who I doubt would have had the necessary skills to obtain an MVP award, assuming they actually did the kind of activities that would have led to one. But this is going off on a bit of a tangent.)

  7. Software firewalls?! by FatSean · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Um...not sure what's going on here...but I think software firewalls have to be one of the silliest 'security products' out there. I still can't believe cable companies don't distribute modem/routers to users and remotely configure them to block the commonly exploited ports and protocols.

    My conspiracy theory is that they have big investments in the software firewall companies...and in existing non-router cablemodems.

    SO we suffer.

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Software firewalls?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a pretty arrogant statmenet. Software firewalls have a legit use in controlling internet access at the application level regardless of what ports the application uses.

      Just because you don't have a use for them doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose.

    2. Re:Software firewalls?! by sirwired · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um...not sure what's going on here...but I think software firewalls have to be one of the silliest 'security products' out there. I still can't believe cable companies don't distribute modem/routers to users and remotely configure them to block the commonly exploited ports and protocols.

      Errr... because quality software firewalls (like ZoneAlarm) and home hardware firewalls/routers protect against two entirely different problems?

      Home Routers/Firewalls protect your machine against INBOUND, unsolicited connection requests. This makes you immune to attemts to exploit server-type services, like file-sharing, IIS holes, etc. This lets me run VNC, Apache, whatever on my home machine and not have to worry about keeping patches up to date (or even setting a password, for that matter.)

      Software firewalls protect you against OUTBOUND connections you did not authorize. Port-blocking does nothing to stop this because a nefarious software vendor can't be stopped from sending an outbound request on port 80 by an external firewall.

      I can't count how many programs (even legit ones) that shouldn't be talking to the internet keep requesting outbound connections. (This is all caught by ZoneAlarm.)

      SirWired

    3. Re:Software firewalls?! by nonsequitor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who do you want to control the firewall for your connection? I would rather have full control over my home network, let everyone else be damned. What if they start blocking port 21 (no ssh for you), then they block 80 (you shouldn't be running a webserver on a non-commercial line anyway), and so on.

      Sorry, good idea, but there's no real standard between OS's on reserved ports in the sub 1024 range. Ports which you may not want exposed to the world on a windows box could run a perfectly secure service on a *nix box. I don't think that is the case at the moment, but you get the idea.

      Your ISP is a common carrier, they are not liable for what is transmitted over their network. I believe they are looking into attack mitigation for large scale DDoS and worm traffic, but if they start requiring me to use a firewall configured by them, I'll switch ISPs.

    4. Re:Software firewalls?! by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Home Routers/Firewalls protect your machine against INBOUND, unsolicited connection requests.

      That is not correct. Typical home routers are Network Address Port Translation (NAPT) devices that translate private internal addres to a singel public external address. Stopping unsolicited external connections is a beneficial side-effect of NAPT because there is no translation rule for the NAPT router to pass traffic inward. Now, many NAPT routers can't properly handle dynamic protocols like gaming protocoals (specirfically gaming protocols that use ephemeral ports from external hosts (VoIP suffers from this too, btw)), so without specific game support (on a per title or service basis), you essentially create a default inbound rule that says "any external unsolicted connection gets sent to this internal computer."

      Software firewalls protect you against OUTBOUND connections you did not authorize.

      Wrong again. Host firewalls will block unsolicted external connections to the host and in fact was the original design goal of BlackICE, Zone, and others. Check it out. Turn one on, scan it and see what happens. Then turn off the host firewall, scan it, and compare the results. The blocking of outbound connections came later, as a feature to stop worms and network viruses from spreading.

      So if your doing on-line games and your router doesn't intelligently support the gaming protocol (assuming the gaming protocol uses ephemeral ports), then your host is a sitting duck.

    5. Re:Software firewalls?! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't count how many programs (even legit ones) that shouldn't be talking to the internet keep requesting outbound connections. (This is all caught by ZoneAlarm.)

      For OS X users, try A href="http://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/in dex.html">Little Snitch for the same functionality. Some of the outbound connections Adobe software attempts to make (weird out of country IP addresses) are scary.

    6. Re:Software firewalls?! by Thangodin · · Score: 1

      You should have both a software and hardware firewall. Hardware firewalls are much better for dealing with attacks from outside, but they will not prevent spyware or trojans from sending information out. Something like ZoneAlarm will at least notify you when something that should not have internet access is trying to get through. Hardware firewalls are pretty much useless once a program is on your machine.

    7. Re:Software firewalls?! by Mnemia · · Score: 1

      That's all true, but unless Windows has a really good way to prevent tampering with drivers and unrelated programs then the software firewall will be vulnerable to being disabled or bypassed by malware. At least when you have a separate machine running your firewall nasty applications can't mess with it.

      What we really need is a cheap, standalone appliance with an application-level firewall that can determine what application is sending requests by looking at packet contents (I know this is difficult). This won't solve the problem entirely, but it would help. A way to absolutely prevent unknown programs from loading into the kernel space or "hooking" into applications like this one did would help the existing software be more secure at least. Maybe require a reboot with Windows explicitly asking if it's okay?

    8. Re:Software firewalls?! by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      You need to block all the ports THAT YOU ARE NOT USING. I have a hard enough time getting things set up around broadband companies firewalls. I paid for a connection to the internet, I want a connection to the internet. If I want a company to give me restricted access so that I can't hurt my computer, I would hire a security company not an ISP. Let me put my own router on that I can configure. When the ISP start deciding what I need it ends up being surfing the web and sending email to their server. If I only needed two ports, lets just change the IP spec to a single digit number. That would give us 80% capacity to expand in the future if the ISP decides I am allowed to do something else.

    9. Re:Software firewalls?! by towsonu2003 · · Score: 1

      anyone knows any software firewall gui (for easy configuration of iptables and stuff) for linux?

    10. Re:Software firewalls?! by harrkev · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are picking nits...

      A NAT box does indeed protect from incoming connections (provided that you do not use DMZ and port forwarding). This may indeed be considered to be a side-effect, but that does not mean that it does not work. How well these routers work for gaming is another matter entirely. And as far as gaming goes, I am certainly not an expert as I am not into on-line games, but each game should specify which ports it uses so that you can open those ports in your NAT box. Having to use DMZ for a game is silly and dangerous.

      As what the GP post said is correct. Software firewalls offer outbound protections. You are right that their first purpose is to protect from inbound threats, but if you have a NAT, you have NO inbound threats (except perhaps for those ports used for games when your game software is not running). Filtering outbound connections is the only reason that I use a software firewall. In fact, my software firewall has NEVER had to block an incoming connection since I built my present computer over a year ago, thanks to my NAT box.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    11. Re:Software firewalls?! by sirwired · · Score: 1

      Yes, stopping unsolicited external connections cold is a "side-effect" of a NAPT box, but that does not make it any less useful or effective.

      As far as the DMZ goes... Anybody that sets up the DMZ on a router better know exactly what they are doing, and the two routers I have dealt with have thrown up warning boxes that setting up a DMZ was a bad idea. Personally, I think that any protocol designer for the last couple of years that can't decide on a single inbound port, knowing how common home routers are, needs his head examined.

      For the software firewalls... yep they all certainly were designed to block inbound connections, but a NAPT box does a much better job. I believe that ZoneAlarm has ALWAYS done outbound monitoring.

      SirWired

    12. Re:Software firewalls?! by the+plant+doctor · · Score: 1

      Guarddog is my preference. http://www.simonzone.com/software/guarddog/

    13. Re:Software firewalls?! by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Software firewalls can usually be simply bypassed by anything running on the same machine as they are. In combination with a number of other techniques (not commonly used and frequently impractical on Windows), they can provide real protection. In the general case, they do not. A properly configured and sufficently powerful external firewall actually can block outgoing traffic, including nasty malicious stuff. An internal firewall like ZoneAlarm will only even see trivial and barely malicious stuff, like spyware. On the other hand, its a lot easier to set up and at least it looks like its doing something.

    14. Re:Software firewalls?! by Budfrogs · · Score: 2, Informative

      The disadvantage of using a router for outbound filtering/blocking/security is that the Application data is not availalbe. While a software firewall can determine which application if trying to make/recieve the connection. Many software firewalls check to see if the program accessing the net has changed and lets you decide if you want the new version to have access.

    15. Re:Software firewalls?! by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      I paid for a connection to the internet, I want a connection to the internet. If I want a company to give me restricted access so that I can't hurt my computer, I would hire a security company not an ISP. Let me put my own router on that I can configure.

      What so many people on this venerable forum tend to forget is that the OTHER 98% of Internet users probably don't even know what a firewall is, letalone how to configure same.

      If you're using SOHO broadband service, you are not paying for an SLA. You are paying to use a service based upon their terms and conditions which can (and often do) change at any given time. Read your terms of use very carefully.

      Therefore I would say the converse angle to your statement would be if you want unrestricted access to the full Internet you should contact a commercial ISP and pay the going rate. (Hint: $29.95/month will not buy a proper SLA)

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    16. Re:Software firewalls?! by selfabuse · · Score: 1

      I'm partial to shorewall - and the shorewall webmin plugin.

    17. Re:Software firewalls?! by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I concur. Little Snitch is a great product -- it's actually one of the few pieces of OS X shareware that I think is absolutely worth the money for anyone with a Mac (PithHelmet is the other easy choice).

      I think it's actually superior to ZoneAlarm on the PC, because it provides more flexible options for blocking outbound connections. When an application that's not on the whitelist tries to initiate a connection, you get the option of allowing it to connect to any server on any port, any server but only on one port, or only to a specific server and on a specific port. Plus you can have that setting remembered either only for a single session, or permanently. Although the interface is pretty simple, over time you can build up a pretty complicated scheme of custom preferences. Personally I err on the strict side; unless I can think of a good reason why an application needs to connect to 'any server' (e.g., it's a browsing app of some sort), I always set it to "only this server and port" and then approve every server that it's trying to connect to.

      And you're absolutely right, Adobe software has struck me recently as being extremely creepy in both how often it tries to call home, and where it calls "home."

      The one downside to Little Snitch is that it's so well known on the Mac that some rootkits actually go out of their way to check and see if it's installed and disable it. It's therefore not a replacement for caution and good use practices, however it does make users a lot more aware about what software does stuff without them giving it permission.

      Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that something like this isn't built into the OS kernel. Maybe there are technical barriers to doing it that I'm not aware of, but for a consumer OS these days, it seems borderline irresponsible to allow any program to initiate any network connection to any server and to any port that it wants, without any checking of user intent.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    18. Re:Software firewalls?! by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      I think this would be a great idea.

      I understand the objections: it probably would be a lot less effective against malware that encrypts its transmissions and masquerades as a legitimate HTTPS session or something, but it would at least give a greatly increased amount of control to home network operators, control which is currently limited to enterprise networks.

      The product I'd love to see a free alternative to is the Packeeter Packetshaper. It's a hardware device that inspects packets individually and compares them (with a certain degree of intelligence, I'm told) to lists of known P2P programs, spam email streams, and other garbage traffic (excessive ping requests, etc.). The main selling point is blocking peer to peer apps, at which it is quite good against casual use; it doesn't do anything against sessions that are tunnelled in other protocols or encrypted, but it increases the user expertise and effort required (as well as computational and network overhead) to get P2P working, which is enough to discourage it for 90+% of users. Plus it has some very nice reporting features that could be a good diagnostic tool. (E.g., is mom's computer in the basement that she only uses for email and IM going through GBs of transfer a day? Probably zombified.)

      I think if it were a free product, first of all it could probably be put to a lot more interesting uses than what Packeeter is marketing it for. Obviously at the very least you could use it to stop the dumber varieties of spyware and malware (ones that don't tunnel or encrypt), plus I think it would have a more general role just in giving users more control over their networks and what flows in and out of them than they now have. I would install it just for the diagnostic and reporting capabilities.

      What I'd love to have is a product sort of like SmoothWall -- one CD that you pop into an unused box with two NICs to make it into an appliance -- that would run on a home network between the router/gateway and the cable/DSL modem and could be remotely administered. I think there could be significant demand for something like this (which will only increase in the future) but companies are too focused on the lucrative enterprise market to aim for end users. Although there might not be much money to be made, the mindshare gain could be a significant win for FOSS if it was done correctly.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    19. Re:Software firewalls?! by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Agree completely. I definitely DO NOT want to give any more control over to the cable companies than they already have.

      The last thing I need is them installing some overprotective, nannying firewall at the head end and limiting what I can do with my connection. What I do on my end, as long as it's not damaging to the network in some way (relaying spam or something) isn't their business or their problem.

      Maybe I want to leave my system open to the public net for some reason; perhaps so I can access my iTunes from work or something, or use FTP. That's my risk to take, and if I do it with a computer running a shoddy OS, I'll probably get owned and turned into a spam zombie (in which case they should cut my connection when it becomes clear I'm relaying Viagra ads 10,000 times a minute).

      You know if they made a firewall like that, it would be aimed at the 'lowest common denominator' -- probably an unsecured, unpatched Win98 or WinME box. And that would shoot a whole lot of people who either don't use such an insecure OS, or actually follow good security practices, in the foot. It would be a vast step backwards, and give users a horrible false sense of security that they don't deserve. Plus, you know the cable companies would charge an arm and a leg to get rid of that firewall (probably you'd need to upgrade to their Business or Premier account, just like you do now to get a static IP).

      That's an idea that we just cannot let gain any traction. Your ISP is not your net mommy; don't expect it to take care of you.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  8. Removing spyware in applications by dada21 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It wouldn't surprise me if 30% of my IT company's income came from user stupidity combined with software such as the XCP, spywared games, and other fun entertainment products. Yet this is just the market at work. Loopholes are found, usually because of click-through-licensing. Companies will always attempt to build their markets and consumers will always find the bad seeds.

    It is very important to realize that as long as end users continue to install these programs, marketing companies will feed their needs. You could ague for laws against these backdoor programs, but it wouldn't solve anything and in fact might make the problem worse as companies find sneakier ways to get into your desktop.

    The only way to make a smart consumer is to inform them of the bad things. This means getting the word out, telling others to be careful, and even offering training for groups. My company makes a good profit on spyware, but we offer completely free training days for companies that want to save money by training their employees in safe web browsing. I don't think the answer is "Install Linux and Firefox and the problem will go away!" If Linux/Firefox occupied 90% of desktops, the marketing companies would find a way to take advantage of that platform.

    Smart users are informed users are users who won't continue making the same mistakes. Finding band-aids through legislation or discrete installation of anti-spyware software isn't going to solve the problem.

    As a sidenote -- the reason for training my customers in smart browsing techniques is a selfish one. As we reduce a company's cost of doing business, our referral rate skyrockets. The less we work/bill, the more work we have to bill. If you're a consultant and you're not seeing a decent increase in your customer base every year, you're not doing a good enough job. There is more work in the U.S. than is being tapped, and it is usually because companies aren't seeing things getting better.

    1. Re:Removing spyware in applications by quanticle · · Score: 1

      I agree that education is important in fighting these scams. And yes, I've done my part, telling everyone that I know that billing info/passwords should never be sent through e-mail, that applications should be examined before they are installed, etc. However, I often find that the increasing sophistication of spyware and phishing scams often overcomes whatever training I give (i.e.: "I know you told me not to send my billing information over e-mail but it was so convincing...). Heck, I've seen phishing scams that looked so authentic that I may very well have been taken, if I had a pre-existing business relationship with the organization that the scam was trying to impersonate.

      My point is that, yes, education can prevent many from falling victim to the easy and simple scams. However, education that is not absolutely thorough may lead to overconfidence, allowing people to fall for the slightly more sophisticated scam with even greater ease.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    2. Re:Removing spyware in applications by dada21 · · Score: 1

      You're right -- just training someone in proper use isn't enough. It is also important to train people in questioning every action before performing it. Phishing is getting harder to detect, yet it is causing the banks to take better security measures (they end up paying for the phishing in the end). This is the market at work -- government is coming along to draw the chalk-line and collect evidence, the banks are working to prevent the crime from ever happening.

    3. Re:Removing spyware in applications by aquarian · · Score: 3, Insightful


      I agree with everything you said, but especially this:

      As a sidenote -- the reason for training my customers in smart browsing techniques is a selfish one. As we reduce a company's cost of doing business, our referral rate skyrockets. The less we work/bill, the more work we have to bill. If you're a consultant and you're not seeing a decent increase in your customer base every year, you're not doing a good enough job. There is more work in the U.S. than is being tapped, and it is usually because companies aren't seeing things getting better.

      I've found this applies to whatever business you're in. I've started, grown, and sold 4 different companies, in completely unrelated industries. The more we were able to make ourselves unnecessary, the more work we got.

    4. Re:Removing spyware in applications by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I've found this applies to whatever business you're in. I've started, grown, and sold 4 different companies, in completely unrelated industries. The more we were able to make ourselves unnecessary, the more work we got.

      Indeed, nothing gets you more good business than word of mouth. At one of the companies I work for, a locksmith, my boss constantly turns away work. I was talking to an employee of one of our competitors and apparently they spend a lot of time waiting for the phone to ring. It's not advertising, 'cause we have a one line ad in the yellow pages and they have a two-page full color spread. The difference is that we do quality work that stays done for years. The other guys use crap materials and do a half-assed job. They charge 20% less than us per hour. We work 8-4 mon-fri and they all take turns taking 24hr emergency pages all week. Quality work sells itself, and sells for more money.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:Removing spyware in applications by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've found this applies to whatever business you're in. I've started, grown, and sold 4 different companies, in completely unrelated industries. The more we were able to make ourselves unnecessary, the more work we got.

      Succinctly put. What you just said is about 1/3rd the reason I became a libertarian and then became an anarchocapitalist. I realized that businesses that exist to grow and tread new markets are what makes this world wonderful. I saw how some corporations (not businesses) fought to stay the same, and wanted to make a law to enforce the status quo. I've been a businessman since I was 13/14, and I never really thought about "What is legal?" I thought "What is moral?" I didn't need the law to tell me what my customers wanted and what I could provide. I didn't need the law to tell me when a product I made was harmful to my customers. I just knew. As I left my teens, I realized that almost all my businesses were just stepping stones to new ones. I'm always focusing on what will replace me, and then seeing what will replace other industries. Those are the businesses to be in before the masses start investing in IPOs -- which are already too late to the scene.

    6. Re:Removing spyware in applications by malice78 · · Score: 1

      Quote: "The only way to make a smart consumer is to inform them of the bad things. This means getting the word out, telling others to be careful, and even offering training for groups.... Smart users are informed users are users who won't continue making the same mistakes...." This is better than the "just install Linux," but try as you may, I don't think you will educate people the way you intend. First off, in many companies, it's just too hard to get that educational word out. I mean, I personally work for a compnay with 250K employees. The failure rate to disseminate the info to that many employees is huge! Second, some people simply don't want to learn the "how computer programs work" propaganda we techies put out. Half the time, users can't even follow simple directions because they just don't like using computers! Third, if users spent the time to actually watch out for these programs at work, they would spend more time doing that than actually working. This is why many of us have jobs in the tech "sector." Even if we are able to teach this process of how to avoid such things, the way this content is able to bleed into our systems will change and we will be forced to start over in the training of employees.

    7. Re:Removing spyware in applications by dada21 · · Score: 1

      First off, in many companies, it's just too hard to get that educational word out. I mean, I personally work for a compnay with 250K employees.

      Educating on an issue doesn't happen overnight and doesn't have to happen from your employer. If you tell family and friends about the problems out there, the word will get out. The spammers and spywarers will be ahead of the game in the beginning, but Bad Things eventually lose out as more and more people become educated about those Bad Things. Maybe we can perfect operating systems enough so that spyware/adware won't have backdoors, but I still think we, as geeks, can do our job by educating those around us.

      Half the time, users can't even follow simple directions because they just don't like using computers!

      You're right, and the answer isn't "people are becoming more tech savvy" as the worst spyware-installation violators are the teens, it seems. Spyware also seems to be one of those things that IT consultants LIKE because it increases their income base/job security. I'm not saying education is the end-all be-all solution, but I don't see how patching and defending will ever be the answer. As OSes progress and as spyware infections disable more systems, the market of consumers has to get smart.

    8. Re:Removing spyware in applications by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      My Uncle is a self-employed HVAC installer/maintainer and consistently has to turn business away. The scary thing is that he does half-assed work and still gets recommended by everyone. Occasionally a customer complains shortly after an installation or repair, but my Uncle will promptly go out of his way to satisfy them.

      I think it might just be that many people are satisfied with what I and a handful of other people consider half-assed work (I'm a perfectionist to a degree). My Uncle also has a unique personality which many of his customers really appreciate.

    9. Re:Removing spyware in applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's funny. I manufacture HVAC systems. For years I used to joke about our product being "Just good enough to move air", until one day I saw some of our competitor's units dismantled in one of our training areas.

      When I saw what the competition was selling, I was like "woah, no wonder we cost the most, and no wonder we do so much business."

      It's all relative. I'm something of a perfectionist, too. But having seen how good our "crap" is compared to theirs, I realized, I'm just anal.

      Apparently my co-workers are right. It just has to work. :/

      Posting AC for obvious reasons.

    10. Re:Removing spyware in applications by abirdman · · Score: 1
      You're totally right. Educating users is hard work! Look at the social engineering side of this. The computer support department (that's what I do, too, though in a very small company) is perceived as a bunch of stick-in-the-mud's who don't want anyone to have fun with their computer, just work, drudgery, and ugly interface. Then some website offers them pretty screensavers, or a cool game (isn't the 180 Solutions infection vector Zango a game?) or a toolbar with some easy, timesaving buttons. They're all "free" (so if they're free, they can't be bad, right?) and our users go ahead and download. So what if ZoneAlarm goes nuts? They just click ignore through it, because this is just an innocuous little game for fun. ZoneAlarm and Norton or whatever program complains is just like the computer support guys-- just can't get with the "free and fun" program.

      My ex-GF got her computer so completely infected-- twice-- that it required fdisk and reinstall to clear it out. Once was from opening email that offered fun free stuff (a video), and the other time from downloading and installing a "free" game. People think "free" is good and legit, and that there are places that only want to offer fun and pretty screens "for free" to the whole world. I want to holler to anyone who will listen: There's no such thing as free!! Why would a company give away something for free? They don't! They've got a way to make it back. Your name, email address, IP address, keystrokes, mailing address, email habits, etc., are worth something. The only way a company will give you a free pretty screensaver or maze game is by getting something from you and selling it to someone. 180 Solutions seems to be an example of the worst kind-- they don't even know if they're legit or crooks, and seem to do business with anyone. If someone calls them malware purveyors (which is short for "despicable scum sucking leeches on society") they sue. Ugggh...

      Of course, the irony here is that one of the best forms of protection is Linux/Firefox, which are, in fact, free. Despite that, I still think a good part of user education is to tell them, "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE!" online, or anywhere else.

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
    11. Re:Removing spyware in applications by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      My Uncle is a self-employed HVAC installer/maintainer and consistently has to turn business away. The scary thing is that he does half-assed work and still gets recommended by everyone. Occasionally a customer complains shortly after an installation or repair, but my Uncle will promptly go out of his way to satisfy them. I think it might just be that many people are satisfied with what I and a handful of other people consider half-assed work (I'm a perfectionist to a degree). My Uncle also has a unique personality which many of his customers really appreciate.

      Heh. Yeah, I think you can also get away with "half assing" if you fix your screwups in a timely manner. In my experience, most guys end up contractors because they are incapable of holding down a regular job! They either show up late for scheduled jobs or don't show up at all, they don't return messages from clients, and frequently their half-assed work isn't the result of overlooking stuff but rather simply is the best they can do. With most guys being like that, the guy with a smidgen of responsibility and a little actual skill is king.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  9. Hmm by CriminalNerd · · Score: 1

    180 is angry about their program being flagged as spyware. So what? Isn't that true? I do know for sure that 180 Solutions is a company that installs a LOOOOT of tracking cookies...Besides...who needs a "search assitant" when you have Google?

    1. Re:Hmm by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      I wasted well over 400 hours getting 180 solutions sh*te out of my family's computers. Their stuff resists Spybot search and destroy and AdAware.

      180 complaining is in the same league with Sadam complaining that he is being prosecuted. These are the kind of people for whom cruel and inhuman torture are just too lenient. If I had any say in it, anyone who works for 180 would be battered to death with a spam can, then hung at Tyburn, and very publicly drawn and quartered. To an accompanyment specially composed classical music.

      If there is a US department of homeland security, why the f*** are these people not in Guano bay? Where is GW when you need him? Where are the G-men, the National Guard? The Mafia hit men? Columbian drug enforcers? What is wrong with the USA of today?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:Hmm by ppz003 · · Score: 1

      An appropriate name, 180 Solutions, since their products turn you 180 degrees from whereever you were trying to go on the internet. Not quite as bad a CoolWebSearch, but still annoying.

  10. Hey - _I_ need a software firewall by dtolman · · Score: 1

    Hey! Those poor saps out there who don't have your fancy-shmancy high-speed internet connections need software firewalls - unless you can figure out a way to block ports on my modem.

    1. Re:Hey - _I_ need a software firewall by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      Hey! Those poor saps out there who don't have your fancy-shmancy high-speed internet connections need software firewalls - unless you can figure out a way to block ports on my modem.

      As another person already pointed out, there are a multitude of dial-up capable routers on the market today. Most of them have been phased out in favour of broadband-only variants but some are still produced. Many models have both dial-up and broadband capabilities, some even go to the extent of using dial-up as a failover if the broadband link is down. Typically these routers come with atleast 4 ports making it easy to network your home. They'll also cost you pretty much the same as a decent 4/5 port 10/100 switch.

      If, on the other hand, you don't want to "pay anything" for your home connection - that's fine. Just don't be alarmed when your computer is taken over and your 48kbit connection becomes a 1kbit connection. :)

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

  11. Re:Wow first post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Basically after RTFA seems to me that 180 and friends are trying to deny what the app actually does, It was interesting to see the M$ explaination of the Procedure call.

    TBH 180 and all those other search / tool bar(ish) things are spyware to improve your popups and help slow your PC to a crawl.

    --

  12. Clever (rolleyes) by Pope · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Put a link to the article on the same page as itself, thereby upping your Google ranking.

    Blogs are awesome.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    1. Re:Clever (rolleyes) by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Nahhhhhhhh surely your just trolling

      Surely Google wouldn't consider that an uplift.
      Most sites and pages have it (even slash).

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Clever (rolleyes) by Vorondil28 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right. This is a nearly-stock Blogger.com template. All he's done is add a few things in the sidebar and the fancy title-image at the top. Links like that are there on that template as well as nearly every other Blogger template.

      --
      This sig rocks the casbah.
  13. This is worse than Spyware by HexaByte · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the article:

    180Solutions was complaining that "ZoneAlarm was advising that our 180search Assistant "is trying to monitor your mouse movements and keyboard strokes" well let's see after reading the above ... that description looks right to me.

    This is worse than spyware. This could be used to transmit your account codes and PINs, passwords, etc.

    Sounds like stealware(TM) to me!

    --
    HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
    1. Re:This is worse than Spyware by jjeffrey · · Score: 1

      Actually I can think of a number of reasons why an adware program might have legitimate reason to monitor your mouse movements - activating roll overs, pop ups etc.

      I can't think of anything it would do with that functionlity that wouldn't be annoying, but I can see why it might be considered legitimate.

      If it is storing key strokes to build an advertising profile or something (e.g. if you type "cat food" a lot - that would be different).

    2. Re:This is worse than Spyware by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Sounds like stealware(TM) to me!"

      Whose side are you on, the **AA?

      It's not theft, since they are only making a copy, and you are not deprived of the use of your account codes, PINs, etc.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:This is worse than Spyware by Sique · · Score: 1

      Normally the window that you scroll over gets a mouse event anyway, so if this is your window you'll be fine just to handle that event. To get ALL mouse events means that you are catching stuff that doesn't belong to your software. And here you need VERY good reason to have this.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:This is worse than Spyware by alphax45 · · Score: 0

      I have to say this:

      So your saying a "copy" of informaion such as your PIN for your bank account and possibly your credit card #, your e-mail passwords, etc... is ok for them to have?
      Hey why not post a "copy" on here so we can all get one. You don't need to worry, as we will only have a "copy". I'm sure no one will do anything bad with the "copy".

      Note to mods: it's funny, laugh!

      --
      K Man
    5. Re:This is worse than Spyware by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Excatly. There's exactly one class of applications which needs to create a WH-CBT hook -- Computer Based Training apps. They really do need to track everything, in order to correct the insane thing users try to do and say "No, that's not what you want to do." Nobody else should ever hook that stream.

    6. Re:This is worse than Spyware by tepp · · Score: 1

      Actually there's another reason to use these sort of hooks.

      Let's say you're making an instant messenger type of application, and you want it to show when the user has walked away from his computer. Now if you just use keystrokes in your application, that won't work cause most of the time an IM application isn't used. So you got to hook into the entire computer's keyboard and mouse motion handler, so you can see when neither the mouse nor the keyboard have been touched for five or so minutes and then you can put the little "away" icon up in the application's contact list.

      Now you don't have to use the CBT hooks - you can use the system wide keyboard and mouse hooks instead - but it looks just as bad both ways according to anti-spyware programs.

      --
      Tepp
    7. Re:This is worse than Spyware by thebatlab · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Note to poster: It wasn't funny, don't tell me when to laugh.

    8. Re:This is worse than Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey - it's not stealing. They never would have paid for it in the first place.

    9. Re:This is worse than Spyware by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I'm not a programmer, so feel free to correct me if this is totally stupid. But isn't there some way to figure out if a computer is idle, without each application itself tapping into and tracking the mouse motion itself, looking for movement? I thought that the OS would just provide some sort of handler for idletime -- I know (back in Mac OS 8 or 9) there used to be an Extension, the equivalent of a kernel patch almost, to provide something like this. (IIRC it was just called "IdleTime" and it used to cause no end of shit, but it was required for a lot of things.) It seems redundant to have every application that needs to know the time-since-last-input to have to monitor those streams. Not just IM programs but screensavers, grid computing apps, backup programs, antivirus scanners, maybe even some more exotic stuff that I can't think of right now, all need to know this. I can't imagine that if you were designing an OS that you'd make it necessary for each of them to dig into the raw user input stream, and not provide some service for this.

      Anyone want to confirm/deny my suspicions?

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  14. related info by rd4tech · · Score: 3, Informative
  15. Interesting little side not by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole reason for the lawsuit wasn't because 180 was pissed with misleading statements, it was because a potential business partner of 180solutions had concerns about associating their company which Zone Labs had tagged as a high security risk.

    Well, if legitimate companies are afraid to associate with spyware companies, then I'd call that a good side-effect of the Sony malware mess.

  16. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by Frankie70 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For anyone who doesn't know, you become a Microsoft MPV largely by being an unemployed loser - the more time you can waste away providing pro-Microsoft answers on Microsoft's message boards, providing them with a lot of free labour.


    What about all those people providing support on Linux/MySQL/Apache mailing lists/forums etc - what
    are they? Unemployed losers or OSS champions?

  17. Why the blog? by imroy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why link to some guys blog with inane comments, when you can link to the page he refers to? Lots more information there.

    What is it with blog pages that link to another blog, which links to another blog, and so on? If this is how things are done in the blogosphere, then my already low opinion of bloggers just slipped a little. Just provide a link to the original f**king information!</rant>

    1. Re:Why the blog? by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What is it with blog pages that link to another blog, which links to another blog, and so on?

      This is the principle of the "Möbius blog", whereby the information is wholly one-sided and is repeated so often that it is taken for fact by anoyone reading it. As they move from link to link, their indoctrination in the rhetoric increases, with the theoretical maximum value being reached when they return to the original "source" blog. Once a "Möbius blog" is entered, the ability of the reader to avoid reading the next blog in the series decreases proportionately.

      The "Möbius blog" is also know as "Internet journalism".

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:Why the blog? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely true -- I've read this in a number of places.

    3. Re:Why the blog? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After a while, the Neverending Blog becomes oroboring. I'll stick to cats.

    4. Re:Why the blog? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      You, sir, have managed to reduce the blogosphere to the nutshell it always was.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    5. Re:Why the blog? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that how humans perceive truth in any place, regardless of the medium?

  18. Here is the background by bytemonger · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hi I think this text shed some lights: http://blog.180solutions.com/PermaLink,guid,5795b8 5d-feea-4656-93e1-d788a01f760a.aspx Poor people @180solutions that suddenly found their spy-ware being detected by Zone-lab's Zonealarm. Zonealarm is obviously a great piece of software. So when 180Solutions became aware of this, they saw their business-model go the way of the dinosaurs.

  19. What's the hook being used for? by kawika · · Score: 5, Informative

    180 is suing ZoneLabs for a very specific and narrow statement as far as I can tell. ZoneLabs says 180 is monitoring key and mouse info, 180 says it is not.
    The analysis linked from TFA explains that he found evidence of setting a windows hook. The question is, does Zango use that hook to collect mouse and key info, even for a short time, or are they using the hook for other purposes? What would those purposes be?

    1. Re:What's the hook being used for? by Ytsejam-03 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The question is, does Zango use that hook to collect mouse and key info, even for a short time, or are they using the hook for other purposes? What would those purposes be?
      Yes, my thoughts exactly. The longer 180 fails to disclose this information, the more it looks like they are doing something nasty.

      That said, I see no evidence that Zango is specifically targeting Windows OneCare or Microsoft Antispyware as TFA implies. The fact that zangohook.dll is being loaded into these processes is *NOT* evidence of this. Zango is setting a system-wide hook, which means that their hook DLL (zangohook.dll) will be automatically loaded into every process in the system that generates one of the events they are trying to hook.

      There are legitimate uses for system-wide hooks. Many Single Sign-On products use them, for instance. The real question is, why exactly does Zango need to set a system-wide hook in the first place? I can't think of any legitimate reasons.
    2. Re:What's the hook being used for? by arkanes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are a number of things you might install a CBT hook for, even legitimate ones, but with the hook installed it absolutely is "monitoring" all keypresses and mouse moves. This is going to hinge on the definition of monitoring - Windows is calling a hook within the Zango code and notifying it of all the events it registered the hook for (which looks like system wide mouse and key events), however, Zango is quite likely ignoring everything except very specific events. Personally, I'd still call that monitoring.

    3. Re:What's the hook being used for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the other article shows Zango is not monitoring key and mouse but that was a 2nd program installed by a popup from a site zango took the computer to.

      So technically Zango is hooking and monitoring just about everything but it is not directly at least, monitoring key and mouse.

    4. Re:What's the hook being used for? by parkrrrr · · Score: 1
      There are a number of things you might install a CBT hook for, even legitimate ones, but with the hook installed it absolutely is "monitoring" all keypresses and mouse moves.

      Microsoft seems to disagree. From the documentation of CBTProc in the MSDN Library:

      The HCBT_CLICKSKIPPED value is sent to a CBTProc hook procedure only if a WH_MOUSE hook is installed. For a list of hit-test codes, see WM_NCHITTEST.
      The HCBT_KEYSKIPPED value is sent to a CBTProc hook procedure only if a WH_KEYBOARD hook is installed.

      So, even if Zango is setting a CBT hook - and TFA has been revised to say they aren't - they're not getting mouse and keyboard events unless they (or, potentially, someone else) are also setting either a mouse or a keyboard hook.

  20. Then again, how about anti-cheat mechanisms? by Idaho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is IMO becoming a problem in a lot of games. Counterstrike, World of Warcraft, Valve with its Steam engine, crap like punkbuster that scans your entire drive, registry and who knows what else, just to make sure you aren't cheating. And we are not talking about minor game companies here.

    Don't get me wrong, cheating is a major (if not: the worst) problem in online games, but the lengths to which game providers go to assure (a) that you are using a legally bought version of the game (most important) and (b) that you are not using modified drivers, game libraries etc. in order to cheat (game company couldn't care less, but it costs them customers so they have to care..), could certainly make some of them be rated as 'spyware'. Then again, so can Windows XP itself. After users accepted that activation crap from Microsoft, where else could you expect this thing to go? If Microsoft is allowed to do it, then why not $small_corp_with_questionable_ethics?

    (obviously, the answer is that Microsoft should not be allowed to do it in the first place, either. But as it is, this company might actually have a point - if Sony can do it and not be detected for over half a year, why can't they? The idea is ridiculous ofcourse, but hey...)

    --
    Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
    1. Re:Then again, how about anti-cheat mechanisms? by AlexMax2742 · · Score: 1
      I'm unclear about VAC and Punkbuster, but doesn't World of Warcraft one way hash everything it scans on your computer, and compares the one way hashes to a central database of one-way hashes of known cheating software?

      If that is the case, then it's almost impossible to gather anything from your computer that they're not specificly looking for.

      I think the problem with VAC isn't that it's invasive, it's that it's not effective enough to keep up with month's-old exploits, and the problem I hear with Punkbuster is not that it's invasive, but that it registeres too many false posatives and there is no appeal process, since Even Balance proclaims that their system is infailable. Anti-cheat devices have problems, but I don't think invasion of privacy is one of them.

      --
      I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
    2. Re:Then again, how about anti-cheat mechanisms? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      and compares the one way hashes to a central database of one-way hashes of known cheating software?

      The database is also downloaded to your machine to do the comparison, so even the hashes aren't transmitted back to Blizzard unless one of them matches.

    3. Re:Then again, how about anti-cheat mechanisms? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How does it keep you from modifying the local database and replacing the "legitimate" hashes with the hashes for the compromised (cheater) software? It would seem that in order to be secure, the comparison has to be run on a trusted machine, which by definition the machine you're scanning for cheats shouldn't be.

      I suppose they can send back a hash of the database to the server or something, but it just seems to me that if what you're describing really is the system, then i's inherently possible to compromise without a decryption-based (or dehashing-based) attack.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    4. Re:Then again, how about anti-cheat mechanisms? by LordLucless · · Score: 1
      y only experience with the anti-cheating programs is WoW, so I'll just limit myself to that. I don't mind their anti-cheat software for three reasons:
      1. It's doing something to help me out. Other people cheating ruins my gaming experience, this helps to stop people cheating. Compare this to "traditional" spyware, whose only "feature" is (search assistant, IE toolbar, etc) is a tagged-on feature that is not in any way dependant on it's "spying" functionality.
      2. It only runs when the game is running. This is a big one. I don't mind spyware that I can turn off just by running it - I'll just never run it. WoW "spyware" starts up when the game starts, and terminates when you quit.
      3. I trust Blizzard. Hell, I give them my credit card number to play their online game. What are they going to pull off my computer that's going to be more potentially damaging than knowing my CC#? I also have faith in modern online commmunities to dissect such spyware, and notify me when something fishy is going on. Especially in regards to large companies and popular software. As per the recent ruckus with Sony. If Blizzard did anything particularly sneaky with their anti-cheating gizmo, it'd be dissected and posted on slashdot and slashdot-esque sites within a week. This sort of thing helps keep companies (especially companies like Blizzard who, have a very product line) honest.
      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  21. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by Ooblek · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think they are OSS Champions as long as they are still classified as college students. After they graduate, they are unemployed losers.

  22. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by rborek · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm a Microsoft MVP, and I'm not unemployed, and I'm not a loser.

    Those active in other communities (ie Linux) are not told that they are unemployed losers for helping people out. So what if a bunch of us want to actually help people by making use of our expertise?

    Not every MVP is an expert in every area, but they are an expert in the area that they were awarded in. For example, my award is in Mobile Devices, but I'm far from being an expert in FoxPro.

  23. Nothing wrong with software firewalls... by StupidKatz · · Score: 3, Informative

    [...] unless you can figure out a way to block ports on my modem.

    Done and done. Other types of "dial-up routers" exist, but this is the one I re-found first. Again, nothing wrong with software firewalls, as I like knowing when programs try to use the network, but they aren't a magic bullet.

    1. Re:Nothing wrong with software firewalls... by dtolman · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hey! That thing costs $$$ - if I wanted to spend money on my internet connection at home, I wouldn't be using my modem (free internet connection + freeware firewall).

    2. Re:Nothing wrong with software firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know why you were modded "troll" - but you're right, security isn't cheap - it costs either time or money, and sometimes both. However, seeing as I just spent about two hours cleaning spyware and such off a friend's PC which only has a sporadic dial-up connection, there is definitely a place for a router for dial-up users.
      -
      SK

    3. Re:Nothing wrong with software firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      D'oh. Forgot to mention that you could build a version of the same on the cheap with an old PC, a decent modem, and a NIC. Running Linux, 'natch.
      -
      SK

  24. The lesson? Never trust a company... by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...with a name like 'Zango' that offers free games.

    It will only lead to great suffering.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  25. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Employed losers.

  26. Hello alexxa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    free with windows.. I forgot who owns it now though.

  27. Re:The lesson? Never trust a company... by Linker3000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Welcome to Zango com - at Zango com you can monitor everything. Hmmm - rings a bell!?

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
  28. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by Westley · · Score: 2, Informative

    Um, you certainly don't need to give pro-Microsoft answers to become an MVP. I've given plenty of answers berating .NET or Visual Studio in comparison with Java or Eclipse (where appropriate) but have still been awarded as a C# MVP three times.

    You're right that it's a participation award, however - it's definitely people who are helpful to the community rather than *necessarily* the brightest stars. You don't necessarily have to be a genius to help a lot of people. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of extremely bright people in the programme though.

  29. evidence by towsonu2003 · · Score: 1

    may be in vain but, I don't think the article provided any proof that the software recorded mouse and keyboard input... it calls home but to do what? may be I'm getting used to Mark Russinovich'ish (http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-roo tkits-and-digital-rights.html) scrutiny style?

  30. Yes. And also: by sammy+baby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Slashdot summary has more info than the linked article, but the impressive thing is that the Slashdot summary still is only barely written in complete sentences. I mean, I'm a sysadmin with about ten years of experience, I've been reading Slashdot for years, and not only can I not understand what the article says, I'm not even sure what it's supposed to be about. Someone not flagging spyware when they should? Or tagging it as spyware when it shouldn't? Or... christ, I give up. Not worth it.

    1. Re:Yes. And also: by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I clicked that "read more" link to discover by the comments what the summary was about. But after I read yours, I'm losing my expectations that anybody else understanded it.

      Did ./ start accepting random articles, like some science journals?

  31. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by rborek · · Score: 1
    You have to remember that it's an AWARD and not a certification or qualification. It's awarded at Microsoft's sole discretion, and does not make you an expert in all Microsoft products.

    Do I bring it up in everyday conversation? No. Just like I don't bring up any of my other certifications or educational qualifications either (like my MCP, or even my BSc).

  32. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about all those people providing support on Linux/MySQL/Apache mailing lists/forums etc - what are they?

    Bored, since their platform of choice tends to Just Work*.

    * - after 1500 hours of nonstop configuration.

  33. Are you kidding? by FatSean · · Score: 2, Informative

    Software Firewalls are useless! I can configure my cheap-ass 5 year old netgear router/hub to deny outgoing connections on specific ports just as I can control incomming.

    If your PC is compromised enough that you have un-wanted programs sending data to third parties...you've got much bigger problems. If that malicious code is already running on your machine, your 'software firewall' is just as vulnerable as any other program.

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Are you kidding? by sirwired · · Score: 1

      Software Firewalls are useless! I can configure my cheap-ass 5 year old netgear router/hub to deny outgoing connections on specific ports just as I can control incomming.

      Err... what do you do about software sending outbound connection requests on port 80? I certainly hope you aren't going to plan on blocking that one.

      SirWired

    2. Re:Are you kidding? by itsnotthenetwork · · Score: 1

      You could treat it like cookies. Have it ask you.
      If you just requested a web page, you can allow it.
      If it is trying to make the connection while you are at work, or asleep, it gets blocked.

    3. Re:Are you kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the 'cheap 5yr old' router can ask back? Cool where do I get one of these 'cheap ask back' routers?

      You would need to do statefull inspection of packets going back and forth. Most 'cheap' routers do not do this at all. You may be able to get a linux one to do it such as the WRT54g. But most of the other 'cheap' routers out there are not linux, and you take what you get.

    4. Re:Are you kidding? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      But most of the other 'cheap' routers out there are not linux...

      Actually, many or most are. But they aren't necessarily as easily modded as the WRT54G, or have the same community.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    5. Re:Are you kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Software Firewalls are useless! I can configure my cheap-ass 5 year
      > old netgear router/hub to deny outgoing connections on specific
      > ports just as I can control incomming.

      That's as maybe, but that won't stop a program on your machine using an open port. ZoneAlarm controls access by program. I can stop, say, Nortons calling home on port 80 while I use Firefox. By having everything set to 'ask' I get to control conversations my machine has.

  34. Impossible by AnEmbodiedMind · · Score: 1
    What we really need is a cheap, standalone appliance with an application-level firewall that can determine what application is sending requests by looking at packet contents (I know this is difficult).
    What you are suggesting is not just difficult - it is impossible (for well designed malware). For example, malware could just talk http with ssl with some server and you'd never know which application was doing it.

    You really need applications to not require Admin access to install (e.g. OS X) and than you can feel secure about your firewall. Don't install any dodgy apps that require admin access.

    1. Re:Impossible by Mnemia · · Score: 1

      You're correct that you can't look inside all streams of data just by looking at the packets. Encryption can defeat this as you point out (although in theory it is still possible for non-encrypted data). But then again, you could have a system to ban all encrypted data streams except to specific hosts whitelisted by you. This could be a pain given the number of hosts people often perform encrypted communication with, but still doesn't seem like a completely terrible idea to me given that a user should be aware whenever an authorized piece of software is sending out encrypted data.

    2. Re:Impossible by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you are suggesting is not just difficult - it is impossible (for well designed malware).

      Huh? Sure it is possible. Application proxies have been around for a long, long time. Secure Computing has one, as does Cyberguard, and Symantec. Now in thier cases, "application level" enforces the layer 7 and downward protocols for some services, not all. For example, they all have HTTP, FTP, SMTP, IMAP, and POP3 application level proxies. Some support Oracle's SQL*Net V1 or V2. Others support H.323 but not SIP. Anyway, service level attacks such as trying to overflow a buffer, generally will not work through application level proxies because service level attacks tend to violate the protocol specification (binary data where RFC-822 data should be) or violates sane behavior of the protocol, like a HTTP/1.1 host: header longer than 100 characters.

      So your wondering about SSL? How about using an HTTP/SSL Proxy and forcing all outbound connections through the proxy and examining the underlying protocols prior to exiting a perimeter firewall? Let's face, the way SSL is used today doesn't provide that much protection anyway (hint: how do you know the certificate from amazon.com is valid? Because you have the public signing certificate from Verisign that was used to sign teh certificate from amazon.com? How did you get Verisign certificate and how do you know *it* is valid? More importantly, how do you know a malicious signing certificate hasn't been inserted into your supposed trusted certificate store? Sorry, that isn't the hint, it's the answer) so you you really don't loose much by using an SSL proxy.

      What is more difficult, is application level firewalls that protect web applications (instantiated within the HTML, XML, etc flying back and forth) from malicious use like SQL injection, cooking and field tampering, and yes, buffer overflows. But it can be done.

  35. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by value_added · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For anyone who doesn't know, you become a Microsoft MPV largely by being an unemployed loser - the more time you can waste away providing pro-Microsoft answers on Microsoft's message boards ...

    The MCSE jokes on /. are admittedly funny at times, but this is as unfunny as it is unfair. First, only web weenies would refer to news groups as message boards. Second, those groups are an invaluable resource, being freely available, active, and representing a wide cross section of experience, they're one fo the few places where you can find honest and up-to-date information. And third, while Microsoft does offer a pseudo subscription-based pricing for "guaranteed responses" (from the MVPs, among others), most posts are the result of volunteer efforts.

    Perhaps the next time you send a question off to debian-users, for example, hoping for an answer from one of the "regulars", you avoid suggesting that any of them must be an unemployed loser for bothering to respond. Unless playing the part of a troll is somehow more rewarding.

    If it sounds like I'm pissed off, yeah, I am. Having to defend something Microsoft related on /. is annoying enough without being forced to justify the efforts of those trying to help others, irrespective of the venue or their individual capacity.

    As for anyone else using Windows and is unfamiliar with usenet, I'd suggest exploring the ms.public hierarchy with whatever news client you have available, and get into the habit of reading a few of them before applying the latest patch or service pack, or are otherwise trying to resolve an issue or trying to learn something. The top posting is murder, but the information is free and unlikely to be available to the same extent anywhere else.

  36. The article blog just got updated. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Now he says that clicking on the popup in question installs an Apropos spyware.

  37. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Probably a mix of both. I'm gainfully employed as a software developer, and manage to provide support for a few applications which the company and I use on a regular basis. However, I could also agree that some of them also do it from their mother's basements.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  38. 180 Solutions and Sony do not respect by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think that's the most simple way to put it. These companies and companies like these simply value their own interests over that of their users in way that breaches respect for their users/customers. In addition to any legal action that is going on or should be going on, there are other actions that I think should be going on as well. Such actions should include protests and any other way that can be used to raise public awareness.

    Sony has displayed for all to see that they do not respect their users or their computer systems. 180 Solutions, as much as they have tried to deny their intent, have been shown to write code that does things that... well, it "shouldn't." Again, more than a casual or accidental display of disrespect or even contempt for the user.

    "Tarred and feathered" would be the treatment they'd recieve not too many decades ago -- their leaders would be grabbed by anonymous people, put on public display and humiliated. Now that we are somehow beyond this horrible behavior in today's more civilized society, I guess these fraudsters have a lot less to fear from the anonymous public at large.

    In my view, there will probably always be these types of people. I truly fail to understand where these people come from, what they are thinking and why they think it's okay. These types of people are truly troubling to me and to my conscience somehow -- perhaps I don't feel as if I am personally doing enough... perhaps my own vigilante drive not being acted upon has something to do with it -- I suspect so. I wish and hope and dream all of the worst for these types of people since it seems these types never quite reap what they sew.

  39. Legit uses? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Just out of curiousity, can anyone see any possible legimate/non-fraudulant use at all for a 3rd-party company to have keyloggers installed in their software?

    1. Re:Legit uses? by pboulang · · Score: 1

      Well, an FBI warrant would fall into that category. Of course, under the Patriot Act it could be ILLEGAL for Zone Alarms to notify you of such an intrusion to your privacy.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    2. Re:Legit uses? by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Data entry performance monitoring?

      Training and support software. "Now click on the window at the top. Not that one. The one at the top."

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  40. We need a hybrid by phorm · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd be happy to lay down cash for a device which works as both. Having a device which has a secure (keyed or passworded) connection to the host machine and could be updated with incoming/outgoing block rules would be wicked. I have a 'nix box with iptables that does this to some extent, but it can't specifically block a piece of software running on the NAT'ed boxes (mainly because it doesn't know what is running).

    Now one way would be to have a piece of software running on the client boxes which updates the router as to what software is running which ports, and which is authorized etc. At that point you'd still be running the overhead of software on the machine, but possibly less than if it were doing all the actual firewalling, etc etc.

    1. Re:We need a hybrid by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Somebody should design a server that listens on a privileged port. This server can be connected to by a remote server, and iterrogated for the username associated with any outgoing connections to that remote server.

      Oh wait, we just described identd... :)

  41. Why would you trust what the proprietor said? by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    The Sony-BMG copy prevention threads should teach modern-day /. readers that asking the proprietor what they do with the information they gather is not enough freedom for the user. According to freedom-to-tinker.com, Sony lied about their software saying they didn't track information on the user's usage, then they admitted they did and said this was okay because they didn't do anything with the information that they collected. Sony-BMG and First4Internet's uninstaller doesn't actually uninstall the software that people don't want to run when they put certain music CDs into their Microsoft Windows computers.

    It doesn't really matter what the proprietor says the software does because you have no permission to verify their statement, change the software to suit your needs, or distribute the improved software. There are technological and legal restrictions to prohibit all of this. Better to realize that all computer users deserve software freedom, and that all proprietary software, regardless of ostensible purpose, is untrustworthy.

  42. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by Ignignot · · Score: 1

    What about all those people providing support on Linux/MySQL/Apache mailing lists/forums etc - what are they? Unemployed losers or OSS champions?

    Yes.

    --
    I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
  43. Minor corrections by jd · · Score: 1

    That should, of course, read 'banananana', and the whole thing is intended to be sung as per the middle section of Bohemian Rhapsody.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  44. Give players the choice by giafly · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Provide one set of servers where players can compete if they submit to anti-cheat scanning.
    2. And different server(s) for the libertarians, script kiddies and cheaters.
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
    1. Re:Give players the choice by bmetzler · · Score: 1

      And if companies choose to just provide one set of servers where players can compete if they submit to anti-cheat scanning, and not another set, what is the problem with that?

    2. Re:Give players the choice by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      That's not really a choice, because there's an implied negative consequence for picking the second choice: put up with cheating. In effect, it's extortion. Submit to our overbearing software or else. It's the digital equivelant of "voluntary" searches at airports: submit to searches or use a different method of transport. The reality is that there is no practical alternative in many cases, therefore searches are mandatory in effect.

    3. Re:Give players the choice by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > That's not really a choice,

      That is called reality. If you won't submit to a security check yourself you can't expect the others on your server to do so. And the cold hard reality is that almost every one of the refusniks will be cheating script kiddie scum and not high minded civil libertarians. It is the other side of Trusted Computing.

      I don't think anybody who reads/posts here objects to using Trusted Computing concepts to allow YOU to trust your own machine. (i.e. using it sign your binaries and make sure the machine will only run those) Most here object (myself included) when it is shifted to THEM trusting OUR machine to be faithful to THEM over our objection. But THEM is also US. The problem with online gaming is just one of the first examples of it to be hammered home. You can't play an online game without trust. Current tech often rules out making the server the only entity with privledged information and that means we have to be able to trust the clients. It is a very tricky problem to get all of the competing Rights and Interests balanced. But because the task is difficult is no reason to surrender, either to the zero tolerance for any DRM camp or to the TCPA Hell Apple/Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA want for us.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    4. Re:Give players the choice by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Well, searching people without suspicion in order to prevent a crime or illict act is an effective deterrant, there's no question about it. It's also the definition of a police state. I guess when Congress wrote the 4th Ammendment, they really just wanted the ability to carry around paraphenelia without being hassled, and it had nothing to do with the abuses that are part in parcel of such overbearing authority.

      In deciding whether or not to accept monitoring software, as in life, we are essentially asking the question, "Who do I trust more, the game company or my in-game opponent?" The answer may very well be the quasi-objective company, because logically they have nothing to gain and much to lose by rampant cheating.

      The first problem is the consequences for a breach of trust on the part of whomever we choose to trust. If an opponent breaches our trust, we may lose the game. If a corporation with monitoring software breaches our trust, we stand to lose substantially more.

      The second problem is that the corporation itself need not breach that trust, because there's the issue of exploits. Once again, when an exploit is developed for a game, we may lose the game (although there is no such thing as "losing" in the traditional sense with most persistant online games right now). On the other hand, when an exploit is developed for monitoring software such as Sony's DRM, we know what can happen.

      So, if a company cannot write bulletproof code on the very first try, which many would argue is impossible regardless of the number of attempts, then it stands to reason that their monitoring software is just as vulnerable as the software they're purporting to protect.

      So while monitoring software appears to be a solid solution at first glance, it turns out to be a double edged vulnerability with far more serious repercussions than simply trusting one's opponent. The real solution is constant assessment and patching of software on the part of the publisher, and there is no shortcut to doing things the right way.

  45. Some extra info at gripe2ed.com by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ed Foster's Gripe Log is following the Zone Alarm v. 180 story, and he has a much more readable summary at his site: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/12/5/8255 5/7508

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  46. Check again by AnEmbodiedMind · · Score: 2, Insightful
    No it is not possible. Read the grandparent post again, this time with emphasis to make things clearer:
    What we really need is a cheap, standalone appliance with an application-level firewall that can determine what application is sending requests by looking at packet contents (I know this is difficult).
    Your suggestion was:
    How about using an HTTP/SSL Proxy and forcing all outbound connections through the proxy and examining the underlying protocols prior to exiting a perimeter firewall?
    How does that help? You still don't know what application is sending requests, you only know what protocol it is speaking. But so what? sure it just looks like standard http/ssl traffic (it is)... so how does your network box know whether it is coming from a web-browser or some ssl speaking malware?

    The answer - it can't.

    Your handy http/ssl proxy will just merrily forward that traffic on to the companies CGI webserver and they've got through again.

    Your comments about "service level attacks" that break the protocol specification are out of place here too. The malware can post totally legitimate http/ssl to a parent company server and communicate all the information it needs to.

    1. Re:Check again by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      You still don't know what application is sending requests, you only know what protocol it is speaking. But so what? sure it just looks like standard http/ssl traffic

      The point about SSL is that the data is encrypted and an application layer firewall can't look into the payload. So I probably wasn't clear about why I reccomended an SSL Proxy. Try it this way. The SSL Proxy decrypts and re-encrypts traffic between the client and the server. Prior to passing the now unencrypted traffic to the other side, inspect it to make sure it is, in this case, valid HTTP traffic, versus, say, a terminal session encalsulated in SSL/TLS. If it is valid HTTP, you can also look for well-known mime-types to block certain types of traffic like file sharing, etc.

      Your comments about "service level attacks" that break the protocol specification are out of place here too.

      Ok, I was being clear about how "application level firewall" can be defined. In some cases, an application level firewall is really just a generic proxy that proxies TCP connection without regard to upper level protocols. Generic proxies thwart network level attacks (layer 3). Application level proxies that proxy service applications like HTTP, FTP, SSH, SMTP, POP3, IMAP regardless of the destination port 1) instantiate (partially or fully depending on the applicaiton layer firewall) the application service and 2) can enforce protocol conformance, block or allow methods, MIME types, and other protocol stuff. Examples of these types of firewalls are Secure Computing Sidewinder, Symantec EFS, and Cyberguard. Application level proxies can also be defined as proxies that make decisions based on data in the application payload like "don't allow SQL injection", "block XSS", and "make sure the XML is well formed and adheres to its DTD." Examples of these types of application level firewalls are Imperva, F5, and Teros.

    2. Re:Check again by Mnemia · · Score: 1

      I worded my original post poorly/incorrectly. It's true that you can't necessarily determine what is sending information ONLY by looking at the packet contents (although you can determine the protocol). But you could block any connections not passing through an application proxy server. The proxy could then require all applications on the host to authenticate their identity and integrity against the firewall machine, and establish a secure channel between them. This would still require some security on the host machine to protect the application credentials and the integrity of the network sessions, but still seems like an improvement on the situation where all control is on the end hosts.

  47. Easy out for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The easy solution for those big name companies is to be very up-front about it. Give the user the option to install the anti-cheat software or not and explain to them clearly what it's for. Then design your software so that users without the anti-cheat cannot participate on the same servers as those with the anti-cheat. Explain this to the user as well. In the end they make an informed choice on what gets installed and if they choose to do so, they have no right to bitch about it.

  48. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a false dichotomy. The all-important difference is that one group is working for free for some rape-ass giant corporation, while the other does it for a cause that IMHO is best described as being for the general good.

    The difference is pretty obvious, no?

  49. False-positives by Smallest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We just discovered (last Friday, at 4:00pm of course) that "SpySweeper" is labelling one of our components (a general-purpose image processing library) as spyware. After a little digging, it turns out that a program called TrueActive Activity Monitor installs a file with the same name as our component.

    But, we can't tell if it actually *is* our component or if they just have a file with the same name (not very likely) - because our anti-virus and anti-spyware apps freak out when we open the TrueActive installer to see what their version of the file actually is. Either way, SpySweeper says our component is an "activity monitor" and this is freaking out both our customers and our customers' customers.

    We're talking with the people who write SpySweeper, to get this fixed, and they've been helpful so far. So hopefully, this will be resolved soon.

    --
    I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
    1. Re:False-positives by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you really be "working with" the makers of TrueActive Activity Monitor -- whatever it is -- to uncover why they're installing one of your components as part of their software? Or at least verify that it's a completely different thing going by the same name as your component? (And by "working with" I mean 'ask politely first, and then sic lawyers at'.)

      Seems like it would be relatively easy to verify if the component is identical to yours of the same name, just by running a hash or something. In fact it seems farfetched that the spyware tools (or if not the tools themselves, then the companies that mantain the databases) don't keep a list that includes some "fingerprint" info on files that are on their blacklists, which would be able to let you tell whether the banned file is yours or a different one using the same name.

      Complaining to the SpySweeper people to take that name off of their list doesn't do anybody any good, if there really is someone unscrupulous releasing something by the same name. TrueActive seems like it should be the people you should be going after, not the SpySweeper folks. If anything you might want to thank SpySweeper, if it ends up that they discovered someone using your code for some sort of shady purpose.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  50. Bow Chicka Bow Wow by Private.Tucker · · Score: 1

    Interesting. I had a call come in this morning, and ZangoToolbar was something recognized by Trend OfficeScan Anti-virus as a ADW Virus. Open /. and here is the story. Well orchestrated. I'm buying Zango a pizza.

  51. Lawsuit will lead to discovery by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Sueing Zone Labs was a really dumb move for 180 Solutions. Now Zone Labs can start discovery.

    First, of course, they'll want to see all of 180 Solutions' source code, so the objective validity of the "trade libel" claim can be tested. (Truth is an absolute defense to libel under US law.) Then, they'll want to depose key programmers under oath. 180 Solutions has some unpleasant disclosures coming up.

    Zone Labs is owned by Check Point Software, which had income of $280 millon on revenues of $500 million last year. They can afford litigation.

  52. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by leabre · · Score: 1

    I'll second this. An even more valuable resource is http://groups.google.com/ . That's a favorite place for me to search when looking up technical, troubleshooting, or user opinion on my favorite topic of the minute.

    Thanks,
    Leabre

  53. Subscribe to Ed Foster's Griplog... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Subscribe to Ed Foster's Griplog for good stories about computer industry abuses. For example:

    Case Against Zone Labs (ZoneAlarm) is 180 Degrees Off

  54. microsoft antispyware doesn't tell what zango is? by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    I read that m$ antispyware doesn't tell what zango is. I also noticed that it tells firefox is a spyware because it replaces the default browser. Hey M$! It replaced the default browser with my consent, what's more, I initiated the replacement by downloading & installing Firefox. So I wonder why msantispyware can't tell what zango really is. Will they tell when they'll directly compete on the adware market???

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  55. Re:Wow first post? by Your+Anus · · Score: 1
    Specifically, TFA says 180Solutions is, in fact, spyware, even though 180Solutions are suing ZoneLabs for saying exactly that.

    180Solutions claims that ZoneLabs is scaring off their clients. Oddly enough, most companies don't want to associated with "High risk" spyware.

    Personally, I would like to see an option in ZoneAlarm where I can have the offending spyware company's officers hunted down and shot while their building is burned to the foundation. I would pay extra for that.

    --

    In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
  56. Another bit of info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, you can always read this and find out more, too :) IMHO, it's much clearer than either the article or the summary.

    Basically, ZoneAlarm pops up an alert because it uses some windows hook that can be used to snoop on keystrokes, and 180 disputes that claiming that they do not actually keylog you.

    Of course, the software still looks like a dodgy piece of crap, but that's one person's uninformed opinion about whether it feels dodgy, not a statement of material fact :)

  57. I'm not normally a MS basher or anything.. by bill_kress · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm starting to wonder how it's physically possible that an OS would allow ANY app to install a hook into something as important as a keyboard driver or monitor without catching it and asking the user (at least).

    Perhaps we could, hmm, motivate MS by publishing this ability as a vulnerability in the OS.

    In fact, maybe we should stop allowing the OS Manufacturers to specify what a vulnerability is and come out with a list of requirements/standards that we can validate consistently against all OSes to qualify and rate their security against each other.

    Not that everyone wants to be bothered with every little app, but we should be able to turn off the ability to install dangerous hooks just like we can turn off the ability to set cookies.

    Either that or just make M$ financially responsible for every time a keylogger steals a bank password.

  58. Further research and logging should ensue by merc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Notably, attempts to connect to 180Solutions' servers were made while performing a sign-on to the blogger's hotmail account.

    It seems that it might be valuable research to take the logging to the next level. Speficically, he should setup a packet sniffer, either on the host itself or on the host's subnet and monitor the payload of the spyware packets as it calls home.

    Not only would it prove interesting information to write about on his blog, but couldn't this, then, be definate proof that malevolent monitoring is actually taking place? It also seems to me that he should be called as a technical witness in the civil case against ZA.

    In addition, armed with with this information it might be fun if someone in the community wrote a distributed application that would poison 180Solutions (non existant) databases with bogus data.

    *grumblecakes*

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
  59. Strict control of what I install on my system. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    I mean, how else? I have used BBS, then Internet since 1984. I've never gotten stung. It's simple really. Perhaps I miss out on some 'cool' screensaver or app but I like my system.

    --
    Blar.
  60. Re:Oh my - A Microsoft MVP! by shaze · · Score: 1

    Dude, you "are" a loser, if you beleive so highly in free enterprise ideas like donating your time, you should recognize the M$ message as being completely contradictory. Open Source Software, Medicine and Science. Community.