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?
Even if you install an official build you're still gonna be infected with DRM.
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."
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
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.
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.
DRM is malware Nobody said vista would infect anything, Vista itself is the infection. Also see here.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
They *ARE* now concerned that malware could be slip-streamed into Warez ISOs.
Because this enables them to brag around that "users should download untrusted pirated Vistas ISO. Only buy buying Genuine(tm) Origianl(tm) Vista(c) boxes with lots-of-cash, you are sure to get something clean".
And therefor when Johnny - 10 years old - goes to his grandma's to help her clean and re-install her PC, she'll refuses to let him uses some CD-R with things handwritten on it, and that instead she'll sacrifice some of Johnny's future heritage buying a Vista box in retail, for fear of viruses.
Or that's what they hope. See the "Don't steal movies on the Interweb !" clip that most current DVD forces users to whatch through, as an indication of how much this new technique is going to be successful.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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 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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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)
Give me a break. Microsoft borrows an idea from Linux and now its a securityu flaw?