Slashdot Mirror
Black Screen of Death Not Microsoft's Fault
Barence follows up to the ongoing Black Screen of Death Saga by saying "Microsoft says reports of 'Black Screen of Death' errors aren't caused by Windows Updates, as claimed by a British security firm. The software giant claims November's Windows Updates didn't alter registry keys in the way described by Prevx, which said that the Microsoft Patches caused PCs to boot with just a black screen and a Windows Explorer window. Microsoft is now blaming the problem on malware. Prevx has issued a grovelling apology on its own blog."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe if Windows was a little more impervious to malware, they wouldn't have this problem.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class, especially since I rule.
TFA says a piece of malware can knock out the null-terminator in a required string, which Explorer relies on to load properly.
While it's good to know that a simple problem can be solved quickly (and the root cause discovered, damn you malware), and it's also good to see that Prevx can apologize when the make a mistake-- but I have to wonder if Microsoft would have been attended to as quickly as they had had Prevx not complained as loudly as they did.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
So, Windows 7 is much more susceptible to malware than previously claimed? This is the big win for Microsoft? Sorry, but if that large enough of a percentage of folks are experiencing the problem, then it's a real issue that MS needs to address. It sounds like they are just saying "not my problem", and forgetting about it. Meantime Windows 7 will be completely destroyed by the time it gets decent marketshare.
Maybe MS turned their attention to Windows 8 a little sooner than claimed.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I had no idea Windows Vista and Windows 7 still had such large install bases of malware
We have a bunch of machines that can't properly shut down after this update (time zone update) is applied. It takes me few hours to isolate this thanks to some instant recovery software.
New Economic Perspectives
Since when does apologizing to someone for your own baseless accusations amount to "groveling"?
From the post in question:
Having narrowed down a specific trigger for this condition we've done quite a bit of testing and re-testing on the recent Windows patches including KB976098 and KB915597 as referred to in our previous blog. Since more specifically narrowing down the cause we have been able to exonerate these patches from being a contributory factor
. . .
We apologize to Microsoft for any inconvenience our blog may have caused.
Wow. Way to kiss ass.
You know what would be even more pathetic and embarrassing than this kind of "groveling"? Standing behind claims that you know to be false.
Breakfast served all day!
Grovelling? How sad it is that an honest apology gets an insult. If you find "We apologize to Microsoft for any inconvenience our blog may have caused." as grovelling, then I feel very sad for you and your vision of how people should relate to each other.
When did they do that?
Whether or not the problem is triggered by malware or some MS update, this is still a bug that MS needs to fix. That fact that malware can hide its keys from you through this method should be impetus enough for MS to fix this in programs like regedit. Certainly fixing Windows to properly parse the shell name from the registry key is a no brainer.
We have identified the malware that results in the "black screen of death" and it is......Windows.
Ok, mod it troll if you like, but it was so obvious it just HAD to be said.
The malware is Windows 7.
This isn't altogether surprising. Though, to be honest, I'm not sure how they managed to bungle detecting which program modified the registry keys.
Maybe one day Microsoft will get rid of the Windows Registry. It's like putting port holes on the bottom of your boat. Sure, they let you see the fish, but sooner or later one is going to break and sink your ship.
The Windows registry has always been a bane of Windows use since it's inception.
Now, how do I justify my wife's having to user Ubuntu on her new notebook? Thanks, Prevx! You guys are awesome! --Stak
Holy happy hippy crap!
I suspect that the windows users are probably still insisting on logging into their new windows 7 systems with full administrator rights. From what I have seen, >90% of malware is completely useless when it tries to deploy on a system where the logged in user has user access instead of administrator rights.
In other words, this problem will never be solved until people finally get over the baseless notion that they need administrator rights to check their email and read the news online.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
We apologize to Microsoft for any inconvenience our blog may have caused.
Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
Microsoft denies that Windows is breaking computers. Details at 11.
It is not Microsoft's fault, it is YOUR fault for using a MS product.
alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls
Not really a surprise though. All the things I've read about Prevx come to just marketing their shit, somewhat like Symantec is. Not really a surprise they'll make shit statements like this and then just 'sorry' afterwards.
Malware is user error. Don't click yes to the prompt asking you to install a 32kb app that will give you unlimitted porn. You can't fix stupid, and neither can Microsoft.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Maybe if Windows was a little more impervious to malware, they wouldn't have this problem.
As much as I hate to come to microsoft's defense, this problem is at least as much the fault of the user. Think of the windows users you know - how many of them log in to their computer with full uninhibited administrator rights every single time they user their computer? The vast majority of malware, rootkits, spyware, viruses, etc that plague windows so severely are completely dependent on having administrator rights. If windows users would join the rest of the computing community in the present century and realize that they don't need administrator rights to check their email, they would see the infection rate drop astronomically.
Although of course there are far too many software companies that write terrible code (for useful software) for windows that won't install without administrator rights, but that is another matter. The average user is not installing software that often in comparison to the frequency in which they use their computer for mundane tasks that have no need for administrator access.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Nobody does run as root all the time. So it's still MS needs to fix their act where most people do.
Why not?
The registry makes far more and serious problems than the linux/unix conf files ever did.
And they have different formats for the same reason a raster image has a different format to a spreadsheet file.
I asked for them to get rid of the BSOD, they got rid of the BSOD -- that's Windows 7.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Microsoft claimed that IE 8 was the most secure browser on the planet, and that Windows 7 was the most secure OS ever. It clearly isn't their fault for making an insecure OS that is subject to malware.
That is simply impossible.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
What do you want them to replace it with? hundreds of .conf files scattered randomly about the filesystem, with no standard format?
After having used Linux and Windows and OS X systems for years, OS X does this right.
Yes there are "hundreds of conf files". But they are not scattered around, they are all in ~/Library/Preferences.
And they are usually named via the company name + app convention, like com.apple.mail.
And as opposed to being in "no standard format", they are all plist files (which are basically XML).
So it's easy to find where they are, easy to figure out what plist file belongs to what, and easy to edit or remove them as needed. If there is corruption (which I have never actually seen in practice) it would be limited to a single file - and an app encountering a preference file it could not read would simply replace it with a new default version. You would at worst lose a few custom settings for one app - and even then only as long as it took you to pull a backup of that single file out of Time Machine, since it's easy to restore the preferences for a single application from any backup.
However, I have to add that even if you went with a Linux system where the conf files are scattered all over in many different forms, I can say with confidence it is still 100% better than the nightmare of the registry. In practice the files are very easy to edit regardless of format, it's really only the question of the location that gets annoying.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hey, young fellow! Don't worry about Windows 7 problems! M$ is now working on Windows 8 to solve older Windows problems. Just wait for Windows 8! =P
Despite the serious failures Windows has, it's a bit naive to believe ALL malware would be neutralized on Windows 7 (or any other OS, to be fair), considering ALL previous Windows releases.
On the other hand, this kind of problems (black/blue screens, and stuff) have always been characteristic of Windows. If you don't like it use another OS, or stop complaining about this on each Windows release.
In summary, this problem is more of the same..
Ok, sadly that's not true. But this headline and summary suck.
1) How is vulnerabiilty to malware not MS's fault?
2) The summary organizes the facts in such a way to read as though this were just MS denying blame and vaguely saying "malware did it"; read the links (especially the last one) and you'll see a different picture.
3) In its continued zeal to paint MS and anyone agreeing with MS in a negative light, the summary insults the blogger for appologizing after he had posted technical information he later found to be false, which incorrectly blamed specific MS actions that were not in fact at fault.
by loud sucking sounds.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
This is George W Bush's fault!
Well, that seems to be the cause of all Obama's problems, so why can't Microsoft use it too.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Oh wow, we haven't heard that joke before!
No, the malware is the update. They didn't have this problem before Windows Update did its thing.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Two reasons:
1) Malware can be plenty problematic on just a single user's account. After all most people aren't running multi-user systems. For them, the system is their data, their account. As such even if the malware can't infect the whole system, infecting their account is all it needs to do. The only consolation to that is that virus scanners could remove it easier, but then that presumes they'll bother to run one.
2) People will give the malware admin permission. By default, Windows Vista and 7 make nobody an administrator. When UAC is on, you have to escalate to do administrative things. An "administrator" account is just one that can escalate without a password, you still have to give permission on a secure desktop. The problem is, people look at it as just another hoop to jump through. They say "Yes" any time the system asks. So they get some file "cute fluffy bunnies-totally not malware.exe" and they run it and 7 says "Hey, this needs admin, and has no digital signature. You sure you want to do that?" They click yes without thinking.
There really isn't a solution to this. Admin rights aren't the problem, people are the problem. Hell, I remember a virus we got hit with that, to get past virus scanners, put itself in an encrypted zip file. In the e-mail it gave you the password to decrypt the zip. So a user had to open the e-mail, save the zip to their system, open it up, get the password, decrypt the files, extract the malware, and run it. Guess what? We had no fewer than 3 that did. They jumped through a massive number of hoops to do that, you really think an admin prompt would have stopped them?
The best you can do is have good scanners that check incoming files and block them before people can infect themselves. That is an imperfect solution, but I've yet to hear of a better one.
Did you even read this article?
Malware is what users explicitly run
I thought malware was a broad term used to cover viruses, worms, trojans, spyware and other bad software.
"Our Death Screens are blue! PWND!"
Jason-Palmer.com
It's awfully hard to install anti-malware software to fix it if you get nothing but a black screen. I sure hope it doesn't do this in safe mode and that my antimalware software can install in safe more and that my definitions files have added this malware that may be like 2 weeks old or something. One of my customers is coming over today with a black screened laptop. How am I supposed to fix it? It sounds like they haven't even decided on the cause yet!!! Maybe it's malware, maybe it's a registry entry, maybe it's windows, who knows! In fact, if you actually read the article, they say this problem However, we do know that "black screen" behavior is associated with some malware families such as Daonol.A So in other words, MAYBE that's the problem. MAYBE! And since it's MS saying it, probably not. I don't think everyone with this problem suddenly all caught the same virus that I've never heard of before. Googling the issue comes up with fixes that people say don't work and useless speculation. Does anyone have an actual fix for this that actually works?
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
I can create an application, put its settings in the registry, and boom -- I can manage it through an MMC for thousands of computers...
If you can control one file, you can control many. Which is why a separate preference file per app would work just as well. Only moreseo because a user HAS to be able to write to the registry, where you can totally lock down a single file. Yes I know you can theoretically lock down sections of the registry but that to me seems like a weaker system, not to mention the danger of registry merges corrupting something.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe the malware would have a harder time getting into the system if m$ didn't load a pile of crap in along with the product they just sold? It takes me a couple of daze to clear the unwanted garbage that comes with any m$ product. Not m$'s fault? When I sell a house, as part of the "deal" I don't leave the contents of a Stadium Dumpster in my clients new front yard.
To be fair to Obama, George W. Bush was a really horrible president.
...as yet again, even with a year of RC testing, we're a month deep into the release of a "new and improved" OS that is obviously just as vulnerable as previous OSes with malware...Spank you very much, Micro$haft.
Part of MS registry problem is that they are single files. MS needs to have one for OS, one for MS apps, one for Standard apps, and one for legacy apps ( the current registry name works there). Changing to this separation would at least release most of the boot process from a corruption. Only having to revert to one part backup would keep life simpler. Having a transaction system for writing to registries would help roll back out of issues.
Then there is the need to properly parse the registries.
wake up and hold your nose
Any OS is susceptible to malware. Malware is what users explicitly run, and then it does bad things to their system. You can't secure against that
Actually you can, to some extent. Anything the user runs on OS X for the first time after download issues a warning, and then you need an administrator password beyond that to modify the kinds of system level files we are talking about here.
The base issue is that in Windows 7 Microsoft weakened UAC, so even if you have it disabled a program can do some system level things without warning if you are logged in as administrator. Why should Microsoft get a pass for doing this? Sudo doesn't have these kinds of holes built in...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah, they just promised everything about Windows 7 is easier, faster and more convenient. Not just for users, but also for malware...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Microsoft kinda brings up the car analogy here; Like CalTrans, the highways will probably handle last year's traffic volume within the decade.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Unless you make above 500k a year, then he was the best president ever.
After after downloading microsofts update I had to do a system restore to get my computer to boot. Over the years of using windows the single program operation that ive found most risky to use is windows update...
hundreds of .conf files scattered randomly about the filesystem, with no standard format?
False dichotomy. Why did you present the conf scenario as files with no standard format? They could be, and most likely would if it was presented as a replacement for the registry. Be intellectually honest, and present the option of a *de*centralized, standardized configuration system.
Reply to That ||
don't believe anything M$ says.
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
After having used Linux and Windows and OS X systems for years, OS X does this right. Yes there are "hundreds of conf files". But they are not scattered around, they are all in ~/Library/Preferences.
Hmmm, the mac sounds like it has a similar solution, but that isnt much different than the windows registry. I'm wondering how its better?
I have seen plists for active directory binding settings get corrupted before. That module on OSX is particularly buggy.
Perhaps if their operating system properly separated and sandboxed applications, malware
would have a harder time crashing the whole OS?
Just a thought. Last time I checked my watch, it was 2009, and we've known how to do
that sort of OS design for probably two decades now.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Maybe it's because I haven't had my coffee yet, but reading this, I almost bust a gut. All I can think of is that scene in Time Bandits where Michael Palin and Shelley Long are in the middle ages and have been held up by the band of midgets and tied to a tree, and Palin begins shouting,
Suffering the fruit! Hee hee!
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
To be fair to George W. Bush (OMG!), all politicians are really horrible.
"So it's easy to find where they are, easy to figure out what plist file belongs to what, and easy to edit or remove them as needed."
Furthermore, you can use the "defaults" command-line program in OS X to read and write preferences, so it is trivial to export them all and then re-import them in, say, an entirely different user account for all of the installed applications or only for selected applications. 'man defaults' for more details.
Anytime somebody wants bad enough to accomplish something, they will. The real thing protecting Apple and Linux... lack of market share. The pros don't target bums for the big heist. If you you are going to put effort into something, you do it for the returns, and writing a devastating linux/mac malware (when linux varieties are far less standardized than MS OS's, and mac has 80%+ less market share) just isn't going to get you the attention/money etc. that tampering with the market share leader will accomplish.
...microsoft admit that all their OSes are STILL extremely vulnerable to malware that can easily shut down the machine.
I'd much rather it was an update, this does not fill me with confidence and pride.
1) This thing happens although not as described by that vendor but somehow happens.
2) This is a major conspiracy by a major rival (e.g. Apple) to spread FUD about MS especially after Win 7 release.
3) This is the always mentioned (in theory) "evil virus" that is so good that it can't be even detected by current technology. (theorized since MS DOS)
4) This is a hoax by a large troll organization who can manage to send thousands of people, including slashdot account holders to say "yes, it happened to me too."
Trust me, even Apple can't get away with such a BSOD after update, even the "cult" won't let it. If you claim otherwise, you must be claiming one of the conspiracy theories above. This thing exists, it happens, it is not a major conspiracy and you do no good on behalf of MS when you claim "couple of random people" having it.
The side effect will hit US as usual, as Windows users now have second perfect excuse to turn off automatic updates. The first excuse was a damn legitimate one BTW, check WGA on Google. They installed it like a freaking trojan to their own users computers masking as something else.
ps: Black screen reminds me one of the "punishments" WGA does. Blacking the desktop background. Some routine got falsely triggered? Eh MS?
Why let facts get in the way of a good ol' fashioned Microsoft bashin'? Just repeat the same copy-pasta over and over until you start to believe it yourself!
"But this one goes to 11!"
Well, it typically means that one bad file does not screw the entire computer. I haven't had issues with any OSX prefs becoming corrupted, but if it is similar to Mac OS 7-9, if you delete the corrupted file, the program in questions sees that there is no file and simply creates a new fresh one. You could go into your old MacOS Prefs folder and delete everything. The Mac would work just fine* and if any corruption in those files was causing problems, it would be gone. Sure everything was reset to defaults, but changing those is usually a minor issue. Let's see you go to the Window's registry and delete everything and continue working.
*Not quote true. Some 3rd party apps used the pref file to store registration keys so you'd have to enter them in again, or back them up because the key was specific to a random number that was created at the time of creation of the pref file.
All of the data isn't globbed into some hidden binary file somewhere that is useless to people trying to move to a new computer or freshly installed OS. Or, god forbid, trying to fix their inoperable GUI OS via a terminal connection. Yeah, there's remote registry editing and probably some command that is half as useful as it should be, but why reinvent the wheel?
I don't fault the original registry developers. It's a good idea in theory, but a clusterfuck in practice. It probably wins the performance battle, but I never really understood why an application needs to poll registry values every second, anyway.
Gnome's got a hybrid registry + conf file solution as well. Me, I just prefer the standard linux free-for-all. You never need to touch most conf files, and you learn the ones you do. One format isn't the best for all apps.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
I didn't really see any grovelling, but that really is what they should be doing. The headlines microsoft got out of this were terrible. It was a major PR fiasco for them. Prevx should consider themselves lucky MS isn't suing for libel.
I have 700-800 plist files in my Preferences directory. All those widgets I tried, apps I installed, removed, run one time.
It must be like 1 line of command on Terminal or basic "Finder" order by date to find the old/unneeded ones and delete them but I don't bother. Why? Because it has zero effect on OS X. OS X wouldn't really care if there were 1000000 pref files there since it is not its business to maintain them let alone read them.
On Windows, while I hate the idea from the beginning, if you don't clean up your registry, OS will do it for you. Last time it was like 20% overhead required to clean it up at boot. If you get enough junk on that already huge, complex file, it will effect the entire performance of system. Windows _has to read_ that gigantic database to function and find its way in it.
ps: Now you understand why Windows technical user switchers insist on having "uninstall tool" or be amazed at "no add remove programs" on OS X? They generally think having redundant, old files, needless files will somehow effect their system. You can even add "universal binary haters" to that camp. I don't blame them, I blame Windows.
Yes, but you can uninstall it. Linix. Would a penguin lie to you?
The time for the purification is at hand! The impure shall be cleansed and crystal clear purity shall fill the cup of th
To apply your analogy properly, Steve Ballmer would have to blame Bill Gates for all of Microsoft's problems. Oh wait!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Installers, Games, Utility programs, Firmware updaters and even the Windows update itself.
Don't blame those users, blame the OS vendor for stealing everything from Apple but not stealing "Enter your administrator password to continue".
but Windows 2000 and beyond has the structure to allow users to log in as normal users with their own environment. HKCU is their own personal registry hive and they have their own 'home' folder at %userprofile%
This statement is false. It's vaguely truthful in the sense that these the things mentioned exist, but attempting to use the OS it all falls apart.
Their file browser does not work correctly in less than Administrator mode.
Can't schedule a task in anything less than Administrator mode.
Windows update doesn't work at all in less than Administrator mode. Errors out, with no way to elevate privileges.
The is just the top of my list. I know this because I admin windows 2000 on-up servers as less than admin and run into stupid issues like this *every* *single* *day.*
We're practically 10 years into the 'new' Microsoft security thinking. Microsoft is selling their new-improved security ideal (and you bought it) but their inaction shows nothing has changed. 10 years, nothing has changed.
Linux and the BSD's have made huge progress in the same time span.
Back to the main story: hidden registry entries suggests what Microsoft critics have been maintaining all along, Windows 8 security is the 2000/XP security model with UAC lard on top.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
He's said so many times. But when you have a majority in the house, a majority in the senate, and the presidency, at some point you need to accept responsibility.
When you are thinking "what's the difference?" you should be answering "I don't know; I'm obviously missing something since everyone with a clue says there is!" You are forgetting that Linux is multi-user. When you do stupid things, like run a trojan because it will give you free midget pr0n, I don't want my files, or the OS upon which I am running molested by your new midget friend.
Also, we all know you have good backups, right? So you obviously would rather just restore your backed up user data than re-install the whole fscking OS after learning your valuable lesson, right?
There is more, but I believe I made my point.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Almost. I remember skimming over the last two links.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Win7 has to run on thousands of combinations of HDs, MoBos, CPUs and RAM, and then run thousands upon thousands of programs
Linux distros do this. In fact, much of the same code runs multiple processor platforms with great success. This is not a valid reason to forgive Microsoft.
It was built on a finite budget by a finite team trying to conform to something close to schedule.
As are most Linux distros, the Linux kernel, the BSD teams have schedules too. Lack of resources is not an excuse.
I could go on, but the point here is you are clearly married to Microsoft and are senselessly defending it. That's okay. I hope it works out for you.
Please, understand your thinking around Microsoft versus other OS's is clearly impaired.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The parent is not a troll. He is an ignorant piece of shit who hasn't used an MS product since 1994.
Try to think of it a little less literally.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Actually, the Registry is a good concept. The Registry is just a file system for little data items. The trouble is that any application can write to any part of it. It lacks a security model. (Yes, you can attach security restrictions to registry keys, but nobody does this, because Windows 95 didn't have that, and applications didn't have support for it.)
The big problem with Windows security is Microsoft never put a security model in place under the concept of program installation. The way this ought to work is that there should be several classes of things one can install. Call them "applications", "plugins", "middleware", and "system modifications".
Installers of "applications" should be limited to writing to the application's subtrees in Program Files, Documents and Settings, and the Registry. Uninstalling an application consists of removing those subtrees. Applications cannot install anything that runs at startup or runs periodically. Most programs (especially games and entertainment apps) should be applications. Under these restrictions, installation of applications is relatively safe, and should be allowed with Power User privileges.
"Plugins" are sub-applications which affect one application. They go in their own subtree under the appropriate application. The application controls their installation, and they can't do anything the application can't do. Browser plug-ins fall in this category if the browser is an "application". If the browser is "middleware" (IE is, but Firefox is not), more privileges are required.
"Middleware" is programs run by other programs, like Java. Changing middleware can affect multiple applications, so that requires more privileges. Code signing is appropriate.
"System modifications", which modify the OS itself and may require a reboot, should require both code signing by a clearly identified party and administrator privileges to install.
Of course, if we had something like that, app developers would bitch that they couldn't load their "phone home for update" service or "prelauncher". Tough. You don't really need to know if ZowieApp needs an update until you run ZowieApp again. And if your app needs to be "prelaunched" because it loads slowly, maybe the problem is that it loads slowly.
1) How is vulnerabiilty to malware not MS's fault?
If someone wrote an application that made a popup every 20 minutes on your linux box that said 'Run TuxAntiVirusPro 2010 now!' and you intentionally executed it, how is that Linux's fault?
Microsoft does give away free Anti Virus and Anti Malware and put in UAC.
Despite all of this, it's 2001 all over again. Same security problems, same security model with UAC larded on top, different year.
There is probably little else they can do.
There lots they could have done for their new version OS, but instead they chose to work on DRM. There is no reasonable excuse any more.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Or, loadhive.exe (~7kb) (that I downloaded earlier this year). In RegEdt32.exe's case, launch and click over to the HKLM or HKU window, then File/Load Hive and choose a registry.DAT (ie ntuser.dat in a user's home folder) to load. Make changes as needed, and File/Unload hive.
The is just the top of my list. I know this because I admin windows 2000 on-up servers as less than admin and run into stupid issues like this *every* *single* *day.*
You should find a different job because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Back to the main story: hidden registry entries suggests what Microsoft critics have been maintaining all along, Windows 8 security is the 2000/XP security model with UAC lard on top.
That's because there is nothing wrong with the NT security model to begin with. The implementation of the model was the problem.
Doing so, I come to the same conclusion. You said "When users are happy to type "sudo rm ...", it doesn't really matter how impervious the system is.", and I pointed out that on a real Linux distribution it absolutely does matter because the user can't do any damage to the system no matter what they type. You were wrong, so just admit it like an adult and move on. Hell, you might even decide to learn something in the process.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
To be fair to Ron Paul, all politicians are really horrible, except for Ron Paul.
They put out a system that is inordinately susceptible to malware, but somehow its not their responsibility when the malware damages the system. Its interesting that most manufacturers are viewed as liable when their products are faulty and yet nothing is ever Microsoft's fault. I'll bet that the manufacturers of Polybutyl plumbing pipes, Masonite siding, plenty of cribs and children's toys and asbestos products wish that they could use that defense.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Windows firewall does not block WGA and Adobe update, which are spyware that can deactivate your software.
ZoneAlarm unfortunately does not support Win7 at this moment.
New Economic Perspectives
So, don't run Windows with administrative privileges either. It wasn't easy in the early years of Windows 2000 but it is very easy now
This is not true. Many applications Microsoft includes with their OS don't work correctly in less than Administrator mode.
I can't schedule a task in anything less than administrator mode.
File browser doesn't work right when using 'runas Administrator' options as a lower priviledged user.
Windows update doesn't work right at all.
I could go on, but my point is the OS doesn't work like you want it to in order to make some kind of parity claim with your average Linux distro.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
1) How is being a stupid, ignorant, piece of crap not your fault?
Yes. It sucks when the previous administration makes you a billionaire. Thank you sir may I have another?
That's how it works, except that MS apps aren't treated any differently than third party apps. There's System and Software (And Security and SAM and Users) and they're all separate files, treated as subkeys. And each user also has their own mini-registry they can be written to and read from without needing escalated privileges. Unfortunately, most Windows settings go in Software/Microsoft/Windows, when arguably, they should go in System/Settings or something along those lines. On the other hand, both System and Software require Administrator privileges to access...anyways, the boot process IS free from corruption. It's no different than Linux...if you have corrupted files, X11 might not load, but that didn't ruin your boot...if you don't know what you're doing without a GUI, you're just as hooped, but don't act like your system can no longer boot. Explorer went into failsafe mode, which is way better than it bluescreening.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Actually it was supposed to be a joke. Whomever modded it down is an M$ fanboy with no sense of humor.
I suppose this is from 1994? I doubt viewing fonts on a Linux system could end up rooting your machine. <bad sense of humor>Some would say that's because one can't view fonts on a Linux machine anyway.</bad sense of humor>
the "sudo rm..." part was intended as a stand in for a user taking a stupid, dangerous action. Surely you do not claim that, lets say, most Linux distribution have actually achieved stupid proofing?
BTW, you are correct about me not running a real Linux distribution, I don't use Linux at all (well, not for day to day pc tasks, I don't have good information about the software running on various devices).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Is that it, Dad? Did the penguin tell you to do this?
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Someone installs software into the OS that links itself to the kernel. That software uses an outdated DLL of some variety or another. MS Windows Update comes in and updates this outdated DLL and kills software that was linked to the kernel.
Does that not sound familiar to anyone?
I'm not saying Microsoft shouldn't be able to update things. I am saying 3rd parties shouldn't be allowed to attach things to the kernel as that tends to result in an unstable system. All things that need to link to the kernel should be required to go through Microsoft for inclusion and/or approval.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. That is how UNIX, and consequently Linux, are designed from the ground up.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
...and you think that scenario is comperable to the scope of Windows' vulnerability to malware? Haven't been paying much attention over the past 15 years, have you?
"Honey I'm home! Guess what! Turns out we TOTALLY goofed on that black screen of death thing! Yeah, hard to believe, we checked it like five times and everything. Turns out it was just some malware! Yup, those pesky kids... In other news I bought us matching BMW's!"
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Lets see, OP said "sudo rm ..." not "sudo rm", the ellipsis isn't part of the command, it's indicating that what has been written before it is a prefix sufficient to identify the full phrase/list, one of the more devastating finales would be (written out as a perl string)
"sudo rm -rf /\n$password\n"
Which, if the user knows the root password (and if it's their home PC, they probably will) it's a simple matter of social engineering to destroy the root filesystem.
OP was correct, you just seem to have some misconceptions about what is and is not normal and lack the imagination to complete the OPs command, which would seem to indicate you lack the imagination to recognize the prefix of something dangerous, which is itself dangerous since the suffix can be obfuscated.
Realities just a bunch of bits.
on a real Linux distribution it absolutely does matter because the user can't do any damage to the system no matter what they type.
Have you only used LiveCDs? You do know that root is a user, right?
Yes, but you can uninstall it. Linix. Would a penguin lie to you?
What the hell is a Linix?
... right, drink more coke before replying:
s/knows the root password/knows their own password (and has sudo)/
But maybe that isn't actually normal, and every account I've had at every company I've worked at and on my own laptops was set up weird.
But then, I recognize that I shouldn't be entering my password all over the place and should know and udnerstand what I'm running (especially when sudo is involved).
Realities just a bunch of bits.
In the context we are discussing, root is not a user; root is the system administrator, sometimes referred to as the "superuser" to specifically differentiate it from a normal user in your mind.
Also, on most systems set to boot to runlevel 5 (The GUI), you cannot log in to the WM as root.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It is good that you offered the caveat, because your suspicion is correct ... that is not normal. Most systems don't have sudo at all, or only allow system administrators to have sudo access. If you are user, on a properly configured Linux system, then you do not have sudo capabilities. In fact, sudo is short for superuser do . If it was for regular users, it would be called luserdo ;-)
(That last line is a UNIX BOFH joke; don't take it personally)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Do you think that is the only way malware finds its way onto machines?
Except, of course, when the roots of the problem can be traced back further than the year he's been in office.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Exactly. Which means it is Microsoft's fault after all.
Sent from my iPhone
It's really easy in the UK to get someone to publicly say sorry due to the lible laws. If you are sued for lible you have to prove that your statements are true. It's much cheaper to just apologise than go to court even if the truth is on your side.
I would not be the lease surprised if the apology was the result of a legal threat.
Google McLibel for an interesting case where someone refused to apologise for statements that a reasonable person would consider true.
I agree with you, even though your summary is bit confusing too.
MS and the malware share blame for this, but the general issue is still very much a Windows
This sounds like a known issue: Malware app modifies registry (improperly), Windows does poor checking of input data ('cause there's *never* corrupted data in the registry), and responds with a scary black screen.
- I prefer using a simple error message or alert box, but I'm very sure crashing to a big black screen really lets the client know he caused a boo-boo.
- Dramatic for a small bug perhaps, but very effective!
You can't blame MS for the corruption, but I'd still blame them for very poor handling on the reg key (a known issue that is currently still unresolved, I'm assuming).
Well, I'll be nice and answer your questions despite you not answering mine.
1) No. Did I say it was? No. Did I give any indication that I was trying to make a generalizing sweep of the history of computer vulnerabilities? No. Your topic was focused on this particular incident, and in my personal experience, most bad stuff to hit Windows boxes (that I deal with) are from people who click stuff they should not. If you're going to make statements with such finality, you should expect people to bring up exceptions.
2) Not really; 15 years ago I would have been in middle school and most of my early PC history was "OK, what game can I play next?" I didn't *really* start getting myself educated on things like this until the early XP era. This isn't to say I'm ignorant of Windows' rather unflattering past but I was never on the receiving end of a Slammer, Code Red or Blaster storm.
at least they said they were sorry, better than most
Think you are an Application developer for Windows. Your "uninstall code" also has a routine to empty the program's registry entries and switching back the entries you changed at install (file associations etc.) along with its entire "tree" in registry.
For 80% of users, you did a great job. You cleaned up well. For the 20%, they were just "re-installing" or "accidentally clicked uninstall" so they "lost all their preferences!!!".
That is why developers like to leave their prefs behind (exact same thing happens on OS X) but on Windows, it has a effect on overall OS because of a centric database file. On OS X, besides some clutter on disk, nothing changes. That is one of the reasons why "format and re-install" in some period, on same major OS version (10.3,10.6 etc) is considered needless and proven several times to be a pseudo speed enhancement.
I don't either love or hate both operating systems, both of them have their powers. It is just that "registry" which MS _insists_ for some reason which we mortal users doesn't really get. Apple has some similar acts too but not really insisting on them when some alternative/proposal exists. They also prove that even if one changes the entire OS architecture, even the kernel, some kind of backwards compatibility may exist. For example, I was really surprised when I found the reason of this "mini [0x0-0x1b01b].com.operasoftware.Opera[264]: Unknown argument: -psn_0_110619" entry in my system logs. That is some very interesting way of maintaining backwards compatibility. Hell they are still using ":" as directory separator internally.
Didja try turning the monitor on?
I thought the new security behind windows7 prohibited anything being able to alter the registry settings without having proper confirmation, as well, if this is the case, then they haven't done their homework, because those keys are not just any keys, they actually are integrated with windows directly and should not be able to be changed regardless if you have admin priviliges or not.
It is so their fault, but now the new thing is being able to push blame on malware, as
a) no one can defend the malware maker's , not even themselves.
b) because most do not know any better, they will dismiss this, and keep on using windows thinking it normal
for malware to be able to change registry settings.
so Um, which linux distributions wont let me delete my home directory?
"Oh Sorry, your entire data is gone. But fear not ! The system is still working ! Yay ! Right? Right? Linux rocks? Right? "
"Arrrghhhhhhhhhh..... fuck you.. "
Go feed your FUD sandwich to somebody else.
Also ironically, the "system protection" you're boasting about for this specific issue relies on RWX permissions. NT has ACLs - yes even on kernel objects, making it, as far as consumer distros go, way ahead of linux in this specific category. Unless you're running SELinux, etc.. Which AFAIK, no consumer distro ships with.
I will have a fresh Windows install tomorrow and I am not taking any kernel level security risks. I will simply enable "system restore" and will just enable all updates automatically installed. I can't really bother with some blaster like issue while Windows only purpose will be firmware updating my devices etc.
Whatever... Funny thing is, we can't even theorize on what is actually happening let alone having a clue about what to do if it happens. Thanks to Slashdot's needless "digg like" random moderation point distribution and horde of MSCE/Mono/Moonlight/Novell whatever commentators, there is a huge noise here.
I can easily talk on such weird issues since I am the person who found a very strange/unthinkable (before) issue hitting a OS X Update causing a black screen like situation myself. All I got from Apple was "thanks", the company who produced the component thanked too and updated their stuff, couple of Mac hint sites found it themselves already and issue was gone, forever. That is the Apple for you. I am still shocked since I was expecting denial, loss of bug reporting account, flames on IRC etc.
It is like parallel universe now, MS and the idiot unpaid Web 2 abusers are in denial mode.
I have some theories on this weirdness but as I am constantly marked troll, I keep them to myself. As someone reported the "screen backlight is turned off but it actually displays things", it became a very interesting thing to follow. Don't be surprised if it has something to do with beta version of a rare GPU driver.
This little program demonstrate how screw up Windows (any version, including Win 7 ) are !
http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/RegHide.zip
Get the low down on Hidden Registry Keys from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897446.aspx
Or test it on your test machine :
http://live.sysinternals.com/Reghide.exe
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
what joke?
A few points that have to be made here:
1) There shouldn't be a possibility for software to change the registry directly, period.
2) IF there are such ways, who is to say it is malware? Some stupidly programmed regular software could do the trick too.
3) IF this as possible, your system should at least be able to recover from a corrupted registry.
It's all well and good to shift the blame to others, but the problem is still in the OS.
I thought that in the UK, truth is not an absolute defense to libel (unlike in the US, where you can say or write anything you want if it is true). My understanding is that not only must the statement be true, but it also must not be written in an attempt to deceive or mislead.
That said, this apology is probably part of the outcome of an offer to make amends which Microsoft has accepted. UK law provides specific instructions for offers to make amends, accepting those offers, etc... this allows the issue to be resolved without getting the courts involved.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Errors out, with no way to elevate privileges.
Win7 doesn't even have an easy way to do that.
Try running Spybot under a user account rather than Admin. Use the Run as Admin option if you wish. You're locked out from altering startup programs.
So, the Registry API allows for non-null terminated strings. Explorer uses the registry. Explorer doesn't check for non-null terminated strings and causes black-screen of death. Seems to be a problem with Explorer to me. And the registry.
You do not have to prove that your statements were true, only that you believed them to be true.
Yes you can, you just need to enable it. Just because you can't do something by DEFAULT doesn't mean it can't be done 5 clicks later.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. That is how UNIX, and consequently Linux, are designed from the ground up.
As is Windows. So, what's your point ?
The Registry is just a file system for little data items. The trouble is that any application can write to any part of it. It lacks a security model. (Yes, you can attach security restrictions to registry keys, but nobody does this, because Windows 95 didn't have that, [microsoft.com] and applications didn't have support for it.)
And... we have a winner!
You are exactly correct. The fact that the applications can touch the registry directly is stupid to start with. They should be asking the OS to do the registry changes, but they are instead allowed to directly hack the thing all to hell. Good programs use a standard windows install API which prevents that issue, but most malware doesn't run installers, it just directly edits the thing. Re-tar-ded.
The big drawback to a unified registry (other than a single corruption can bomb the whole thing) is that no application, or the OS itself, knows what is supposed to be in there or not. If each application has its own conf file, then that file as a whole can be audited, and harmful changes can be scanned for and discarded. It also makes versioning much easier- if I want to update one app I only change it's conf file, so if I need to undo that update it's easy.
Another part of that is that if apps misbehave and don't clean up their registry entries, they clutter the whole thing up, and you often end up with orphaned entries. In a conf file setup, those orphans would just be regular files which wouldn't do anything more than take up a little extra disk space.
As for app devs bithcing about launchers, update mangers, etc. the problem is that they actually are installing more than one app on your system, but want to pretend it's still a single app. That behavior needs to change, but they realize that if users could easily ID launchers and update watchers that run outside of the app, they can also easily remove or disable them (the nerve of those users, actually wanting CONTROL over their computer!).
It is good that you offered the caveat, because your suspicion is correct ... that is not normal. Most systems don't have sudo at all, or only allow system administrators to have sudo access. If you are user, on a properly configured Linux system, then you do not have sudo capabilities. In fact, sudo is short for superuser do . If it was for regular users, it would be called luserdo ;-)
Why do you think the typical home user desktop is comparable to a professionally managed system ?
Have you only used LiveCDs? You do know that root is a user, right?
Root is _not_ a user. Root is a *superuser* - which, by definition, can circumvent the OS's security systems.
This is in contrast to OSes like Windows that have no superuser concept, where 'Administrator' really is just another user, merely one with a bigger list of privileges.
No shit sherlock. I can also set a system up so that logging in as supernova_hq makes me UID 0 and root is UID 1001, etc. We are talking about properly secured systems, not systems which have had their properly set up security mangled by a moron.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So you switched from "surely your not saying Linux does the impossible" to "Windows does what I said was impossible too!". ROTFLMAO
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I don't. I think the typical home system is a piece of garbage designed by Microsoft ;-)
Now a typical Linux home user desktop system, excluding Ubuntu, has all of the security features and settings I described by default.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The question replied to was a troll. You cannot sudo in most distros, definitely without knowing the root users password anyway. Most linux systems come "properly configured" out of the box. You have to work hard to make them less than secure. Whereas, windows logs you in as admin straight away, until you create another less capable user. In Linux systems, you have to create a standard user before the install is done, and that's who you log in as. Any decent distro would disable root logins anyway. Anybody who wants a root login from the machine can reboot and add "1" to the kernel arguments rather than hacking the user login. You'll need to be able to handle the shell though ...
Now a typical Linux home user desktop system, excluding Ubuntu, has all of the security features and settings I described by default.
A typical Ubuntu desktop has the same "security features" as a recent version of Windows and is a minor piece of social engineering away from a malware strike, just like Windows is.
The structure of where things are stored in the registry is also an issue. Since registry keys are usually ordered based on how they are used, not which application they relate to. For example HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT/.ext or HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT/CLSID/{class id}.
So installing any application that requires a number of OS services to be able to find it, means you have to pollute all kinds of registry keys.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Their file browser does not work correctly in less than Administrator mode.
Can't schedule a task in anything less than Administrator mode.
Windows update doesn't work at all in less than Administrator mode. Errors out, with no way to elevate privileges.
These are all false.
I suggest you pursue a new line of work, because you're incompetent at the one you're in.
Back to the main story: hidden registry entries suggests what Microsoft critics have been maintaining all along, Windows 8 security is the 2000/XP security model with UAC lard on top.
Of course it is. UAC is just a UI construct, like sudo or su. The Windows NT security _model_ has not changed since it was fist designed back in the late '80s (or even earlier if you want to count VMS, where it inherited it from), though the UI around it has improved significantly.
"Local System" at least comes close. An Administrator can gain those privileges using something like the following:
at current_time + 1 minute /interactive cmd
(I found that here:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926639
)
I don't know the specifics, but I came across that article when I was trying to edit the permissions on a HP printer driver service, they had been set to "D:(D;;DCWDWO;;;WD)" which essentially means "Deny rights to everybody", something the "Local System" account doesn't care about.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Actually, the Registry is a good concept. The Registry is just a file system for little data items. The trouble is that any application can write to any part of it. It lacks a security model. (Yes, you can attach security restrictions to registry keys, but nobody does this, because Windows 95 didn't have that, and applications didn't have support for it.)
Um, 100% wrong dude. The Registry uses ACLs, just like the file system. Infact if you edit the registry permissions its the exact same control that you use to edit filesystem ACLs.
And as for "nobody does this"... Try logging onto windows as a non-administrator and editing anything in HKLM. you can't.
The "real" problem is that outside of a large company, all desktop users are administrators.
Windows 7 runs 80% of XP malware.
This is still Microsoft's fault because malware is their fault. Other systems don't have it. There's no excuse.
This statement is false. It's vaguely truthful in the sense that these the things mentioned exist, but attempting to use the OS it all falls apart.
Their file browser does not work correctly in less than Administrator mode.
False. Windows Explorer and even old Windows File Manager work perfectly fine with LUA (Limited User Accounts)
Can't schedule a task in anything less than Administrator mode.
True, but not as much of a big deal - it's infrequent for a limited user to need to schedule something
Windows update doesn't work at all in less than Administrator mode. Errors out, with no way to elevate privileges.
False. In Vista and higher, Update works fine in LUA scenarios. For XP and lower, you can elevate privileges with a single right click and a password entry.
The is just the top of my list. I know this because I admin windows 2000 on-up servers as less than admin and run into stupid issues like this *every* *single* *day.*
Apparently you don't admin Windows Server 2008 machines, and do a very poor job of adminning Windows NT4 and higher servers (runas has existed since, what NT 3.51?)
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
That's pretty much my thought, who made it possible that malware could infect the machine?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Google McLibel for an interesting case where someone refused to apologise for statements that a reasonable person would consider true.
Wikipedia has the link
$ make available
Well, it typically means that one bad file does not screw the entire computer.
Typically, one bad Registry Key won't "screw the entire computer" either.
Let's see you go to the Window's registry and delete everything and continue working.
Try deleting every conf and plist file, and everything in /etc, and see how well OS X works, shall we ?
The Registry uses ACLs, just like the file system.
The Windows 95 line didn't have ACLs, and most XP apps have their roots in Windows 95, not Windows NT.
Sure it does. The rough equivalent in UNIX is a SUID root binary.
But the distinction is an SUID binary is an already existing application that's allowed to run as root, not a hole whereby arbitrary code can potentially execute as root. The attack surface is far smaller and more difficult (not to mention that generally SUID things are verboten by the system and easy for automated scripts to destroy as soon as they are found).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Except Aero. I just tried encoding a video for the first time since switching to Win7 Pro x64, and it turns out that Aero causes temps of 77 CPU (on a 25W TDP P7370!!!) and 86 GPU - on XP (or without Aero), these are 65 and 63, respectively.
And yes, I do categorize software that makes my laptop melt as malware...
Erm, that simply suggests that Win7 is pushing your hardware as hard as it can to get the job done asap, which is probably what you want, if you're encoding video.
Oh wait, sorry, you're talking about Microsoft! Yeah, its shit isn't it? LOL, Micro$oft!!!
ok, firstly WTF? Most xp apps have their roots in windows 95? Thats not even remotely close to plausible.
And secondly and more importantly an app doesn't need to *support* ACLs in the registry. It asks the OS to modify some key, and the OS will return an error saying you can't do that. If the app can't handle this, then it will crash and burn. Vista actually made the OS more forgiving in this regard, as it can "virtualize" parts of the registry so the app thinks it is writing to HKLM or somewhere, but in reality the changes it makes are visible to that app only. XP doesn't do that.
I've been unable to use Microsoft Outlook since the 11/13 update. System Restore didn't help. This is for Vista. I've had to switch to Windows Mail, which is much less user friendly.
Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
The structure of where things are stored in the registry is also an issue.
Which is the real problem. The use of the thing needs to be more structured if it's to be secure. This means getting applications to conform to some standards on what goes where. Windows applications are terrible at that. There are standards on where programs, application data, and temporary files are supposed to go, but they're not consistently enforced. Security requires some mandatory simplicity for things like this. (This, by the way, is why access control lists aren't very useful. They can express any security model, with enough work, work that never gets done.)
HEY!!!!
Symantec is WONDERFUL!!!
I just learned the other day on some TV commercial that they will protect my chicken from the metal band Dokken!!!! What other AV firm can claim their product does that?!?!?!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hsKsUu3Qeo
Norton & Dokken
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I see you put no thought into this whatsoever :(
Put a few seconds of thought in there and consider that on a single user system you and the malware own all the system processes and all of the files and have access to all of the hardware. You and the malware can't run the firewall program without the password, but you can kill the process, delete all of its files and run your own. Once you have the concept of file and process ownership to stop this it is not a single user system anymore. Thus you can't have what you are suggesting unless it's all burnt into a ROM and the users application don't have any access at all to portions of memory - an enormous step backwards which is why you are attracting so much attention with your unusual and ill-informed statement.
In other words you are ignorantly advocating going back to something older than those green screens you were whining about because those green screens and the multiuser systems they connected to were old. The Apple ][ and MSDOS were not the good old days and there is no point going back there now that we can pack enormous numbers of junctions on the silicon and run them at high clock speeds.
I see you put no thought into this whatsoever :(
I've put a great deal of thought into it. You're just too busy discussing what you think I said, rather than what I actually said.
Put a few seconds of thought in there and consider that on a single user system you and the malware own all the system processes and all of the files and have access to all of the hardware. You and the malware can't run the firewall program without the password, but you can kill the process, delete all of its files and run your own.
And on an unprofessionally managed multiuser system it's trivial to convince the user to do the same. Just promise them boobies or some dancing bunnies.
In other words you are ignorantly advocating going back to something older than those green screens you were whining about because those green screens and the multiuser systems they connected to were old. The Apple ][ and MSDOS were not the good old days and there is no point going back there now that we can pack enormous numbers of junctions on the silicon and run them at high clock speeds.
At no point have I argued anything of the sort.
A multiuser system is a technical solution to security. As such, it offers little relief from what is largely the social problem of malware. A multiuser system offers capabilities and features a single user system does not, certainly, but the strengths and advantages of those capabilities and features evaporate very quickly when an ignorant administrator is put in charge of leveraging them, as is the case with most of the world's multiuser systems.
Does mocking Windows make you anti-malware?
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I see the problem and where you do not understand.
You are blaming the user for a failure of the developer. The "dancing bunny" problem only occurs on "unprofessionally designed" (to borrow your irrelevant phrasing) multiuser systems. With decades of poor interface design we have also trained the users to click "OK" when confronted with confusing messages. Through some odd perversion of logic you wrote that because this happens on one multiuser system the entire concept is bad.
I suggest taking a more mature attitude and considering what you are writing instead of this ill-informed blame game on something that is clearly so far outside of your chosen fields of interest that you have not even attempted to grasp the basic concepts. Your twin assumptions that the OS files are static (you have forgotten that various files define how the computer is configured so you can actually use the thing) and that malware will play nicely with you and not disrupt or hide in your own saved files demonstrates this very clearly, along with your odd comments about green screens.
The malware plague is not a user problem. The same users have mobile telephones with more computing power and better internet connectivity than the best MS systems in use when this malware plague started. Their phone are not part of botnets so you need to consider it more deeply than just quoting the silly "dancing bunnies" excuse peddled by software developers that wish to be called engineers but put less consideration into their work than a basket weaver.
I see the problem and where you do not understand.
No, you don't. I say this with confidence, because I can see you are still arguing against something you *think* I wrote, not what I actually did.
You are blaming the user for a failure of the developer. The "dancing bunny" problem only occurs on "unprofessionally designed" (to borrow your irrelevant phrasing) multiuser systems.
Rubbish. It's inherent to requiring the ignorant to make intelligent decisions with neither the knowledge now experience to do so.
With decades of poor interface design we have also trained the users to click "OK" when confronted with confusing messages.
The use of generic terms like "OK" in dialog boxes is not ideal UI, but it is far, far from a root cause. Users are not "trained" to click OK to get rid of confusing messages, they are "trained" to click whatever button both gets rid of the confusing message and gives them the result they want. Whether it says "OK" or "Let this application access my address book and send mail", they're going to hit that button if it lets them see the dancing bunnies.
Through some odd perversion of logic you wrote that because this happens on one multiuser system the entire concept is bad.
At no point, in this discussion or any other, have I even *suggested* "the entire concept [of a multiuser system] is bad", let alone stated it outright.
I suggest taking a more mature attitude and considering what you are writing instead of this ill-informed blame game on something that is clearly so far outside of your chosen fields of interest that you have not even attempted to grasp the basic concepts. Your twin assumptions that the OS files are static (you have forgotten that various files define how the computer is configured so you can actually use the thing) and that malware will play nicely with you and not disrupt or hide in your own saved files demonstrates this very clearly, along with your odd comments about green screens.
Firstly, saying the OS files are "essentially static" is not an assumption, it is a statement of fact (trivial example: if OS files were dynamic, then things like read-only network-booted systems would not even be possible, let alone practical (and in the UNIX world, relatively common)). The vast bulk are rarely modified - especially in day to day use - and can be either streamed back off a read-only media or downloaded from the internet in a matter of hours, if not minutes. System configuration in modern OSes is nearly completely automatic, and user preferences are part of the user's data, not the OS's.
Compared to user data, which is not only extremely difficult - if not impossible - to recover, but also has change patterns that are both relatively frequent and of high importance - OS files are most certainly "essentially static".
Secondly, I have made no assumptions that malware will not "hide" in user data - my statement was purely about the relative value of system files (very low) compared to user data (very high). Whether or not said user data may also host malware is an entirely separate issue.
The malware plague is not a user problem.
The vector for most malware infections is user interaction, and the proportion of malware infections caused by unpatched vulnerabilities is tiny.
The same users have mobile telephones with more computing power and better internet connectivity than the best MS systems in use when this malware plague started.
Oh, rubbish. Malware has only really been a problem since the early 2000s (late 90s at most), and even in 1999, I had a Windows PC with two CPUs, a gig of RAM and multi-megabit internet connectivity, easily 3-4x the power of my Droid.
Their phone are not part of botnets so you need to consider it more deeply than just quoting the silly "dancing bunnies" excuse peddled by software developers that wish to be called engineers but put less consideration into their work than a ba
No, your problem is that you are refusing to look at this from a technical perspective yet you are providing technical solutions which of course make no sense because they are cargo cult knee jerk reactions.
Your assumption that your MS Windows registry files for example are trivially replaceable shows that you are way out of your depth on this one and would be far better off arguing about something you know about instead. That is why I've kept this going so that people are not tempted to follow the advice of an overconfident idiot.
No, your problem is that you are refusing to look at this from a technical perspective yet you are providing technical solutions which of course make no sense because they are cargo cult knee jerk reactions.
I haven't "provided" any solutions at all.
You really aren't reading anything I write, are you ?
Your assumption that your MS Windows registry files for example are trivially replaceable shows that you are way out of your depth on this one and would be far better off arguing about something you know about instead.
They *are* trivially replaceable. In the worst case, a system can be reinstalled in a few hours.
That is why I've kept this going so that people are not tempted to follow the advice of an overconfident idiot.
I haven't offered any advice, and I certainly haven't done so "overconfidently". Much like you haven't addressed any of the points in my responses.
After having done some testing, and having other esteemed professionals verify the test results, we've come up with two methods to PREVENT this malware induced issue from occurring: Solution 1: http://www.apple.com/mac/
Solution 2: http://www.ubuntu.com/
* Please be aware these solutions have not yet been approved by Microsoft. Use at your own risk.