Slashdot Mirror
Vista Designed to Make Malware Easy
SlinkySausage writes "Trojan horses masquerading as 'cracks for Vista' are starting to appear on pirate boards. More worrying though, Microsoft has confirmed that Vista's image-based install process is designed to allow third-party software to be slipstreamed into the installation DVD. Great for corporate deployment of Vista with software pre-installed, but also a huge benefit for malware writers, who can distribute Vista images with deeply-rooted malware."
Pirates risk getting malware with their downloaded Vista. Is this a problem?
Establish a chain of trust before downloading a Vista distro.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
... distributed by malware writers? I'm not going to install Vista from some obscure crack download site, am I?
This article is just dumb. You can make custom Linux images with custom software also. If you download a random Vista ISO and install it, you deserve what you get, just like you would if you download a random Linux ISO.
opps!
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
And if you use an official installation image, that you've properly licensed, you'll know exactly what you are getting.
Now if someone wants to download an third-party image for something they haven't paid for, and gets stung with malware, how on earth is this Microsoft's fault?
Can't say I feel bad for a bank robber when it turns out the teller slipped them a dye packet...
It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
cause like, duuuude, Software wants to be free, man!
Also, its pretty stinking easy to check the MD5 sum of a downloaded image, ain't it? Non-story.
Jeremy
Well said. If you're not obtaining Vista from a trusted source (e.g. purchased in $BIG_BOX_STORE), you're getting the same possible problem as if you downloaded RootkitBuntu from Joe Bob's web site.
Much as I dislike Microsoft, I don't see why people who are downloading pirate copies can really complain when the pirate copy is full of scumware... if people are willing to break one law to crack the software, why do you think they won't break more to install scumware on your computer?
What, the, fuck?
So you can customise the install disc yourself and slipstream software into it? Surely that's been possible with every single distro of Linux for the last few years or so now? Could put malware into a custom Ubuntu CD, couldn't you? Not a new thing.
More to the point, unless you download your version of Vista from some obscure warez site, it's very unlikely to have malware slipstreamed into it; UNLESS YOU PUT IT IN YOURSELF.
Just because something has the capability to have malware put into it does not make it bad. This is a stupid fuss being made of nothing. I'd say I expect better from Slashdot, but considering the number of Microsoft/Zune/Vista bashing troll articles that are getting posted these days I'd be lying.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Why would Microsoft make piracy easier?
They have added a valuable feature for their paying customers, and former non-paying customers may be more likely to pay.
From Microsoft's perspective, it's a no brainer business decision.
getting stung by malware because you try to pirate windows is bad apparently.
Of course currently providing trojaned distros or packages in linux is absolutely impossible just ask the ssh people.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
How, precisely, will Vista infect ANYTHING with DRM? Other than allowing you to play DRMed music and movies, obviously. Infection implies that everything you have will suddenly be DRMed, which is patently bullshit.
So come on; infected with DRM. How are they going to do that exactly?
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
It is here: http://malfy.org/
I guess it's a normal Slashdot day when this kind of thing makes news. The half page "article" mentions that
a) there's a trojan that claims to be a free activation utility to Vista
b) you can slipstream malware into pirate Vista images (also possible in XP)
I.e. using pirated software could get you malware, which is news because of...?
What's the point of this article? If I download illegal cracked versions of a commercial Microsoft OS, something bad might happen? And somehow that's Microsoft's fault? If someone did the same thing with a RHEL install ISO, would that be Red Hat's fault?
This smacks of the same FUD that Microsoft tosses around about Linux and other FOSS. Let's stop stooping to their level.
No sig, sorry.
> cause like, duuuude, Software wants to be free, man!
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
As Taco says, it's possible with XP. Just have a look at the availibe XP torrents, here's one for example: XP Jacked Robusto Edition.
Now my family will not have to go to all the trouble of downloading their malware - it will come preinstalled! It's a feature!
FairTax baby!
We've been doing this with third-party tools like nvlite, it's good that MS added this feature to the OS. Tell me who is going to download an entire image from the internet anyway other than Warez doods?
If you want to attack Vista then do so on its merits, not with FUD.
You can't protect all of the people all of the time - the only issue here is the collateral damage that will affect people who get all the spam these pre-rooted installations will be pumping out. However since the rest of us are already getting flooded with spam from XP machines I don't really see what difference it will make.
If people want Vista they can pay for it. The operating system market will be a whole lot less broken once it gets harder to pirate copies so freely.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
Getting malware when downloading a crack is always a possibility, yes.
However, this entire story smells of FUD - this is one of the oldest arguments software vendors use to scare people away from pirated software - "All pirated software has viruses in it! Don't use it, it'll make your computer blow up! Make sure your copy is legit!" It's a valid argument, and they have every right to defend their products from piracy, but I suspect it is often overstated.
Then take this article's headline - "Vista Designed to Make Malware Easy". We've gone from fact (one Vista crack was found - and caught by people downloading it - with malware in it), to speculation during an interview, to an entire Slashdot headline. Good good. The relevant part from the interview:
Finally, if the above headline is correct, then how is it different from "Linux Designed to Make Malware Easy"? Anyone can bundle a rootkit with a Linux distro and put a torrent of it up somewhere. Heck, it's even easier, since Linux is free and open to start with. The bottom line is, if you're not getting your software from a trusted source, then you have no reason to trust it.
I'm gonna go lie down for a bit until the spinning stops.
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
How is it Microsoft's concern if the only people this will affect are piraters who get their Vista images from a source other than Microsoft? This is like the gun excuse that comes around with every video game censorship discussion; just because a gun can be used to kill, does that mean Smith and Wesson is to blame? This feature can be used for good as well, and making it seem like a haven for malware for people who get their Vista copies from places other than the actual distributers is just reaching for an anti-Microsoft troll. Even if Dell accidentally ships malware with their Vista releases, that's Dell's doing, and they should be the ones on the chopping block when that day comes.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
one word:
Bitlocker.
Can someone come up with a believable scenario where this could be exploited as part of a legitimate install?
If not, why is this even news?
#DeleteChrome
Checking the MD5sum against what exactly, seeing how one would have to be stupid enough to download an insecure ISO of Vista? An original disc? and in that case, why would one download it in the first place? And if the person didn't want the copy-protection in the original, and downloaded a cracked ISO, then what good would the MD5sum be?
Or did you mean that it's easy to get and check the MD5sum of a Linux ISO? Because that wasn't what the story was at all.
"I think it would be a good idea!"
Gandhi, about Internet Security
BitLocker is disk encryption, to which the user retains full control and which the user can (as far as I can tell) opt to remove if desired. It's not DRM.
Try again.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
In this case you do get something for putting up with popup ads - you get a free operation system, ultimate edition at that. I would imagine uninstalling it (format c:) removes the ads as well, so what do you have to complain about?
Just two words about TFA and the Slashdot title: Utter FUD.
Can't you slipstream patches into an XP or 2000 install? I know I install XP off of a XP + SP2 CD these days, I'm not seeing where Vista is that much different. Frankly, this whole article is retarded, if you're downloading a copy of the OS off of some pirate site that associates with spammers it really doesn't matter which OS it is, they all could have something bad in them.
A better title for this article would have been: "Downloading and running untrusted software from disreputable sources can get you owned".
I read the internet for the articles.
...Sony to include their rootkit. No need for a victim to insert a CD now!
I don't see how this is a problem for the 90% of the world that will end up using Vista. I seriously doubt Dell, Sony, and the like are going to package malware in the installation CD. I mean, they'll include the same lame software they do on XP and such, but what's the difference? It's easier now? Woohoo!
personally, i think it's brilliant -- "don't pirate vista because you'll be pwned before you've even finished the install". of course, this only works until someone is clever enough to start publishing hash checksums for known safe images...
Assuming the malware was written properly, it has already jacked your OS before you can intall your defenses (norton, spybot, etc) since it's there as part of the initial installation. Your tools may as well be running in a virtual machine at that point, the rootkit could have already made it virtually impossible to detect the bundled malware after the fact.
Isn't OS X using "signed binaries" for their critical apps like the dock and Finder? I assume those would not be so easy to subvert or even modify in the installer?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
And this effects legal versions of vista how?
why is this news? if i remember right, windows has always had this functionality, the NT line has anyway. there are even applications that will create the preloaded ISO for you, like nLite
portfolio
You can slipstream both Windows 2000 and Windows XP with service packs, hotfixes, drivers, and applications. So how is this different than some group distributing a modified ISO? The funny thing is that these cracking groups actually take pride in what they do, so I think it would be highly unlikely for an established group to do something like this. Of course there is nothing stopping some random guy from posting an ISO under a respected group's name. So, like always, be cautious when acquiring software (or any other item) through unofficial channels. I fail to see how this is newsworthy, other than for the daily two minute hate of Microsoft.
The biggest problem I have with the article is the title. Others have made the comment, quite accurately, that no legitimate deployer of Vista will be harmed. At least one comment suggested that the story was an example of FUD spread, supposedly, by Microsoft to keep people from using pirated copies of Windows. I actually think the FUD is more aimed at Microsoft by trying to prolong the image that Windows has as being insecure and easy to infect. Is Vista perfectly safe? Of course not. But too many people play pinata with Microsoft because it's easy, regardless of whether the facts back them up or not.
Bruce Johnson [.NET MVP] http://www.objectsharp.com/blogs/bruce
Ok, so malware can be slipstreamed into Vista. So what makes that different than having trojans, viruses, etc. inserted into Linux's source code and redistributed (which has actually happened)?
Slipstreaming isn't anything new. So it seems once again Slashdork comes up with some kind of tenuous nitpick which is infeasible in the real world.
So. All this tells me is that if you install from an image, you can include anything on the image you want. Well, Linux or any other OS is just as vulnerable to this. Bringing it up in the context of Vista is just pure FUD against MS. Why doesn't Slashdot wait until Vista is in enough hands for some real vulnerabilities to emerge? I'm fairly confident that will happen at some point.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Once people find out that windows software actually will cost them money, ie, cracked stuff will come pre hosed and won't be functional, making them either drop big bucks on a new machine or huge bucks on a little plastic disk, then people will start to look at exactly what windows software really does cost, and will reject it in droves. With the previous versions, it was too easy to install and get away with it, some pirated version,so people just used it through inertia and apathy, this version is going to be the first one that people will really have to pay for, in one way or the other, and the MS gravy train will start the huge spiral down.Inevitable. Operating systems and an office suite are not worth hundreds of dollars to most people out there, and most businesses will ignore it as long as they can, some years probably, and stick with what they have, and by then there will be even more pressure to never again pay huge costs for tools to go to work with. It is the work with the tools that is important and where the value of software lies. There's nothing really useful in it for them to keep buying 600 dollar hammers when the six dollar hammer works just fine.
Knew I wouldn't get a sensible, rational answer around here...
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Oh, we all know you got your answer, you just can't counter it. I don't blame you for attempting to shrug it off and there's no loss of face. After all, the corporate PR machine has been trying to pitch TCPA/DRM for over half a decade and still resistance is growing.
If you get a warez WinXP CD today, I've heard rumors that it normally contains a WGA crack. So does most any other software too, either if it's a no-cd check, no activation check or whatever which the user will happily execute. Not to mention it's trivial to extract an image, replace the original file with a trojaned one and create a new image, without any extra files. So what exactly is the story about? Oh, features that make it much easier to bundle in apps. You think they're going to put your "deeply rooted" Windows rootkit like an install package? It doesn't make sense, because one place it's very hidden and one place very obvious.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Vista isn't designed to make malware easy, it's a problem inherent in the design. When I read the headline I thought "Microsoft wants it easy to distribute malware?" But when I read further, it's just another misleading headline on slashdot.
No, I'm not countering that "argument" because it isn't an argument, it's an assumption that DRM is evil and malware and nasty. Not a reason that Vista infects things with DRM.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Why does this sound familiar? I say Vista be renamed Pussy Cat. Future upgrades can be named Tabby, Manx and Burmese since Apple is already using big cat names. Why is it if Windows is so fundimentally superior does it as the years go by get more like Mac? This is from a primarily Windows user. Just seems like Windows is stuck in the rut of trying to catch up with what it considers an inferior OS. Mac isn't perfect but when it comes to involvation and stability there really is no way to compare the two. The biggest downsides I keep finding are more related to vendor support. If they could ever grab 25% of the market share that would disappear. So long as they stay below 10% most vendors aren't going to see it as worth supporting. There's a lot more on Mac than ever before but there's an ocean of software availible on Windows.
1) People run insecure machines. 2) People leave computers on. 3) People leve them coennected to the internet.
Break any of these three links in the chain and you'll fix bot netting. (1) is impossible, given V1.00-beta humanity. But surely, (2) and (3) are pretty easy to achieve. For Joe Sixpack, there is no benefit in keeping a PC running 24/7, except that it helps contribute to the power bill and rolling blackouts.
Servers, of course, are a different matter but they are [hopefully] better administrated.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This was an assumption solely made by you.
Okay kiddiez here is the deal with the Vista ISO what you have on the disc can be broken down into a few categories
1 the setup program itself (and assorted deps)
2 various documents and nifty bits
3 THE VISTA ULTIMATE FILESYSTEM and the various offset files (this maps what you get for a given key to the rev you land up with)
If you happen to have also gotten your hands on the Vista Final Automated Install Kit (aka the WAIK) you can loopmount the WIM file and then scan it to so see exactly what will get written to your disk. (note the Vista WAIK is hidden on a publically availible ftp site)
if you have the tools you could if you want hack , crack quack and completely butcher the install (all the way to the point of a full insert disc and reboot the computer setup) i wouldn't be surpised if there was a way to build a dual boot system if you could find the Haque.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I'm not an experienced slashdotter so excuse me if this sort of reply is out of line, but that's probably the worst headline you could have come up with for this article. It's simply not the truth. Microsoft did not intentionally design the OS so that it could be exploited, that's dumb. D:
this is such a bullshite story .. oh noes your l33t pirate copy might not just have a activation crack but a virus / rootkit / trojan....DUH.... you don't want compromised install image ... GO FUCKING BUY VISTA... or run something else....
bitching about slipstreaming is pure FUD stupidness... it is an awesome feature...again if you don't want it abused to root you...DON'T D/L warezed copies off some random BT site.
if you want vista buy it... if you don't wanna buy it don't use it... (maybe if a enough people rebel the pricing will be lower next time?.. maybe not ???)
do you piss and moan when your warezed photoshop has "added" malware goodness too.....
buy it / crack it yourself / or shut the fuck up.... but don't be too surprised when people that crack vista (or other apps) put something like malware into the mix also.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
If you're legit, the chance of running a bad install are zero.
But Windows still allows you to run ANY program you download. And this affects legit users too. Why isn't anybody talking about this.
I think it's about time Microsoft forbids running programs on Windows, or malware will have an edge.
The MD5 hash tells you nothing, if someone is going to go the the trouble of slipstreaming malware into an iso they will certainly be capable of creating a hash of the ISO including the malware. Unless you were able to check the hash against an original/unhacked ISO the MD5 or other hash will only tell you that the download is not corrupt. I just lost my /. virginity!
So it's basically "If you download cracked software from an unreliable source it may contain viruses."
In other news we have heard rumors that the sun might rise tomorrow morning, and when you let go of a hammer it is very likely to fall down.
As I remember in XP you could remaster it too. add drivers. Software that had a .msi file. you could as easly download malwared xp off the internet but it didnt happen.
Linux is also pro malware at that pooint ... you can remaster distros.
Oh no, you mean there can be malware in pirated copies! I know a simple solution, don't download pirated copies.
By bypassing the standard network stacks inbuilt trojans can render any security totally moot.
With Bittorrent the quality of pirated software is bound to increase, all we need are some friendly people to release checksums for the Vista DVD and then a bunch of Serial #'s.
By making the OS unlock with diffrent serial #'s they reduce the difficulty of cracking it exponentially.
What, were previous versions of Windows designed to make malware hard?
http://outcampaign.org/
I think you own Microsoft an apology.
Well then, don't download a warez copy and then this won't even vaguely be a problem.
People seriously are just looking for a reason to bitch about Microsoft, it's really quite sad.
My tin foil hat is on... Next step I see is Msoft flooding the web with 'vista iso' torrents that are chock full of so much malware that installation becomes impossible. So much for pirating vista when you can't make it through installation.
in any event, this article is total FUD because this 'security flaw' has nothing to do with a LEGIT installation of vista.
"i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
A couple years ago, I was trying to fix a friends windows computer,but the virus was so deeply embedded in the system that I couldn't get it out using the usual routines. So, I looked into getting a linux distro with NTFS read write to help me out. I came across a distro that was supposed to be for forensic professionals called helix. It didn't work,but just a few days ago I tried out the microsoft live virus scanner thing, and it a few trojans inside the helix iso. ( It didn't find any in SUSE, or Fedora for you conspiracy nuts out there). I downloaded it from the main website. I would understand if it was for detection, but it should have more than three Trojans in its library, if thats the case. I ended up reformatting the infected computer so I'm not worried about that, but I think using a more obscure distro should be a little paranoid. I know I am now.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
>ISPs need to be more proactive at disconnecting people
>who can't keep their computer clean.
So basically you want EVERY ISP in the land to go bankrupt?
When you go to high school, they will explain economics to you.
Linux also has this problem since distributions theoretically can contain malware as well. It is nothing different. Anybody as stupid to actually install an operation system downloaded from a warez site deserves it. TFA is simply anti-M$-zealot FUD. I wish there would be some way in Slashdot to moderate articles down. It is (-1 Troll) IMHO.
You really don't have anything to worry about, because the EULA forbids making ISO images of the consumer editions of Vista.
:D
Right?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Malware designers can take any linux install, add their evil software or compromised mailservers to the install process, and distribute it without the end user knowing the difference. How is this any different than Vista, except than in Linux's case, it's been possible for years.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
So Linux is safer because when you get a "free" Vista CD you KNOW it isn't legit, while the "free and open Linux distro" CD you get may or may not be a trap? I'm all for bashing Microsoft, but that line of "reasoning" isn't.
No, I think his point was that the restrictive nature of non free software yields both high prices and malice. Interestingly enough, this is one place where the "popularity contest" argument makes sense - Vista is a more attractive target for this kind of abuse because it is more demanded. Because cracks inherently disable WGA and other M$ based checks, there's not even a fig leaf of verification for Vista. It's always been difficult to tell the malicious cracks from the info anarchy cracks. With XP's half life of four minutes on any network, the practical difference never existed.
As far as trust goes, you don't really need it in the free softare world. Frauds don't last long when anyone can compare hashes on binaries and compile the source for themselves. I can say categorically that the larger GNU/Linux distributions are zealously guarded and that you can trust a reputation that's so easy to verify.
I trust Knoppix from any server and can verify it with a md5sum. I would not trust Vista if Bill Gates himself put it in my hand.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That is a load of crap. When I was on cable internet, it was shared in such a way where if lots of people were sending packets, then everyone on that segment would have problems sending too. Even if you are using the internet like a web based tv such as the media companies want, your browser/ip stack needs to send urls to fetch and acks and other crap. Asymmetrical connections just mean you have less usage on your entire segment before you are screwed. Not to mention the fact it encourages old fashoned one way communication similar to tv.
It would be better for the ISPs to charge per MB fees instead, perhaps with some sort of available setting to cut off at a certain point, so users wouldn't have to pay more than they were willing. That way anyone who's computer gets infected has to pay for the bandwidth they use. People will also have cause to sue malware authors for monetary losses due to wasted bandwidth. It would make being a malware author a very costly deal if they get caught.
It would also make them lift absurd bans on "servers" (really meaning two way internet) and similar crap. Then again, cable ISPs would probably set prices to absurd levels--way more than they pay, especially for upstream--just so they can lock you in to viewing their content. Also you wouldn't have to pay very much if you don't use much bandwidth, and you wouldn't have to worry about being arbitrarily cut off just because you use too much bandwidth or use bandwith in ways the ISP doesn't like--at least they wouldn't have a good excuse anymore...
I meant that if you want to be a software pirate, you can pretty easily find out what the MD5 sum of a pristine disc is, and check against that. If you're download an intentionally modified image, you should probably trust the source you got it from. I don't see why this is newsworthy since, as has been said, linux images work the same way (except of course that downloading is encouraged).
Jeremy
I wonder if the author even knows what slipstreaming is? Or how easy accomplishing a similar task would be with, say, Linux? I'm not a MS fan, but FUD is FUD and annoys the hell out of me.
Tone down the fever-pitch and write articles that draw readership based on merit, not fear.
Quack, quack.
there is the anti-Linux groupthink (no hardware support, no software support, crap GUIs, etc), the anti-GPL groupthink (it'll never stand up in court, it's viral, etc), the anti-IP groupthink, the pro-IP groupthink, etc.
You keep using that word.
'Groupthink', as generally understood, isn't just consensus or dogma (which is basically what you are giving examples of). It isn't just social pressure to conform. Also, it isn't a persistent set of memes.
As I heard it at least in my undergrad years, it is a tendency for a certain specific sort of dynamic to occur in groups: everyone wants to 'support the group', to conform, which causes decisions made by the group to be less wise than each group member would have done by themselves (decisions, because groupthink was originally used to describe the behavior of committees, i.e. groups that decide on actions). This is more or less what is given as the definition on wikipedia.
The (e.g.) "anti-IP groupthink", as you call it, is just a certain idea or set of ideas that is repeated, and (perhaps in part due to social pressures) others are convinced by them, perpetuating the cycle. However (a) I am not sure that individually the people would have arrived at 'wiser' positions, and (b) there is no decision-making process, this isn't a committee. It's just a set of people talking. Perhaps most importantly, there is debate, even on those issues that are 'consensus' on Slashdot, which goes completely against a diagnosis of 'groupthink'. Also, there are several idea clusters, as you mentioned, and the people subscribing to them don't overlap in any simple way - again, a type of complexity that goes against calling it all 'groupthink'.
Seemingly this is the first anti-MS story, that even Slashdot has collectively called as Troll.
This has been possible with every version of windows since 98, and probably even previous versions.
Knowing MS and other "commercial" software companies, I can't believe it will stay that way. Eventually, they'll "upgrade" it so you have to pay them a fee to get your data back or more likely, they'll try to lock you into their software packages with a nice "optional" upgrade cycle.
Now someone can take a Vista DVD and turn it into a Linux install (say Ubuntu, even better yet SUSE).
Balmer will be throwing desks out the windows (pun) if this sort of mischief were to ensue!
Circumcision is child abuse.
I don't know what all this talk about warez is about. If a script kiddie cracks commerical software, there is nothing surprizing about them being able to insert malware. As the article says, do you really know if it is the software you think it is and not malware? How is this new?
I want to know where the discussions about computer vendors are located. What is so far fetched about someone buying a "discount" computer at a store, and the vendor put in a bunch of spyware and adware? For the most part, legit looking companies have only been doing this for maybe 5 or 10 years. Would it be surprizing if real unwanted malware (something more than crappy AOL icons/software being installed) were installed onto a computer from the beginning? It would be a real money maker. That is for sure.
I would not be surprised at all to see a computer vendor do this, if there are none which have done this already.
OEMs can integrate software with Windows XP as well. There are free tools out there to let you do the same with your own XP install. Why is this news?
Two points from a MS Fanboi here:
/. ? Next thing you know, we'll see a post "Vista designed to help you surf for porn"
1. From reading the article, it doesn't appear that Vista is designed to make malware easy. People make malware easy. Honestly, does anyone else find it silly that an article stating such an obvious point of "Downloading cracks and hacks leads to trojans!" makes it to the front page of
2. How realistic is the threat of something installing itself to an Install DVD? Who keeps their install DVD in their drive during normal computing? If you're like me, you keep it locked away somewhere for fear of losing it. If you're dumb enough to keep a writable copy of your image in the drive where it can be a) deleted b) infected.....well go you?
shocking news:
if you install software from an unreliable source, it might contain malware
now I don't like microsoft, but this article is just FUD!
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
I really object to the way this article was titled. It's clearly a very biased interpretation of what MS is doing. Now, I use linux for my personal desktop and on the server and am a big advocate for free/open source, but I also think we need to be fair. Customizing deployment is a big issue and MS went to a lot of trouble to address it; this is a good thing although I will hold my judgment until I see it in action.
The only sort of malware made more easy is the kind found in pirated versions of windows. If you are using pirated software you really don't have much right to claim any sort of moral high ground or to make demands on MS.
So calling this article this way is really unfairly biased. Let Free|Open Software win on the merits, not on name calling. Let's show that customizing deployment and management can be better with Linux.
Peace, or Not?
Have you actually tried doing this? I'll tell you what happens when he shows her that Ubuntu CD - she doesn't have a clue what Ubuntu is, so lets Johnny go ahead and install it.
She'll then turn her computer on the next day, get confused, will find it harder to send her e-mails, will wonder why she can't run Encarta any more, and will then take her computer back to PC World and pay them stupid money to get them to install Microsoft again.
Even if little 10-year-old Johnny could set Ubuntu up perfectly, can get everything running that his gran wants and then persuade her to stick with it, he's the only person she knows who can help her do anything on her computer. He has to train her to use all the software she needs, and support her when anything goes wrong - that or risk getting cut out of her will for being an ingrate. Her other grandchildren breathe a sigh of relief and Johnny's now tied in to support her until she dies.
Nice one, I'm sure he'll thank you for your advice a few years later when he's up to his eyeballs in school work and she rings asking how to run the latest version of the internet AOL just sent her, or how to install the new copy of AutoRoute she bought. What is it with old people and route planning software anyway?
It really annoys me when people tout Linux as the answer to the worlds problems. It's great in its place, but that place is not in the hands of an OAP. Johnny needs to stop being so tight and realise that losing a few hundred from his inheritance really will make him better off in the long-run.
The amount of backlash stupid articles like this are starting to receive on slashnut is great. It seems even technical geeks are finally getting tired of the constant undeserved bias.
No longer is it worthy news if something obvious can happen. And no longer is it news when Microsoft has a vunerability that is a result of only being run on a computer.
Keep up the Linux troll bashing guys!
Haven't you ever heard the old saying "Easy as malware"?
Since windows 200 you could include third party software using SysPrep. The only difference is the Vista image is hardware independent.
OH NO! She won't be able to install AOL. This Linux insanity must be stopped.
Back in my dreaded retail days, a surprising number of people would run up $1000 phone bill because they got an AOL CD and had no local number or didn't choose a local one. They would then blame the retailer of the computer for this phone bill when AOL and the phone company stopped listening to them.
"Encarta? Grandma, haven't you ever heard of something called Wikipedia?"
The image install is meant to make large scale corporate deployments easier. If the image is easy corrupted then MS's corporate customers are exposed and it's not obvious how to protect from it before it happens. If you had a deployment schedule of a few thousand desktops a month and it turns out you're using 10 image servers and one of them has a bad image then that's a real problem.
Let's remember that corporate customers deploy custom images all the time, WHICH IS WHY WE WANT AN IMAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>> It really annoys me when people tout Linux as the answer to the worlds problems.
What really annoys me are people who get annoyed at linux touters. Who gives a shit. They are a minority anyway.
From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy
Why would an old person want to find out about star trek?
That is a great piece of fiction from the Microsoft Employee Manual the OSS response section. I loved that one and the family that get's broken up over Redhat..
In reality, Grandma will find it just as easy as Microsoft OS. Email will work, that virus she tries to click on will not run and every website she goes to cant install spyware. Grandma is not going to rush out and buy UT2007 to get some deathmatch smackdown with her homies. She will simply use the computer as it is. Photos are easy to view and open from relatives and friends. This magical Open Office reads all the documents she get's sent even from wierd uncle al that uses that Wordperfect software.
Reality, Grandma get's ubuntu, and a little bit of training as to where the apps she needs are and looks like and Grandma will need no extra help from now on.. Just like giving her a MAC.
That is the reality of what will happen, but I like you really love telling the stories there in the MSFT employee handbook. Hey, check out the section on debunking Programming in anything but Visual Studio! It's a HOOT!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
O/T here, but twitter I was wondering what ever became of your crusade to "evangelize away" the iPod? I was just reading this post and thought I'd ask. So far so good?
Parent is completely full of shit. It's such an obvious lie, yet you mods mark it "insightful". Wake up, retards. Bill Gates isn't going to descend from his throne and pay you millions just because you kiss his ass all the time.
No, you are incorrect. I am not pro-MS, I am not anti-linux, I am just a pragmatist. I was, in fact, speaking from personal experience, although with generic friend-of-a-friend OAPs as opposed to ones I am related to.
Yes, she will probably find it just as easy as a Microsoft OS - but it will be different. It will be different to her, and different to anyone else she might ask for help, and that's the problem.
In the past I have been quite eager to suggest to people to install Knoppix (and later Ubuntu) when I got called in because their hard drives failed or when Windows ME/XP got so clogged with malware that they couldn't do simple tasks such as open the filer. However, it became a nightmare to support them - by the time I was at university I'd be getting called several times a week with one problem or another. But I couldn't send them to someone else - there wasn't anybody else who had linux experience.
You say that she would need no extra help from now on. Have you ever actually met an old person? They're not like us. They're slow. They're senile. They're virtually dead. It's a miracle they can remember how to turn the machine on in the first place. Even if you write them out detailed bullet-point instructions with screenshots (which I've tried) they still manage to get it wrong. This happens with Windows, it happens with Linux. Sure, I've come across a few who have taken to computers and haven't needed any help past the first few days, but in my experience the majority will always need someone to hold their hand. Hell, that bit's not just limited to OAPs, most people I meet over 50 seem to have that same problem.
In your rush to flame me as an MS fanboy, you seem to have completely missed the key point in my original post - sure, little Johnny might be able to train her up in how to use it, but she will always have problems and questions. She will always want to learn how to do something new with her expensive toy, she will always want to fiddle with things, and she will always get confused. She will always need help. And by installing an OS that most people don't have experience of, he'd just be tying himself into supporting her until she dies.
I love Linux, I run my business on top of it, I tell my friends to use it. Software compatability is a minor issue, re-training is a minor issue. But when it comes to installing it for someone else, the deal-breaker is that there is no wide-spread support readily available for them yet, so I'm stuck helping them until they die, or until I reinstall Windows and can palm them off onto someone else.
deserves whatever they get. What is MSFT or any other softare company to do? Make it impossible for their customers to add other software to images of their OS because scum bags might do something sleazy to dumbasses? Not my concern.
The headline of this posting is just about as intelligent and insightful as the following: 1. New York Times uses "newsprint" which would allow someone to "print" something evil. 2. Books can be used to distribute evil content. 3. TV includes content that you might not like Suggesting that MSFT (or any other softare company) is somehow doing something bad because they make it possible for their customers to include non Microsoft softare in thier OS images is dumb.
You obviously have a problem with old people. They are not necesarilly stupid - possibly your lack of understanding of other people is the problem.
The oldest person I have swtiched to Linux is my father, who is in his 70s. He certainly does not want to swtich back to Windows. Overall he seems to require less help from me than when he used Windows.
Seriously, what's the point of coming to this site with shyte like this for articles. It's a stupid non-story to begin with and then you have to give it some lame attention grabbing headline. If I wanted crap like that, I'd pick up a copy of the Enquirer.
"he's the only person she knows who can help her"
I claim bullshit on it. Every day is more and more people exposed to Linux. Her 10 y-o son will not be the only one who can help her, specially since her boy is 10 y-o. He got Ubuntu from somewhere else, didn't he?
"He has to train her to use all the software she needs"
Yes, because she learnt to use Vista out of her own genetic pool, didn't she?
I didn't say they were stupid, just that most of them will take longer to pick something up due to their age. Certainly there are exceptions to every rule.
Although I feel that age is an issue, my main point is not just about the elderly. As the person who switches someone over to Linux, whether they are 19 or 90, I feel you have a responsibility to help them when they do have a problem. However, because the market share of Linux is so much smaller than Windows, it is that much harder to find somebody else to refer them to when you don't have the time. As long as you're happy to provide them with support for as long as they need it, then yes, Linux is a wonderful solution - however, in my experience, it can end up causing you a lot of hassle when you need it least.
Wow, I didn't realise my comments would cause such a fuss. I was just talking from my personal experience.
I was exposed to Linux by friends at school, but that didn't help the people I installed Linux for. I was called in as a friend of a friend because their family tired of helping them with their problems running Windows - and that's exactly my point. There's always going to be a friend of a friend who fancies themselves as a Windows expert because they can run Word and surf for porn. However, right now, at least in my area, Linux is certainly not wide-spread. There was nobody else for these people to ask for help, so they kept coming to me.
I'm all for Linux, and I'd really prefer to install it over Windows, but I don't want to get tied in to being their sole support person. That's exactly the same reason why many small businesses don't want me to install a Linux server for them - they don't know how to run it, and they realise that it's not a good idea to tie yourself to just one person for support. Perhaps in a few years time things will have changed, and people will be advertising Linux support in the local papers alongside the adverts for Windows. But I can't see any in there at the moment.
I second this.
...to add some mall code to any particular OS, recompile and send it out to the world? Some OS's don't even need to be "cracked" to do this. Who do you blame if people choose to install cracked software to save a few bucks while the are so many "free" alternatives? I guess "free" is not that hot, is it?
Supporting MS products doesn't mean you have to like them.
The problem is you're making a generalisation. This is the crux of a number of arguments I have read on slashdot. Someone has some personal experience, which they then proclaim as anecdotal evidence that the same experience applies universally.
There are innumerable counter examples that people could come up with that support exactly the opposite conclusion you have drawn.
The point is, not all old people go out and buy autoroute or use encarta. Some of them only use a web browser and word processor, and will only ever use a web browser and word processor. Those old people would stand to benefit a great deal from having Linux on their PC, as they would be able to carry on doing everything they want, with the added bonus of being totally immune to malware. The same would go for getting them a Mac, which has the only downside of costing a hell of a lot of money vs. $0 for a linux install.
Not that this counter example somehow denies the existence of scenarios such as your experience, but it does counter your conclusion that Linux is useless to all old people.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
I have set up several Linux machines for people over 80. They all love it. An hours worth of training and they are doing just fine. I used to get calls all the time about "My computer is doing this (fill in the blank). I haven't gotten a call in months now from any one them except to tell me how good there machine runs now.
"Have you ever actually met an old person? They're not like us. They're slow. They're senile. They're virtually dead. It's a miracle they can remember how to turn the machine on in the first place...most people I meet over 50 seem to have that same problem"
You, sir, are an idiot.
Most of the people who created the computer industry are well past 50 today. I think they know how to turn on a computer.
I know lots of old fogeys who recently took up computers and are doing just fine.
Ageist claptrap like yours pisses me off.
No sig? Sigh...
slashdot makes me put in a message body even though the subject line pretty much covers the methodology for solving the supposed problem
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Because they remember it from their youth?
Not really.
A few ppl whom have been in the early computer age are indeed now in their fifties. But thats a very small minority, the majority is indeed very computer-illiterate.
Sure I "could" convince my dad to try OSX or Linux (in some form) but both my real mom (who's about the same age) and my stepmother (who's older than him) definitly can't. My stopmom hates computers period. My mom (whom I bought a desknote for 2 years ago) still doesn't understand the basics of file managment, she doesn't know the basic terminology and she doesn't seem to get it, no matter how many times I explain to her what e.g. a Webbrowser or a directory is. Even when I say "click on the big blue round E on the desktop" (indeed micro$oft Internet Exploder) she suddenly responds "whats the desktop?".
I dunno why I'm immidiatly into it when there's a new computer-thing and why they can't seem to grasp it (ever).
To just say: It 'is' their problem. Well that might be true. But (especially friends and family) they do keep knocking on 'MY' door. So in that case I can understand that ppl just choose the largest dominator.
This answer seems awfully familiar...
I honestly don't know where you young whippersnappers are getting the idea that people over 50 are computer-illiterate. I'm in my late 50s and have been a software engineer for decades. Most of my friends are 50-65 years old, and not one is computer-illiterate. A number of them are computer professionals, the others use them at home or in their work and are quite adept at it. I don't see any correlation AT ALL between age and computer literacy until I start looking at people 75 or older, and even there, many are very comfortable with computers, and most of the others pick it up pretty quickly. Sure there are a few who have trouble picking it up, but in my experience the proportion of people like that in the codger crowd is no higher than it is in the general population.
I think what I'm seeing here is a lot of generalization based on ignorance. Get a clue.
No sig? Sigh...
So.. you're arguing that the majority of elderly people arent computer illiterate by citing yourself, a software engineer, and your friends, computer professionals. Clearly an unbiased perspective.
"I think what I'm seeing here is a lot of generalization based on ignorance. Get a clue."
Pot, meet kettle.
Your generalizations are also based on ignorance, because of how you opened your paragraph: "I'm in my late 50s and have been a software engineer for decades". Right there, you're unfortunately biased, because you and the people you work with are interested in computers. I work for a rather large corporation (120 thousand employees, Fortune 50). Although I don't do normal desktop support, I occasionally get pulled in to help remove some nasty bit of malware. The majority (yes a generalization, but it can't be helped) of the older employees that I visit don't understand computers. They know how to click on the icon that says Outlook, and how to click on the few other icons that they use for their job, and that's it. Within each program, they know how to click on the few options they actually know how to use (and generally have a notepad next to them with notes on exactly what to click on when), and that's it. They aren't normally interested in anything outside of that.
There are some extremely technical ones, which you seem to be one of. But in my experience working for this company, it's not the norm.
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
What will?
Remember, her house and all assets are going to be sold to pay for her care in a nursing home in her last 3 or 4 years. She'll be lucky to get a headstone out of the estate.
Seriously.
Unless of course, Little Johnny is planning to hock his most productive career years, family-starting years, etc wiping the shit off a demented Granny's arse while living in a part of the country he's no longer got any association with.
Didn't think so, somehow.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Ahh, yes, misquotes. My favourite type of criticism.
The correct quote would have been "the majority will always need someone to hold their hand. Hell, that bit's not just limited to OAPs, most people I meet over 50 seem to have that same problem."
He didn't say that everyone over 50 was computer illiterate, just that most people he meets who are over 50 need someone to hold their hand from time to time. Try reading the comment properly before replying, idiot.
I agree with his statement - although I know plenty of people who are over 50 and are fine working away on their computers. However, a lot of them only know how to do what they always do, and as soon as they need to do something else, they don't have the confidence to fiddle with it themselves.
Calm down and re-read the thread. Nobody said everyone over 50 is computer illiterate and senile - just that a lot of the people who are 50+ need to call on someone from time to time for some help. 100% FACT! In fact, I reckon that's true about most people, regardless of age.
If you re-read this whole thread and ignore any comments about age, the underlying point is clearly that people who aren't addicted to computers like us, regardless of age, do need help from time to time. If you then install Linux on their computer, because it's not as widespread as Windows it's more than likely that you'll be the only person around who is able to help them.
I think the age angle just came about because the theoretical person in question was a gran, and like it or not, that will compound the problem - as you get older, people are often not as willing or able to accept change.
Give me a break. Microsoft borrows an idea from Linux and now its a securityu flaw?