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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
There are several linux distros that won't let you log into gdm/kdm as root. Windows was designed for users to login as administrators.
Microsoft is trying to change that mentality with Vista and 7, except too many applications are having issues with UAC. What Microsoft should have done is said, "you're not allowed to claim your application works with Vista and 7 unless it behaves nicely with UAC."
Even better, it should be following a proper UNIX-esque security model. It could create users/groups for specific escalation. Apps shouldn't ask to escalte to administrator level. They should ask only to escalate the rights they specifically need, such as writing to C:\Program Files\Foo\.
Microsoft is happy to blame the users, but it is Microsoft who established the industry standards. They set the table. They tell the users how to use their OS, and they tell developers how to develop for their OS. If Microsoft shipped a more secure design from the get-go, we wouldn't have as many issues. I'm sure malware authors would still target the market-share king and eventually find chinks in the armor, but right now it is so easy to target Windows that every script-kiddie on the planet pulls it off with ease.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
I doubt it. Take UAC in Windows Vista and Windows 7, it basically does what you are asking for. Even when logged into an admin level account, most of the operations you perform on a system with UAC are done with user level permissions. However, if a program requires admin level privileges, you get asked to allow the program to use the admin level security token. If you say yes, then the program can go off and do whatever it wants. The problem is that many users will just click 'Yes' to everything. Hell, even after explaining to some people that certain programs are known vectors of malware, they will still install them. Alternatively, if a user is logged into a user level account and tries to do something which requires (or at least asks for) admin level permissions, they get a prompt asking for the admin user account and password (basically Window's version of sudo). And given that these are the same people who want to install the "Watch a Dancing Cat While We Clean Out Your Bank Account" screen saver, they are just going to bitch and moan that they had to go through the trouble of typing in the admin account info before they got to see it.
Yes, I do understand that UAC can be circumvented; and it would be nice to see MS tighten it up. However, no amount of technological barriers are going to prevent malware from getting in when the user is willing to install any old crap they find on the internet. Unfortunately, there is not yet a technological fix for stupid.
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
How would this be any different if the configuration settings were stored in a flat file?
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.
Vista/7 do both things (warning about launching of binaries that originate from the Net, and requiring a confirmation to elevate to admin) as well. This doesn't solve the "dancing bunnies" problem, however, which is the source of vast majority of infections out there. Why bother with security vulnerabilities at all, if you can trivially convince the user to run the payload himself, and click through all the prompts?
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.
The "weakened" UAC in 7 doesn't let any random programs do any system level things without warnings. The only thing that's weakened is that certain (effectively whitelisted) programs that come with OS can change system settings without elevation - most notably, built-in screens in Control Panel.
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.
"Please, Stop Defending Microsoft"
i'm defending objectivity and reason.
"Linux distros do this. In fact, much of the same code runs multiple processor platforms with great success."
By what measure of success? Effectiveness, sure. But what is the market share of all the Linux distros put together? What is the ratio of Windows to Linux boxes globally or in the US?
"This is not a valid reason to forgive Microsoft."
Says you. You're omitting how many devices don't work on Linux due to a lack of drivers or simple inoperability with Linux. It's improving, but there's a long way to go.
"As are most Linux distros, the Linux kernel, the BSD teams have schedules too."
How many customers and stockholders do they have to worry about? For every machine running Ubuntu, how many Win7 boxes will there be?
"Lack of resources is not an excuse."
This works because you omitted part of my post. You ignored the whole tall poppy thing.
I could go on, but the point here is you are clearly married to Linux and are senselessly defending it. That's okay. I hope it works out for you.
How does that look to you? Looks about right to me.
"I could go on"
Could you go on without cherry picking and the childish tone?
"but the point here is you are clearly married to Microsoft"
Not at all. i can defend something without being personally involved. Or is anyone who defends gay marriage gay? Do i have to be a woman to defend her right to choose? If MS went belly up before i post this, i wouldn't care a bit. They make a tool/toy. If a better thing comes along i'll be glad to use it. When Ubuntu can run everything as well as my XP rig i'd be glad to switch. It does not, so i haven't. Wine isn't there either. i use as much FOSS as i can.
i do find it offensive when people attack MS without seeing the big picture. On Fark i defend artists i don't like when people attack them without objectivity. MS is easy target. Big, clumsy and slow moving. But it's flaw is its success (ubiquity). The main flaw i find in Linux is the opposite. It's small because it's small. Developers don't want to double their efforts to sell to a handful of neck beards.
"and are senselessly defending it."
Same could be said of everyone participating in an OS holy war thread (or thread tangent;). Give me a Linux vs. Mac thread and it will be all manner of senseless defense. Whatever $otherSide says is senseless nonsense, posted by the clearly impaired.
"That's okay. I hope it works out for you."
This sounds condescending after the tone of the rest of the post. Why did you use double the letters to type OK?
"Please, understand your thinking around Microsoft versus other OS's is clearly impaired."
This comes across as very arrogant. Some day someone will say this about you or something you care about and you'll get why its so annoying. My thinking around OSes is just fine, i just defended something you dislike. It's also a bit internet tough guy.
i said the band you hate isn't so bad/or has problems someone else didn't take into account, so you have to either adjust your thinking to accept that maybe it's not so bad (world shattering!)... or you have to attack me and be dismissive of my claims.
Hell, i didn't even say Windows was perfect, or even good. People tend to latch onto the thing that offends their eye and ignore the rest.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
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
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.
You are confusing designed by default with default behaviour. They are two different things. Default behaviour in the Win2k/XP timeframe was poor - Vista & Win7 change this.
I also suggest that you read the Windows 7 logo program requirements: http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9668061. One of the guidelines is around proper behaviour with UAC, and another is around programs putting data in the right place.
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.
Newsflash (well, more accurately, "Oldsflash"). The world is no longer filled with green-screen trminals connected back to a central, professionally managed mainframe. The vast majority of computers in the world are single user, even though they are running multiuser OSes.
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?
No, I'd *much* rather reinstall the OS that a) have to go through the hassle of digging up backups and b) losing any data that's changed since the last one. The OS files are trivially available and essentially static - why would I be concerned about losing any of them ?
So what you are saying then is that you've never actually used an OS beyond just installing it and leaving it in the out of box configuration then. That pretty much explains your complete cluelessness in a nutshell.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun