Slashdot Mirror


Schneier On Scareware Vendor Lawsuits

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. "

17 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft is sueing themselves? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Funny

    scam artists who use fake security alerts to frighten consumers into paying for worthless computer security software

    Sounds a lot like an average Windows advertisement.

  2. 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 nschubach · · Score: 3, Funny

      Repeat after me: Ad revenue from hits/views.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. 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.

    4. Re:Unnecessary blog reference by LMacG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, Brian Krebs at the WaPo has a lot of credibility, and has been writing very good well-researched columns on computer security for as long as I've been reading that paper. What's your left arse cheek done lately?

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
  3. What an awesome quote on his book cover by DimmO · · Score: 3, Funny

    http://www.schneier.com/images/book-sos-175w.jpg "The closest the security industry has to a rock star" Well, if that's the case, I'll believe anything he says then. I love rock and roll.

    1. Re:What an awesome quote on his book cover by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Funny

      So put another dime in the jukebox, baby.

  4. 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 sjwest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you run a linux os with a modern web browser, and you visit a site with the scareware it is mildly amusing to see that your registry is screwed up and the site looks like internet explorer in colour scheme but you can download an exe to fix.

      Its happened twice to me, and i find them amusing.

      Im quite sure this is how windows zombies get signed up, but my penguin knows better.

    2. 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

    3. Re:FAKE security warnings, for Windows? by gaderael · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...after all, is there anything as insecure as Windows?

      Emo kids?

      --
      Anyone got a light for my sig?
  5. colors by apodyopsis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm confused, I don't use windows, but surely somebody could just change the desktop colors and then when a warning alert turned up in the old colors they would know it was a scam?

    Is that too obvious?

    1. 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
  6. 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.

  7. Re:Courts determining what's required for security by db32 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds like it could be used for Microsoft to take a swing at all of the legitimate anti-virus/scumware/etc apps for advertising how critical their software is because Windows has so many problems.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  8. More Government Regulation by Jawn98685 · · Score: 3, Funny

    When will these ultra-liberal, extremist zealots realize that more regulation just doesn't work? It is no suprise to see that the term "worthless security software" should be bandied about by such out-of-touch elitist snobs. We all know that the free market should determine what is "worthless" and what is not. Why do socialist thugs like Microsoft and the Washington State Attorney General's Office get off, trying to bully patriotic, tax-paying, small computer security businesses this way?