Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Schneier On Scareware Vendor Lawsuits

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-what-about-the-car-warranty-robot-who-calls-every-day dept.

Bruce Schneier's blog says "This is good: Microsoft Corp. and the state of Washington this week filed lawsuits against a slew of 'scareware' purveyors, scam artists who use fake security alerts to frighten consumers into paying for worthless computer security software. "

7 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Unnecessary blog reference by g051051 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does this even reference Bruce Schneier's blog? There's no added value from there. Why not just reference the original article?

    1. Re:Unnecessary blog reference by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look at the name of the submitter.. this is blatant self promotion.

      And, as is often the case, Schneier's blog doesn't add anything to the article either.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Unnecessary blog reference by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bruce Schneier has a lot more credibility in the security field than the Washington Post, the State of Washington, and Microsoft all put together.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  2. FAKE security warnings, for Windows? by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm truly impressed that people can come up with security warnings about Windows that are not true... after all, is there anything as insecure as Windows?

    The only thing I think they may have a case with is of course the fake software, as in software that does not do what is advertised. And I'm not even thinking of Windows itself this time.

    1. Re:FAKE security warnings, for Windows? by MadJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Were those attack vectors directed at Linux or at packages running on Linux?
      Apache != Linux
      MySQL != Linux
      etc

      --
      80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
  3. Courts determining what's required for security? by compumike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The law referenced "makes it illegal to misrepresent the extent to which software is required for computer security or privacy." This is such a fishy thing that I'm not really sure if I want courts to determine what exactly is required and therefore whether it is being misrepresented.

    Now, maybe there's a case for fraud if the program doesn't do what it purports to do in its advertising, but that doesn't seem to be what's at stake here.

    There also might be a case for fraud if, perhaps, the advertising pop-ups are being confused for actual Windows messages. But I suppose in the "real world" advertisements mimic other things to be creative, but are still fairly obviously ads.

    Just not sure I like the sound of a law that requires a judge or jury to determine what's required for computer security.

    --
    Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

  4. Re:colors by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too obvious for your normal user, yes. Your average geek isn't going to get fooled by these things anyways (heck with the way NoScript and my popup blockers are set I don't see them at all anyways). But to the guy who fumbles with the power button and whose eyes glaze over when you speak of "cut and paste", changing the window colors and then having the foresight to pickup on a different color showing up being bad, is way beyond their capabilities.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain