Slashdot Mirror


Olympus Digital Camera Ships With a Worm

An anonymous reader writes "Olympus Japan has issued a warning to customers who have bought its Stylus Tough 6010 digital compact camera that it comes with an unexpected extra — a virus on its internal memory card. The Autorun worm cannot infect the camera itself, but if it is plugged into a Windows computer's USB port, it can copy itself onto the PC, then subsequently infect any attached USB device. Olympus says it 'humbly apologizes' for the incident, which is believed to have affected some 1,700 units. The company said it will make every effort to improve its quality control procedures in future. Security company Sophos says that more companies need to wake up to the need for better quality control to ensure that they don't ship virus-infected gadgets. At the same time, consumers should learn to always ensure Autorun is disabled, and scan any device for malware before they use it on their computer."

249 comments

  1. Dodged a bullet. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whew, glad my Canon doesn't mount itself as a external disk. Think of all the grief I've saved myself by having to launch something to get photos off of it.
    [/sarcasm]

    So, where did these cameras originate? China, Japan, Taiwan?

    1. Re:Dodged a bullet. by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The despotic People's Republic of China - where the worst of company town practices are in an entire country(if not region).

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    2. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Didn't see it mentioned in the few dozen comments at the moment, but "more companies need to wake up to the need for better quality control to ensure that they don't ship virus-infected gadgets. At the same time, consumers should learn to always ensure Autorun is disabled" blames the manufacturer of the drive, blames the consumer, but skirts around blaming the OS in question.

      I know it's somewhat passe to pick on an OS because it remains the one commonality in malware infections, but seriously, a design as defective as Autorun's implementation should be beaten with large sticks every chance we can get until it's a bloody pulp, or no more than a stain. Srsly.

    3. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oly cameras are mediocre at best anyway. Get a Panasonic or Canon P&S.

    4. Re:Dodged a bullet. by denmarkw00t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Someone mod this man up! I totally agree that blaming the OS is a bit passe, but Autorun is also the worst "feature" I've ever encountered - "Oh, you plugged something in that has a filesystem I understand? And an executable it wants me to run? Ok."

      Dumb.

    5. Re:Dodged a bullet. by schon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      blames the manufacturer of the drive, blames the consumer, but skirts around blaming the OS in question.

      Well duh - consider the source.. it's an antivirus company. They wouldn't be in business if not for Windows.

      An antivirus company saying that Windows in insecure would be like BP saying that we should all switch to solar power and stop using oil.

    6. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardware is assumed to be trusted. This has always been the case and Linux is no different in this regard.

    7. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd discuss the issue, but nobody will read it, and registered guys get 2, Insightful for writing "Yo!".

      So, for me, /. is passé.

      Just the way good ol' M$ planned. Congrats!

    8. Re:Dodged a bullet. by antdude · · Score: 0

      No, it's the user. Autorun was meant to be usability easiness and laziness.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    9. Re:Dodged a bullet. by grcumb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Someone mod this man up! I totally agree that blaming the OS is a bit passe, but Autorun is also the worst "feature" I've ever encountered - "Oh, you plugged something in that has a filesystem I understand? And an executable it wants me to run? Ok."

      Who's blaming the OS? We're blaming the company that made the OS. The same company, by the way, that brought us ActiveX in Internet Explorer, executable attachments in Outlook, Word Document viruses, IIS prior to 7, and 'run as Administrator by default'.

      Dumb.

      Dumb, indeed.

      (I'm not even going to get into the myriad other objectionable actions and statements that they've indulged in since the beginning of the '90s. They're not germane to this discussion.)

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    10. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Autorun worm cannot infect the camera itself, but if it is plugged into a Windows computer's USB port, it can copy itself onto the PC, then subsequently infect any attached USB device.

      Remember folks, that's Microsoft Windows (R)(TM). Too bad it has no effective enabled-by-default security system to prevent this sort of thing. Like I dunno, limited user accounts and non-executable mounts?

    11. Re:Dodged a bullet. by causality · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, it's the user. Autorun was meant to be usability easiness and laziness.

      The decision to accommodate laziness by default and to then advertise it as "easy to use!" for non-technical people was not the users' decision.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    12. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1
      Heh, well, you could always try trolling...

      This is such a disaster. Someone please provide links: I know that even now after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska there is ongoing environmental damage and hardship for the people who live in the area. From that example, speculate on what will happen in the Gulf.

      Problem with old-skool trolls is that it's often difficult to figure out if they're actually trolling or whether Slashdot's readership actually needs the verbal equivalent of a laugh track to decide how to feel and what to say.

      Sometimes I think that all of Slashdot's 2-million "users" are really just one guy behind the curtain. I know it's tough, but couldn't you at least try, guy? Maybe even hire a second person when the economy picks up.

    13. Re:Dodged a bullet. by causality · · Score: 1

      Who's blaming the OS?

      I'd imagine it's the same people who blame crime on things like guns and drugs and video games, as though they were something other than inanimate objects and ideas.

      You could "blame" the OS in the sense of recognizing that its design or implementation are definitely involved in the cause-and-effect sequence of this infection. Still, I think the blame you're talking about belongs to the moral/ethical realm of accountability. As long as you have large masses of people who will pay money for such systems, many companies would love a large marketshare. You can blame Microsoft only for being the one to become dominant.

      Right now they're so dominant that the lack of any real mention about Windows and its vulnerabilities to these infections was omitted. I don't think that's because Microsoft applied bribery or some other pressure. I think that's because most people who use a PC have real experience only with Windows and have come to believe that rampant malware infections are a normal downside to owning a computer.

      I saw for myself that most users felt this way about BSODs prior to Windows XP, when Windows 98 and then Windows ME were dominant. It wasn't something they questioned and it didn't inspire any curiosity about whether other systems are like that or even exist. They just dutifully pressed the reset or power button and rebooted. At the time I had been running Linux for a couple of years and it was (and is) quite stable, so I did see it as a strange contrast and as something I'd rather not put up with.

      Microsoft has greatly improved the core OS stability of Windows over the years. A modern Windows system that crashes or needs to be rebooted as often as Windows 98 or Windows ME once did would now be regarded as unusual and in need of attention. Still the rampant malware is accepted as normal. That's the next thing that needs to change, whether or not Microsoft and their software is involved in the solution.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    14. Re:Dodged a bullet. by djupedal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dodged a bullet....? when using windows is like sticking the gun in your mouth? Are you kidding me?

      Here's a news item...stop using windows!!

    15. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I turned autorun off on every computer I've ever had without much issue. That's windows 98, 2000, XP, vista, server '08, and win 7. All of them made it easy enough to turn it off. I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    16. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually if you want it to you can have your Cannon Camera mount itself as an external disk if you so choose. All you have to do is go into the settings on your camera and change the connection mode. I forget the actual options you have to choose from but I believe one of them says like "Something Printer" and if you switch it to that one it will show up in Windows as an External Drive.

    17. Re:Dodged a bullet. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No MS update ever installed itself via Autorun. What are you smoking? Do you even understand what the feature does?

      It's sole purpose is so that a user can buy, say, Quicken CD in Best Buy, put it into the drive, and see the window that says "Click here to install".

    18. Re:Dodged a bullet. by gaspyy · · Score: 1

      Windows 7 has autorun off by default.
      It shows a popup when a media is detected with some actions depending on the situation (burn cd, play video, etc.) but nothing gets executed automatically.

    19. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the biggest problem, MS is able to release inferior products and then drive user's expectations down to match. When you tell people that they wouldn't have these problems using something else they don't believe you because it sounds "too good to be true".

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    20. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      However - Autorun is still the most stupid feature implemented as it is since it will allow for propagation of malicious software without the user realizing it.

      Users makes mistakes, but when you as a user has purchased a brand new media you don't expect it to come pre-contaminated in a way that causes you trouble.

      And Microsoft hasn't released a good patch that kills Autorun for XP and 2000 for good, which they should have done a long time ago.

      Also be aware that if you disable Autorun for CD:s it is still active for USB sticks.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    21. Re:Dodged a bullet. by the_raptor · · Score: 5, Informative

      To turn USB autorun off on Windows XP you have to edit the registry. The GUI options do not apply to USB drives for some retarded reason.

      I was alerted to this when I bought a USB drive that came with autorunning software (to do encryption and other rubbish) and was surprised that it ran despite me turning autorun off as a part of standard configuration since the late 90's.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    22. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hold the left shift key while plugging the bad boy in... i know not a perm fix but it can be good in a spot

    23. Re:Dodged a bullet. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Like I dunno, limited user accounts
      Limited user accounts have little to do with this unless they are VERY limited (far more limited than any linux system i'm aware of does by default).

      and non-executable mounts?
      You don't need to go that far, just not running stuff without being explicitly told to would be sufficiant to block most of this sort of crap.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    24. Re:Dodged a bullet. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      IIRC the problem is the GUI options are per-drive.

      This made some sense in the days when the feature was introduced when drives were generally things that didn't get added or removed very often but is something of a problem with USB sticks where the drive and the media are one device that is hot-plugged.

      Remember USB sticks are a fairly new phenomenon. Yes they existed when XP was released but they were far from common.

      with windows XP they did actually improve things for removable media drives (what most USB sticks enumerate as) by displaying the autoplay dialog rather than automatically performing the autorun action. But they didn't close down the autorun.inf's control of what happens when the user clicks the drives icon in windows explorer. Also some USB sticks enumerate as both a cdrom AND a removable media drive.

      Disabling the autorun system completely is the safe answer but unfortunately there is no easy way to do this (regedit and gpedit.msc are the only ways i'm aware of).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    25. Re:Dodged a bullet. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      edit: I was wrong, it seems 2K and before had the autorun system completely disabled for removable media drives while XP enabled it for them to allow for the autoplay dialog.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    26. Re:Dodged a bullet. by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Informative

      edit: further for completely turning off autorun to be effective you must make sure you have a particular security update installed.

      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/967715

      the whole thing is a gigantic mess!

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    27. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 1

      Pressing the shift key while inserting a CD also famously broke DRM and posting this fact, for example the present comment, on public forums invited invocation of the DMCA.

      Now, as far as best practices go, I keep the shift key pressed every time I insert a USB key or an SD card in my laptop. The downside of this practice on XP was that it routinely invoked accessibility options and activated StickyKeys. Getting the system to its normal operational mode was a bit of a pain.

      --
      Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
    28. Re:Dodged a bullet. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Olympus cameras have always worked well for me, going back to the film OM1.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    29. Re:Dodged a bullet. by otie · · Score: 1

      An antivirus company saying that Windows in insecure would be like BP saying that we should all switch to solar power and stop using oil.

      Actually, BP probably wouldn't mind. Despite the conspiracy theories, "oil" companies don't hate alternative energy sources - they're actually large investors in wind, solar, etc.. After all, they're not in it for the oil, they're in it for the money. When solar starts getting big(ger), it's mostly the same cats who will profit. Oil just happens to be easily exploitable at the time.

    30. Re:Dodged a bullet. by delinear · · Score: 1

      You don't need to go that far, just not running stuff without being explicitly told to would be sufficiant to block most of this sort of crap.

      They already tried that with UAC. Users just defaulted to auto-clicking yes every time because they ended up getting a request every time they tried to do pretty much anything.

    31. Re:Dodged a bullet. by delinear · · Score: 1

      Actually the analogy is pretty close. AV companies are currently advocating Windows because it has a massive userbase and its flaws are well known, easy sales. If we ever reached a point where Linux or OSX had equal market share, or where (don't laugh) Windows gained a reputation for bullet proof security, the AV vendors would do more to market their products to those other operating systems. Likewise BP will eventually advocate switching to renewable resources, but not while they're making scads of cash by just sucking oil directly from the ground. It would be just as crazy for BP to put all of its marketing budget into solar right now, likewise just as crazy for a big AV vendor to put all of their money into advertising their alternative OS products.

    32. Re:Dodged a bullet. by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the followups. Gigantic mess is the best way to put it - auto-run simply should not be enabled by default, and XP should have a security update to disable it as well. It's such an obvious exploit mechanism, it's kind of unbelievable it's still around, even after the sony rootkit and other high profile exploits.

    33. Re:Dodged a bullet. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Autorun is also the worst "feature" I've ever encountered - "Oh, you plugged something in that has a filesystem I understand? And an executable it wants me to run? Ok."

      The runner up has to be the retarded "hide the file's extension." NakedLady.JPG.exe shows up in most peoples' PCs (unless they've changed it in Win 7, I haven't noticed; only been running it for a month or so) as NakedLady.JPG. They double click it, expecting their photo viewer to show a picture, and the virus runs. Microsoft should fire whatever idiot came up with that lame brained "feature".

      You'll have document.txt and document.pdf, and they both just show up as "document". I had a boss once who this confused the hell out of, and had to disable that idiotic "feature" for him.

    34. Re:Dodged a bullet. by azrider · · Score: 1

      An antivirus company saying that Windows in insecure would be like BP saying that we should all switch to solar power and stop using oil.

      Not to excuse the cretins that set up the circumstances for the current mess in the Gulf, but BP actually is a strong proponent of solar usage. At least in the States, their Arco stations are (where practical) using solar power as much as possible.

      --
      And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
      John 8:32(King James Version)
    35. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bit unfair to blame the OS. The basic problem is that we've started to use USB for storage. That made is possible for storage media to emulate a read-only cd-rom, which is what caused the problem. When the feature was designed, this scenario simply couldn't happen. And disabling autorun doesn't fix the problem, since a malicious usb-device can still opt to emulate a keyboard, or do any number of other horrible tricks. The basic flaw is using the same interface for storage as for peripherals, instead of an interface that only accepts passive media.

    36. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Gah! Sticky keys piss me off. Right on, man.

    37. Re:Dodged a bullet. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Autorun has been disabled for years, surely? It's off on Windows 7 at least. Windows 7 also has limited user privileges (of course the user can still grant admin privileges, but then on Linux you can sudo).

      Sure, XP is a risk, but that's years old.

    38. Re:Dodged a bullet. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      But many OSs don't use the file extension to indicate the type at all - which is not unreasonable (using the filename to indicate the type was always a bit of a hacky solution). For non-experienced users, hiding the extension is sensible, and makes Windows a bit more like those other OSs. It was always a problem that an inexperienced user would inadvertently change the file type, merely by renaming the filename.

      So you'd say that all those non-Windows OSs are also insecure, because you could have a file "picture", that actually was an executable virus when you doubleclicked? (Windows 7 warns about untrused executables anyway, so your example doesn't make sense, anyway.)

    39. Re:Dodged a bullet. by causality · · Score: 1

      That's the biggest problem, MS is able to release inferior products and then drive user's expectations down to match. When you tell people that they wouldn't have these problems using something else they don't believe you because it sounds "too good to be true".

      While I suppose they're both quite plausible, I always figured it was because it would mean learning something new, not because it sounds too good to be true.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    40. Re:Dodged a bullet. by causality · · Score: 1

      So you'd say that all those non-Windows OSs are also insecure, because you could have a file "picture", that actually was an executable virus when you doubleclicked?

      I was with you until that point.

      On any Unix and Unix-like OS (such as Linux and I'd imagine OSX), a file is NOT executable by default when it is created. This includes when it is downloaded. If you download a file you'd have to manually flag it as executable before you could run it. Also you would see the real filename with no lame tricks designed to hide parts of it from you, and you can use the "file" command to see what kind of file it is no matter its name or extension. Finally, you'd almost certainly do all of this as a non-root user. Coincidentally, Unix and Unix-like OSs don't have these Filename.Jpg.Exe problems.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    41. Re:Dodged a bullet. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      That's the biggest problem, MS is able to release inferior products and then drive user's expectations down to match. When you tell people that they wouldn't have these problems using something else they don't believe you because it sounds "too good to be true".

      That's because it *is* in the implicit context of "and it will provide the same functionality".

      Security is inversely proportional to convenience.

    42. Re:Dodged a bullet. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Microsoft should fire whatever idiot came up with that lame brained "feature".

      That would have been Apple, back in the '80s.

    43. Re:Dodged a bullet. by wbo · · Score: 1

      As an added note, in Vista and windows 7 autorun is enabled by default but it will not run an executable without prompting you first, unlike XP which would just blindly run the executable.

      Basically, if the autorun.inf file tries to call an executable Windows will open a dialog box allowing you to choose whether you want to run the executable or just open the drive in Windows Explorer.

    44. Re:Dodged a bullet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice thing: you don't need to turn it off since Vista.

      Autorun comes up and says:
      "Would you like to run the Autorun.exe on this disc?"
      or
      "Would you like to play this DVD?"
      or
      "Open windows explorer and view the files on this disc"

      No need to run off what is now actually a useful and non-dangerous feature.

    45. Re:Dodged a bullet. by DanielSmedegaardBuus · · Score: 1

      Well, either that, or Microsoft adheres to Darwinian standards.

      It's like the self-peeling, self-feeding banana. So the ape is too dumb to peel it and eat it itself? Let an ebola-diseased fungus "auto-peel" it, and if the monkey dies from it, well that's natural selection for you, right there.

    46. Re:Dodged a bullet. by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For non-experienced users, hiding the extension is sensible, and makes Windows a bit more like those other OSs.

      No it wouldn't; see the other comment responding to yours. It isn't anything at all like other OSes.

      It was always a problem that an inexperienced user would inadvertently change the file type, merely by renaming the filename.

      That's another problem other OSes lack, and I used to run across it all the time from co-workers who would do just that. Fortnately, explaining it to them was easy. The Windows kludge shouldn't have been there in the first place.

      So you'd say that all those non-Windows OSs are also insecure, because you could have a file "picture", that actually was an executable virus when you doubleclicked

      Other OSes don't do that; as the other poster pointed out, you have to manually make the file executable. I imagine that's why many Windows stories here are tagged "defectivebydesign".

    47. Re:Dodged a bullet. by causality · · Score: 1

      Security is inversely proportional to convenience.

      That's technically true but a security system that's simple enough but no simpler, for which the steps involved make sense and their efficacy is relatively self-evident, it subjectively doesn't seem like such an inconvenience. This is what UAC failed to understand, at least initially. It also resembles virus scanners in the sense that it wants to validate all actions rather than encourage best practices.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    48. Re:Dodged a bullet. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      That's technically true but a security system that's simple enough but no simpler, for which the steps involved make sense and their efficacy is relatively self-evident, it subjectively doesn't seem like such an inconvenience.

      I've never used any system that enhances security, anywhere, that doesn't also increase inconvenience.

      This is what UAC failed to understand, at least initially. It also resembles virus scanners in the sense that it wants to validate all actions rather than encourage best practices.

      UAC doesn't prompt for anything that's a) unreasonable and b) not equivalently prompted for in other systems - eg: OSX, Linux - and the same was as true in Vista as it is in Windows 7. In fact, it's better than them because it sacrifices a minimal amount of security while increasing convenience, by not requiring a username and password to be entered.

      There's nothing wrong with UAC in and of itself. The problem is that a lot of poorly written programs trigger it with real justification. This was more true for the first year or two of Vista's life than it has been recently, plus the addition of the less-secure-but-more-convenient UAC whitelist has reduced the number of prompts (probably to less than those of other systems).

    49. Re:Dodged a bullet. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      How does one "manually flag it as executable before you could run it"? I mean, whilst this has advantages, it also makes it a lot harder for inexperienced users, as they have no idea how to run it. (And if you make it easy, you have the same problem that they do it without thinking.)

      As I say, Windows will now tell you that it's an exe when you try to run it, so the claims made here are no longer true.

      Also you would see the real filename

      My point is that that's irrelevant, as on other OSs, the "real filename" doesn't tell you what the filetype is. Windows hiding the extension is no different to other OSs hiding the filetype.

      Finally, you'd almost certainly do all of this as a non-root user.

      It's true that Windows still has the problems of people running as root (though Windows 7 is better here - it works much better now when you run an account without admin privileges), but that's an entirely separate criticism. My point is that hiding the file extension is a sensible thing.

    50. Re:Dodged a bullet. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      No it wouldn't; see the other comment responding to yours. It isn't anything at all like other OSes.

      See my reply to that comment. I said "more like" not "exactly like", so quibbling over how much like it isn't really relevant to the point.

      That's another problem other OSes lack, and I used to run across it all the time from co-workers who would do just that. Fortnately, explaining it to them was easy. The Windows kludge shouldn't have been there in the first place.

      So criticise Windows on that point. By all means do that - my point was questioning the claim that things were even worse now than before.

      Other OSes don't do that; as the other poster pointed out, you have to manually make the file executable.

      See my reply. And Windows doesn't do that either anymore, as you're told that it's an exe. So in neither case, you manually have to say you want to run it, knowing it's an exe.

      I imagine that's why many Windows stories here are tagged "defectivebydesign".

      Yes, because those people evidently have no clue what Windows is like these days. I'm no fan of Windows, but this is one change that was an improvement, not a step backwards. Yes, other systems do filetypes better - the Amiga does it much better, but big deal, I'm interested in how Windows has improved here.

    51. Re:Dodged a bullet. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You notice that Apple, unlike Microsoft, was smart enough to stop doing the idiocy once the madness became apparent?

    52. Re:Dodged a bullet. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      You notice that Apple, unlike Microsoft, was smart enough to stop doing the idiocy once the madness became apparent?

      So far as I know, OSX still doesn't rely primarily on the extension to identify filetype, even today.

    53. Re:Dodged a bullet. by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Or, just install TweakUI and un-tick the setting "Autoplay for removable drives" under My Computer -> AutoPlay -> Types

    54. Re:Dodged a bullet. by causality · · Score: 1

      I've never used any system that enhances security, anywhere, that doesn't also increase inconvenience.

      You do understand the difference between the saying "objectively isn't an inconvenience at all" versus what I did say, which was "subjectively doesn't seem like such an inconvenience?" That line above does not sound like you do.

      Personally I find that Linux's security systems (bear in mind I also use a Gentoo Hardened system) make sense. If they don't make sense, I can spend a few minutes with Google and then they do make sense. I don't need the performance penalty of a malware scanner second-guessing every I/O operation. You also have a software environment built around the idea that applications don't expect to have root privileges without good reason. Microsoft could have started encouraging that years ago but had other priorities. It's yet another lesson they could have learned from Unix, in fact.

      Specifically, I expect a package manager to need root before it installs system software; it makes sense and it is not a surprise. Likewise I don't expect my Web browser or e-mail client or word processor to need root and sure enough, they never ask for it.

      I think Windows is still trying to achieve that kind of simplicity with UAC. Imagine how easy it would be for their users if no UAC dialog was ever a surprise. They don't have that, and that's what they get for the years of encouraging sloppy security practices such as running Admin all the time. They are clearly reaping what they sow, well really their users are doing the reaping.

      The whitelist sounds like a decent idea I suppose, yet I need no such whitelist on Linux. Linux handles this problem differently. Rather than tons of prompts and then a whitelist to reduce their number, there are few prompts to begin with. Very few things I do actually require superuser privileges. The most common is upgrading/installing system software (that is, software available to all users) and like I said, it makes sense that you don't want non-root users doing this. How many of UAC's prompts are so predictable and self-evident? Why was a whitelist necessary?

      The part you conveniently but understandably had to ignore, and are going to have a real hell of a time trying to respond to, is where I said that UAC, virus scanners, and Windows security mechanisms in general have something in common: they want to validate all possible actions and they make no effort to instead encourage best practices. That's one of the bigger cultural differences between Windows and other systems.

      It's rather obvious that this comes from the marketing nature of Windows and Microsoft; encouraging best practices might mean learning something new, and that in turn might alienate some users who then take their business elsewhere. So the user is treated like a child who will never know better so Microsoft wants to child-proof the whole world, rather than world-proofing the child. If that's the way you as a user want to be treated, I celebrate your right to choose and to pay good money for the privilege, but I reject this notion.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    55. Re:Dodged a bullet. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Personally I find that Linux's security systems (bear in mind I also use a Gentoo Hardened system) make sense. If they don't make sense, I can spend a few minutes with Google and then they do make sense. I don't need the performance penalty of a malware scanner second-guessing every I/O operation.

      I can say exactly the same for Windows. I've been using Windows NT as a non-admin user since 1996 and have never had a realtime anti-virus or anti-malware tool running. I do, occasionally, run one of the online scanners over my system but I've never had any infection so far as I know.

      And I don't even make any special "hardening" attempts. I just implement some simple security (firewall) and practice common sense (don't run unknown binaries, etc).

      You also have a software environment built around the idea that applications don't expect to have root privileges without good reason. Microsoft could have started encouraging that years ago but had other priorities. It's yet another lesson they could have learned from Unix, in fact.

      Microsoft have been telling developers to build their software with least-privilege in mind for well over a decade now. The supporting structures for applications to not requir Administrator-level privileges have been in place, even in DOS-based Windows 9x, since around 1997 (and have always existed in Windows NT).

      Specifically, I expect a package manager to need root before it installs system software; it makes sense and it is not a surprise. Likewise I don't expect my Web browser or e-mail client or word processor to need root and sure enough, they never ask for it.

      Just like Windows, you mean ?

      I think Windows is still trying to achieve that kind of simplicity with UAC. Imagine how easy it would be for their users if no UAC dialog was ever a surprise. They don't have that, and that's what they get for the years of encouraging sloppy security practices such as running Admin all the time. They are clearly reaping what they sow, well really their users are doing the reaping.

      Encouraging ? I think you mean compromising. No-one at Microsoft has "wanted" people running as Admin all the time, but the reality of the situation is that in an unmanaged home-user situation it's essentially required so the bulk of software people actually wanted to use, could be. Are you seriously suggesting they should have released an OS that couldn't run the vast majority of software ? People grumble (well, on Slashdot they yell) _today_ about the perception of "forced upgrades", and you would have tried to introduce a platform that, for most people, simple didn't work ? Out in the real world, where you actually have to worry about things like customers and profit margins, that sort of thing doesn't fly. Even Apple has to make token attempts at legacy support, and they have one of the most fanatical customer bases around.

      Note that in managed environments (Windows Domains), the default is not to have users be Administrators, and it's actually non-trivial to make them Administrators by default in a manageable way.

      The whitelist sounds like a decent idea I suppose, yet I need no such whitelist on Linux.

      Yes you do. They're the SUID and SGID bits - a hack around UNIX's primitive security model.

      Linux handles this problem differently. Rather than tons of prompts and then a whitelist to reduce their number, there are few prompts to begin with. Very few things I do actually require superuser privileges. The most common is upgrading/installing system software (that is, software available to all users) and like I said, it makes sense that you don't want non-root users doing this. How many of UAC's prompts are so predictable and self-evident? Why was a whitelist necessary?

      The only unexpected UAC prompts I receive are for poorly-written applications, and even these have been quite rare for 12+ months now (can't actually remember the last one I saw, except for IBM's Storage Manager, w

    56. Re:Dodged a bullet. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I got Win7 when I bought a netbook. I would imagine most users would just click "ok" like they always do when any dialog box pops up. It's an improvement, yes, but still a flawed design.

  2. With offshoring as it is... by sethstorm · · Score: 3, Funny

    Third World factories seem to keep on making these mistakes.

    You think they'd try making these in Japan, with full Japanese citizens making them for once?

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:With offshoring as it is... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem there is that I don't think Japanese workers are any cheaper than American ones are. And in order to actually get any cost savings you have to overlook precautions and externalities. If you don't do that the price of production tends to be about the same no matter where you choose to fabricate the items.

    2. Re:With offshoring as it is... by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do we know the image for the card wasn't put together in Japan? The camera says Made in China, the software perhaps not.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  3. Intentional or accidental? by Nemilar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hate to ask the obvious question, but the article doesn't address it -- could this be intentional, or is it accidental?

    I would imagine that some shady overboss would be willing to pay a relatively sizable amount of money (especially considering that the amount of money you'd have to pay someone in a Chinese factory to do this would not be very high) for the opportunity to infect potentially tens of thousands of computers.

    --
    Nemilar http://www.techthrob.com - Visit Me!
    1. Re:Intentional or accidental? by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Interesting

        Without more information as to what exactly the worm does, I can only speculate, but I'd bet that it's a trojan downloader or something else that brings in more malware, and that it was planted on some of those cards by a blackhatass who happens to work in their factory. The fact that it's only on a small portion of the cameras seems to indicate one individual somewhere on the production line.

        In any case it's not likely much of a threat if the users who get those cameras have decent AV software installed. Autorun trojans are fairly easy to detect IIRC.

      SB

       

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re:Intentional or accidental? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Between intentional and accidental is "a Google".
      If you are exposed just quote "“As we said before, this was a mistake,” Google spokeswoman Christine Chen"
      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/google-wifi-debacle/#ixzz0qJdk9Bjv
      Wait, stonewall, wait a bit more and the press moves on :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Intentional or accidental? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is accidental. From the description of the worm in the summary it spreads itself on to any usb device it sees and then to the host os. I would bet someone brought in a infected device (maybe a prototype was taken home, infected there by the desktop, brought back to work to be re-imaged for the next firmware test and infected the imaging computer.)

  4. Re:Keep It by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

    "So I took it back to Best Buy "

    I'd post AC too if were I admitting that. Eeew.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  5. So.. by Renraku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What kind of compensation are the makers going to offer everyone who's system they hosed?

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None. It's buyer beware, so vote with your wallet, and never purchase anything Olympus again.

      Personally, Olympus just got added to the growing list of companies I'll never do business with again. I find this is the only true way to get proper change in tech industry. Set your standard high enough, and the companies who haven't royally screwed their consumers become quite clear.

    2. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gotta ask, who is left?

    3. Re:So.. by delinear · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah change. I haven't bought a single Sony product since the rootkit fiasco. It doesn't stop a major Sony SNAFU every six months or so. If you think a few people (and it will never be more than a few, too many people have short memories or just love their cheap tech enough to overlook a bit of evil) will change the practices of these companies, you're wrong. What it will do is ensure that I personally don't get screwed by this company, and in lieu of changing the world, that will just have to be good enough.

    4. Re:So.. by Myopic · · Score: 1

      You are correct. This is why I reject the free-market idealists who claim that the market will solve all these problems. It won't; they are wrong; that notion relies on the untrue assumptions of perfect information, perfect competition, and rational actors. For all these reasons, I prefer legislative solutions to market solutions, because they have a better chance of attaining the desired outcome.

    5. Re:So.. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      The free market does work, and infallibly. If you buy a product and it kills you, and kills a thousand other people, word will get out, and people will stop buying that product, and the company will go out of business.

      Of course, that doesn't matter to you, because you are still dead.

      The free market is the foundation, and the legislative tweaks are what help to keep us from the more drastic effects of it.

      People shouldn't have to die for their Kool-Aid........ Oh wait, bad example....

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
    6. Re:So.. by Myopic · · Score: 1

      If you buy a product and it kills you, and kills a thousand other people, word will get out

      This is a statement of perfect information, and it is exactly what I reject. *Sometimes* (perhaps often, but not always) word will *partially* (perhaps widely, but not universally) get out, but the economic theory is predicated on the notion that word will *always* get out to *everybody*. That doesn't happen, and it's one of the several reasons that free-market theory doesn't match reality.

      So, non-free market theory might be closer to describing reality. Obviously, supply and demand to interact to help set prices; obviously competition and information move markets; but people who rely on that competition or information for market regulation are, in my well-considered not-so-humble opinion, naive.

      Thus, market theory is fine, but free market theory is hogwash.

      Free markets are like perfect circles: nice to think about in textbooks, but they cannot exist here in the real universe. We are foolish when our policies are based on free market theory.

  6. autorun? in 2010? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's kinda like this:

    *Smack* -> *Ow!*
    *Smack* -> *Ow!*
    *Smack* -> *Ow!*
    *Smack* -> *Ow!*
    *Smack* -> *Ow!*

    Would you eventually start to duck, even if you didn't understand all the reasons the fist was swinging around at nose level? But most people seem not to care about the whole hitting in the face part of things like this.

  7. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the same time, consumers should learn to always ensure Autorun is disabled, and scan any device for malware before they use it on their computer."

    Seriously?

    It's getting to the point where running a computer is turning into a full time job. I need to scan every single product I buy before using it? Isn't that why I bother to pay a premium to get name-brand products from legitimate outlets?

    I'm annoyed that the ultimate time-saving device is becoming more and more of a chore. I'm expected to spend hours researching the ways in which to harden my browser against cookie tracking, to rate virus scanners using contradictory and confusing standards, to assess information that requires a degree in computer science everytime I want to get a PC game to work, to pull out my law degree everytime I use an online product or dive through an EULA, and now this?

    I mean come on, where's it going to end? Should I do independant surge tests on the next microwave I buy before plugging it in? What about my printer, does it need a scan too? Should I take my newly purchased tires to an independant assessor? How about that new CD I bought?
     

    1. Re:Seriously? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Should I do independant surge tests on the next microwave I buy before plugging it in?

      Does your microwave connect to your network?

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      These guys are idiots that have no idea what they are talking about. Disabling autorun was the common tech practice back in 2003. One of the most significant features announced by Windows Vista was its intention to interrupt this auto-execution behavior with a pop-up autoplay window. In other words, solved since 2007. It came 10 years too late, but arrived nonetheless.

    3. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, but it does connect to my electrics. Should I have to worry that every new gadget in my place is going to cause a fire? No, because we as a society decided that was not the way we wanted to live our lives and we adjusted the legal landscape accordingly.

    4. Re:Seriously? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It tries; but the other devices(those that survive) complain that the 802.11 compliance of a $50 1.2 kilowatt cavity magnetron leaves something to be desired...

    5. Re:Seriously? by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      Your printer probably does. A lot of network enabled printers and copiers ship with open telnet ports with widely known root passwords. This has been around for a while, but pwning Windows boxes is so much easier.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    6. Re:Seriously? by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Please don't give them any ideas. Wasn't it GE that had a computer in a fridge? I can just imagine the havoc the microwave could cause if it turned on for an extended time with nothing in it. Couldn't be good.

    7. Re:Seriously? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Which is funny because not a lot of people realize that one of the bands used by 802.11, 2.4 GHz, is the same frequency your magnetron uses to quickly excite watery bags of meat.

    8. Re:Seriously? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Which is funny because not a lot of people realize that one of the bands used by 802.11, 2.4 GHz, is the same frequency your magnetron uses to quickly excite watery bags of meat.

      Which is funny, because not a lot of magnetrons realize that 2.4 GHz, is the same frequency some people use with 802.11 to connect to the Internet and excite bloody bags of meat.

    9. Re:Seriously? by Tigersmind · · Score: 1

      At the same time, consumers should learn to always ensure Autorun is disabled, and scan any device for malware before they use it on their computer."

      Seriously?

      It's getting to the point where running a computer is turning into a full time job. I need to scan every single product I buy before using it? Isn't that why I bother to pay a premium to get name-brand products from legitimate outlets?

      I'm annoyed that the ultimate time-saving device is becoming more and more of a chore. I'm expected to spend hours researching the ways in which to harden my browser against cookie tracking, to rate virus scanners using contradictory and confusing standards, to assess information that requires a degree in computer science everytime I want to get a PC game to work, to pull out my law degree everytime I use an online product or dive through an EULA, and now this?

      I mean come on, where's it going to end? Should I do independant surge tests on the next microwave I buy before plugging it in? What about my printer, does it need a scan too? Should I take my newly purchased tires to an independant assessor? How about that new CD I bought?

      I hate to be a buzz kill here, but it has been this way a long long time. Sure 15 years ago it wasnt as common, but if you really got a floppy disk from a friend and didn't scan it, you was asking for a virus. EULAs have been around in some form just as long. Quite honestly computer users who feel as you do, that dont take the responsibility of using a computer serious (yes I said and meant responsibility) cause a shit-load of problems for others. These systems was created to be simple stupid and now you have a stupid problem. If, however, people had bothered to really learn a PC, learn to setup programs/games, learned security like many of us did before it hit the fan then we might have had a market driving for use/security instead of use/stupidity.

    10. Re:Seriously? by indiechild · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good points. This is why "appliance computing" ala iPad and the like will become increasingly popular over the next few years. Slashdot geeks will decry it as dumbed down computing for the unwashed masses, but in reality, it's computing made usable.

    11. Re:Seriously? by crenshawsgc · · Score: 1

      lol what?

    12. Re:Seriously? by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 1

      Not just floppies. Word documents with macros, and as the internet was hardly heard of, any stray antivirus was unpatched.

      It was a nice little dance. Get floppy. Scan for virus. Get Abort, Retry, Fail? Scan for bad sectors. Recover file. Open file. Lol pwned it had a macro virus newly released 12 months ago and your antivirus had sig files 24 months old.

      By the way, did lol pwned exist then?

      --
      Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
    13. Re:Seriously? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Does your microwave connect to your network?

      Doesn't yours? Jeez, you're so last century.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your microwave connect to your network?

      No, but if it's faulty it can cause cancer. Which is worse? ;)

    15. Re:Seriously? by Dexy · · Score: 1

      I think it was a penis joke.

    16. Re:Seriously? by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      You mean we adjusted our regulation accordingly. Though, depending upon what political camp you're in, that's either a good thing or a bad thing, sadly.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    17. Re:Seriously? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      >"in reality, it's computing made usable."

      Until you want to do something other than what the owners/manufacturers allow you to do with it.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/07/ipad_file_transfer/

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    18. Re:Seriously? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Isn't that why I bother to pay a premium to get name-brand products from legitimate outlets?

      That's what my daughter thought when she bought a Sony-BMG CD at the record store she worked at, and ran the software that came on it. And that malware, unlike Canon's, was deliberately put there by the Sony corpration, not some h4x0r. Which is why I'll never again buy anything with Sony's name on it -- they've proven themselves to be untrustworthy, even criminal. If I'd done to one of their computers what they did to mine, I'd be in prison.

    19. Re:Seriously? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Until you want to do something other than what the owners/manufacturers allow you to do with it.

      The price you pay for a computing device that can do anything, is a computing device that can do anything, even things you might not want it to.

    20. Re:Seriously? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Exactly, just like every other appliance.

    21. Re:Seriously? by ruewan · · Score: 1

      You need to switch to Ubuntu so you can run your computer without having to worry about viruses or worse, anti-virus software.

    22. Re:Seriously? by Sxooter · · Score: 1

      How about the Internet Coke Machine?

      http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ia_myths_coke.htm

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
    23. Re:Seriously? by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Lol! I knew about the coffee pot (it had a CUSeeMe feed IIRC) but not the Coke machine. Thanks for the chuckle.

  8. I have a standard policy by bragr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every piece of new writable media gets formated immediately. I also have autorun killed on all my windows boxes.

    1. Re:I have a standard policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unnecessary unless you use an ancient decade-plus-old Windows version. Vista and 7 stop this attack automatically by displaying the Autoplay dialog when a new device is inserted.

      In fact, Windows 7 removes the ability entirely to manually execute Autorun from a flash drive.

    2. Re:I have a standard policy by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        That's an excellent policy (except for blank CDs and DVDs, of course *g* - wouldn't THAT be a helluva nice vector for infecting machines, if it can be done...)

        I would like to point out that it should apply SPECIFICALLY to external hard drives one buys, especially used ones. I've had three customers in the last four months who bought used(2) and new(1) external hard drives off of Ebay and got infected with malware hidden either in the autorun or in the included software that comes with the drive. All three infections were malware downloaders, two got caught by their AV, one didn't and rendered her laptop unusable in about two hours.

        I advise all of my customers to immediately format any new media as well. It's the only way to be sure...

        Speaking of that, does anyone know of a way to create an icon on the desktop that can turn on/off the autorun feature, just to make it easier on users?

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:I have a standard policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You should go further.

      After your new writable media gets formatted you should create a directory called "autorun.inf", put a dummy file in it, and make both read-only. Most worms aren't (yet) smart enough to check whether an autorun.inf file already exists, let alone if a directory with a the same filename exists with a file in it that also has to be deleted, or that they are read-only. Most of them just blindly write their own autorun.inf file to the device. Thus, when they try to infect the device the worms usually fail.

      Of course, it's probably only a matter of time before they get sophisticated enough to check first and deal gracefully with the problem, but for now it works splendidly to immunize removable devices you might plug into machines that are already compromised and that you have no control over (e.g., friend's machines). On all the worm-infected machines I've experimented with, nothing happens, although sometimes the worm tries to drop its payload into the Recycler directory as a hidden file, which will do nothing if it isn't activated by the autorun.inf file (or you're foolish enough to double-click it). You can then just delete it. Alternatively, you can also create a Recycler file rather than a directory, and make it read-only, which defeats that attempt too.

    4. Re:I have a standard policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just wasting time. Microsoft prevented loading of autorun.inf on all non-optical media in 7. It's not even an available option under autoplay.

    5. Re:I have a standard policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      disable it completely. Long term it's the easiest thing for users....

    6. Re:I have a standard policy by Captian+Spazzz · · Score: 0

      I advise all of my customers to immediately set the drive on the ground and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

      Sorry it was easy, I had to say it. ;-)

    7. Re:I have a standard policy by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        Not necessarily for tech support, however ;-(

        "I put the new software disk in my drive and nothing happened. Now what do I do?" - phone calls at four AM...

        Microsoft thought they had the answer with UAC - click, click...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    8. Re:I have a standard policy by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        You must not have many repeat customers ;-)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    9. Re:I have a standard policy by Culture20 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Unnecessary unless you use an ancient decade-plus-old Windows version. Vista and 7 stop this attack automatically by displaying the Autoplay dialog when a new device is inserted.

      Decade plus, like Windows XP, quite probably purchased in 2007-2008? The version of the OS where attempting to disable autorun via the recommended method actually did not work, and Microsoft refused to fix that except as an optional patch for a year after it was discovered ?

      In fact, Windows 7 removes the ability entirely to manually execute Autorun from a flash drive.

      Really? Windows 7 removes the ability to manually execute something on a flash drive, just based on whether it's listed in autorun? I'll have to test that tomorrow morning, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

    10. Re:I have a standard policy by dotgain · · Score: 1

      Boy, what a relief Windows 7 has completely displaced WinXP / Vista. Or for that matter, Windows 2000.

    11. Re:I have a standard policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decade plus, like Windows XP, quite probably purchased in 2007-2008?

      I don't care when you bought it. XP development halted in 2001 regardless of SPs and patches. XP is even older than that, as it was technically inferior even for its time. It was stable, but nothing new in the OS field.

      And regardless, a person who purchases Windows does so acknowledging that Microsoft has no invested post-release support (read: actual development). And in your case, you purchased it after capably knowing about XP's many faults. So really, you are equally to blame here as Microsoft is. As you bought XP while realizing it would not be freely upgraded, buying the inevitable 'upgrade' version should not be wholly unappealing to you.

      Really? Windows 7 removes the ability to manually execute something on a flash drive, just based on whether it's listed in autorun? I'll have to test that tomorrow morning, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

      There is no such thing as an "autorun list." Autorun consists of the automatic execution of autorun.inf. There is an Autoplay list, and Autorun was delisted from it for all writable drives. You can still manually execute autorun.exe (or whichever executable autorun.inf specifies)... but this is not related to Autorun itself.

    12. Re:I have a standard policy by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      It's from before Windows 7 was released, but remember the furour caused because of this vulnerability?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    13. Re:I have a standard policy by Myopic · · Score: 1

      You got an unfair flamebait mod. That is +3 Informative.

    14. Re:I have a standard policy by Myopic · · Score: 1

      How could development have halted "regardless of SPs and patches"? The SPs and patches are exactly the indicated ongoing development.

      Still, you are right, it is an ancient OS in computer terms. It was already laughably outdated years and years ago.

    15. Re:I have a standard policy by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Unnecessary unless you use an ancient decade-plus-old Windows version.

      Windows 3.0 is the newest "decades old" version of Windows; it was released in 1990. XP and 98 lack the autoplay dialog -- the "decades old" autoplay dialog is only five years old; my car is older than that, as is are all of my furniture and appliances.

      How that misinformation got modded "informative" is beyond me.

    16. Re:I have a standard policy by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of that, does anyone know of a way to create an icon on the desktop that can turn on/off the autorun feature, just to make it easier on users?

      Put this in a batch file. Turns autorun off if the user has admin rights. Can be easily run through psexec if you have admin rights (and an open fileshare to the box) but the end user doesn't. I leave turning autorun back on as an exercise for the reader.
      reg.exe add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\IniFileMapping\Autorun.inf" /ve /f /d "@SYS:DoesNotExist"

      If you have access to a means to edit select settings in gpedit.msc with a script, set "Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\System\Turn off Autoplay" to "Enabled". Unfortunately, for Vista, XP, Win2k this only _really_ works on machines that have gotten a patch. The "DoesNotExist" method is better because it works for patchless machines. I do both, though, just to be thorough.

    17. Re:I have a standard policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why have autorun turned on at all? Why make it easy to turn on? That's just asking for less computer literate people to just 'double click it to see what it does'.

      Screw that... autorun shouldn't exist, or if it does it should be disabled to begin with, and require going through the control panel at a minimum to enable.

    18. Re:I have a standard policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a kind of development, a security and fix-oriented development. But Microsoft rarely backports new features, and they don't develop new features for older OSes at all. When they do, it's usually because they easily can, and not a concerted effort.

      IIRC most of the later XP SP patches were even backported fixes from later Windows versions, so even those hardly count as development. But like I said, I don't really count product upkeep as development in the first place -- it's a practice Microsoft is forced to maintain due to its world-wide position.

    19. Re:I have a standard policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are incorrect, Autoplay IIRC extends all the way back to Windows 95. But Autoplay did not defer to Autorun until Vista.

      XP and below are the decade-plus-old OSes. Not the singular 'decade.'

    20. Re:I have a standard policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/not/note

    21. Re:I have a standard policy by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        Ah, thanks, that gives me a start. What I am really looking for is an icon that users can click on that turns autorun off if it's on, turns it on if it's off. I suspect that'll require a third party app...

        I really need to sit down and research this, but it hasn't been enough of a problem for me to spend the time. Not yet, anyway.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  9. Autorun?! by dido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder what bright soul at Microsoft thought it a good idea to extend autorun to all types of removable media. It was tolerable if annoying for CDs and DVDs, but it became downright dangerous once USB sticks and similar rewritable media were included. I wonder why they haven't decided to push an update that disables or limits the damage that this misbegotten feature can do.

    --
    Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    1. Re:Autorun?! by bragr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At the single biggest security problem at the place were I work. We tried disabling it, but we had too many problems of people putting in flash drives or cd and the stupid flash based window not popping up like it did "on their home computer" and that "their computer was broken." Sometimes, its just easier to clean up afterwards, then to preempt it and deal with people complaining.

    2. Re:Autorun?! by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At the single biggest security problem at the place were I work. We tried disabling it, but we had too many problems of people putting in flash drives or cd and the stupid flash based window not popping up like it did "on their home computer" and that "their computer was broken."

      So your employees are too stupid/lazy to learn how to use a computer. Either train them or fire them.

    3. Re:Autorun?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder why they haven't decided to push an update that disables or limits the damage that this misbegotten feature can do.

      You mean, like the one they did release, nearly two years ago? Autorun now only works for CD/DVD/Bluray drives. Learn something before spreading misinformation.

    4. Re:Autorun?! by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you turned off the "automatically mount new media" instead of "autorun".

      I seem to remember that you could turn off the autorun but keep the automount. It has been awhile since I had to admin a Windows box though so I could be wrong.

    5. Re:Autorun?! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 0, Insightful

      he's probably also talking about the *executives*. they tend to be the dumbest in terms of actual computer use.

      fire them? yeah, go ahead and try.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Autorun?! by robthebloke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The OP didn't say anything about employees - he said workplace. Every worked in a university? It's far easier to ghost the machines at the end of every day or session than deal with hundreds of queries a day from the vast majority of the 20,000 students who struggle to understand the basic concepts of computer security.

    7. Re:Autorun?! by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      You can disable autorun without disabling autoplay, which is what asks the user what to do. And you can adjust the contents of the autoplay window so that the option to run programs on the disk isn't there.

    8. Re:Autorun?! by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      I wonder what bright soul at Microsoft thought it a good idea to extend autorun to all types of removable media.

      Actually that originated with Apple, back with the Macintosh (or maybe even earlier).

      Idea was to automatically load drivers for new devices from the device, system upgrades from the medium containing the software, etc. for that "plug it in and it just works" experience.

      Of course it wasn't long after the Mac got into users' hands and development tools were available that some bright kid decided to put some prank software on a disk...

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    9. Re:Autorun?! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Possibly a similar person to the one that decided that the microsoft help agent wasn't advertising itself enough and demanded it frequently manifest itself as "clippy" to make inane comments instead of it's original incarnation of appearing on the rare occasions where it would be helpful. It's the same stupidity of putting a feature directly in your face possibly just to win some pissing contest with internal Microsoft office politics. "We can run stuff off CDROMs, but let's make sure it happens ALL the time so the user knows our division did something".

    10. Re:Autorun?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why users hate IT guys....

    11. Re:Autorun?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How bout Micro$oft switches it off so the consumer doesn't have to? But no. And sophos would never blame M$, after all, their entire business is based on the bad quality of M$ software.

      windoze is a fucking toy.

    12. Re:Autorun?! by dotgain · · Score: 0, Troll
      Mm, sounds like Apple sorted it straignt away because I've never been aware of MacOS doing this in the not insignificant time I've been using it.

      Microsoft, however...

    13. Re:Autorun?! by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      I'm more concerned about an IT policy that allows people to just plug in whatever and run/install it... As for the "Stoopid lusers" mentality, grow up.

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    14. Re:Autorun?! by StackedCrooked · · Score: 1

      So your employees are too stupid/lazy to learn how to use a computer. Either train them or fire them.

      Either train them or set them on fire.

    15. Re:Autorun?! by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this presents an issue for the learning of important IT knowledge by the "lay person." It's generally easier to wait for something to break or "break" than to educate because IT staff are underpaid, not typically sociable (no offense, just a fact I've encountered), and the lay people are often unwilling to change or to really commit to learning. Until you can show them how to disable it, work without it and live in the workplace so that they can go home and do it themselves, no progress can be made really. It's a sad thing when part of IT's job is to lock everything down to the system clock settings so that no one breaks anything because they don't bother to learn how to fix it, and IT AIN'T HARD. (get IT?)

    16. Re:Autorun?! by InfiniteZero · · Score: 1

      The feeling is mutual. There is no love lost.

    17. Re:Autorun?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just take away their goddamn computers instead of letting them hose everything for the people that DO have half a brain.

    18. Re:Autorun?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hot glue the ports shut and be done with it. They paid for you to secure those machines, do it. If they do not like it, realise that they have not paid you to secure the machines and start trying to collect as much money as possible while doing little to nothing. Countdown until the whole thing implodes.

    19. Re:Autorun?! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So your employees are too stupid/lazy to learn how to use a computer. Either train them or fire them.

      His employees are hopefully too busy doing some actual fucking work to worry about how their computers work.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    20. Re:Autorun?! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      And they learn nothing about using a computer when pandered to in this way.

      Your laziness in helping your users to utilise IT resources effectively and safely creates the problems actual IT people with workloads beyond reghosting terminals have to fix every single day. Your lack of input when they experience an issue instils their resentment of the IT workforce early on, before they move into Management jobs where they continue to abuse the IT technical people the same way they were abused and ignored when they were still learning. But hey, at least it saves 5 minutes explaining why your setup is different, or an hour scripting an "Effective IT" presentation for their induction.

      Thanks a bunch.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    21. Re:Autorun?! by delinear · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because having to take away an executive's computer to clean up a virus that could have been prevented if you'd tightened security a little is a much more career enhancing activity than just spending a little extra time showing the same executive how to access the files sans autorun...

    22. Re:Autorun?! by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, normally I don't agree with this kind of sentiment, because basically computers can be pretty hard to use. In this case, however, the people must be woefully unprepared for using a computer as a tool if they can't even figure out how to *run a program*. If they can't even scratch their way up to that threshold, then they probably aren't worth employing. Tell them how to do it, if they ask again tell them a second time, and if they ask a third time say you are sorry and let them go.

  10. Criminal penalties are necessary by grahamsaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Civil and criminal penalties should be imposed on manufacturers that ship hardware that's pre-loaded with malware. As of right now, there are no consequences, which means that this will continue to happen. The only remedy that will stop, or at least curb this behavior is serious civil or criminal charges.

    Companies may blame this on outsourcing, but they have chosen to outsource. They may blame it on poor quality control, but quality control is their responsibility! There is no excuse for this, and the executives that make decisions that lead to this type of security hole must be held accountable. I wish I could say that I was surprised by this news, but I'm not. It's commonplace. And until hardware and software companies are held accountable, this will continue to happen.

    --
    Facts have a liberal bias.
    1. Re:Criminal penalties are necessary by yuhong · · Score: 1

      I would not go that far, especially because avoiding it is as easy as a reformat.

  11. Sounds familiar! by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 1

    Maybe they were trying to keep up with Sony's rootkit.

  12. Olympus' warning... by by+(1706743) · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...is pretty funny when translated from the original Japanese (translated from Chrome):

    For the customers you have the appropriate product is in trouble indeed grateful, bon appétit do so as follows: anti-virus support, thank you.

    Translation issues aside, they do 'fess up honestly:

    Cause

    The lack of production management, computer virus has been contaminated with the camera.

    1. Re:Olympus' warning... by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Repair of Japanese camera requires great peace of mind."

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Olympus' warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      computer virus has been contaminated with the camera.

      Was this translated from Soviet Russian?

    3. Re:Olympus' warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soviet Russia
      Where camera infects your
      Computer virus.

      Mad Haiku Skills.

    4. Re:Olympus' warning... by BigSes · · Score: 1

      Cause The lack of production management, computer virus has been contaminated with the camera.

      Sounds to me like you bought the virus, but unfortunately the stupid camera was in the box to mess it all up.

  13. Linux by lavagolemking · · Score: 1

    I'm sure glad I don't run Windows anymore.

    1. Re:Linux by pastyM · · Score: 1

      I was just telling my girlfriend this in another attempt to try and convert her, at no avail. At least I have been able to convince her that autorun is a bad thing and AV software is good.

    2. Re:Linux by mogness · · Score: 0

      Jesus, don't you guys ever get tired of bashing windows? It's like you're a scorned lover or something.

      --
      that's teh shizzle bizzle
    3. Re:Linux by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Funny

      Jesus, don't you guys ever get tired of bashing windows?

      Not as long as the ongoing barrage of malware built on Windows bugs continues and the PHBs of the world keep shoving Windows "solutions" down our throats at work while the bulk of computer-using humanity continues to use it at home.

      Once it's no longer a blight on humanity we'll stop telling everybody what a blight on humanity it is. (Maybe we'll occasionally reminisce about what a blight on humanity it WAS, once that utopia arrives. B-) )

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:Linux by mogness · · Score: 0

      Once it's no longer a blight on humanity we'll stop telling everybody what a blight on humanity it is.

      If by, "blight to humanity" you mean easy-to-use operating system that does everything I want it to and allows me to play the newest games...

      Anyway, if you had just as many grandmas and idiot porn addicts using Linux as you have using Windows, you'd have the same problems we do.
      It's just that Linux-using porn addicts usually know not to allow "free-sex-tonight.jpg.exe" to run with admin privileges when running windows. And they usually won't "CLICK HERE TO SEE MY WEB CAM! OMG WTF BBQ!" Many Windows users just don't have the knowledge.

      --
      that's teh shizzle bizzle
    5. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "like you're a scorned lover or something". More like shooting fish in a barrel, heheheh!

    6. Re:Linux by devent · · Score: 1

      So you convinced her to pay for the mistakes of others? I wish I could do that. "No, my product is not bad, just pay a third party for my mistakes"

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    7. Re:Linux by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      If by, "blight to humanity" you mean easy-to-use operating system that does everything I want it to and allows me to play the newest games... Anyway, if you had just as many grandmas and idiot porn addicts using Linux as you have using Windows, you'd have the same problems we do. It's just that Linux-using porn addicts usually know not to allow "free-sex-tonight.jpg.exe" to run with admin privileges when running windows. And they usually won't "CLICK HERE TO SEE MY WEB CAM! OMG WTF BBQ!" Many Windows users just don't have the knowledge.

      Nice contradiction...

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    8. Re:Linux by mogness · · Score: 1

      Nice contradiction...

      Knowledge to use an operating system, and knowledge to avoid malware don't go hand in hand.
      I guess you've answered my original question though, thanks.

      Jesus, don't you guys ever get tired of bashing windows? It's like you're a scorned lover or something.

      --
      that's teh shizzle bizzle
    9. Re:Linux by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      It's like you're a scorned lover or something.

      Quite the opposite. I've made a good living for many years off of the shortcomings of Microsoft's operating systems.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  14. But Sony said to run it by linebackn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "At the same time, consumers should learn to always ensure Autorun is disabled, and scan any device for malware before they use it on their computer"

    But what if that malware, as it seemingly often is these days, is an actual intentional part of a product?

    1. Re:But Sony said to run it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an easy check for that: Is it Windows software? No? Then it's not malware.

    2. Re:But Sony said to run it by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And even if it isn't an intentional part of a product (I, for one, will never buy anything ever again with Sony's name on it; my daughter installed XCP on my computer, trusting that "reputable" company), I shouldn't have to worry about getting malware from a reputable company. I shouldn't have to scan a goddamned camera.

  15. A system has to load the image over usb! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A system has to load the image over usb! so maybe that system has a worm on it.

  16. As usual the real problem is unnecessary crap by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but if it is plugged into a Windows computer's USB port, it can copy itself onto the PC, then subsequently infect any attached USB device.

    Why isn't the memory card formatted and completely blank?

    consumers should learn to always ensure Autorun is disabled,

    No, companies should stop selling memory cards with unnecessary crap installed.

    1. Re:As usual the real problem is unnecessary crap by digitalhermit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why isn't the memory card formatted and completely blank?

      Because it's getting more convenient for the user if the manufacturer ships the software on the device. Many laptops do not have CDROM drives. It can also save on packing costs not just for one unit, but for thousands of units. It allows more recent software to be shipped since and update doesn't require another CD manufacturing run..

        No, companies should stop selling memory cards with unnecessary crap installed.

      No argument there.

    2. Re:As usual the real problem is unnecessary crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus you didn't even read the summary and got modded up.

    3. Re:As usual the real problem is unnecessary crap by delinear · · Score: 1

      Cameras, in particular, tend to come with huge instruction manuals too. It's much cheaper (and as you said, easier to rectify mistakes/add new features) if the manual is supplied in digital format on the card rather than as a dead tree version in every box (although it's still more common to find a bundled CD than the software on the card). Nevertheless, I can't see this practice going away any time soon.

    4. Re:As usual the real problem is unnecessary crap by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Because it's getting more convenient for the user if the manufacturer ships the software on the device.

      Is it really so hard to have the camera show up as an external drive? Do they really need me to put proprietary crapware on my computer?

    5. Re:As usual the real problem is unnecessary crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The camera has 2GB internal memory on which drivers and manuals are stored (and some malware). If no memory card is inserted, the camera uses this internal memory to store pictures.

    6. Re:As usual the real problem is unnecessary crap by DrCode · · Score: 1

      The cheap Casio I just bought shows up as an external drive. You'd think this would be the least expensive and most trouble-free option for the manufacturers.

    7. Re:As usual the real problem is unnecessary crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if it is plugged into a Windows computer's USB port, it can copy itself onto the PC, then subsequently infect any attached USB device.

      Why isn't the memory card formatted and completely blank?

      consumers should learn to always ensure Autorun is disabled,

      No, companies should stop selling memory cards with unnecessary crap installed.

      actually....yes....consumers should learn something about computer security. company A is not going to stop shipping things with marketing material and other crap on them. get over it and stop being lazy. learn how to keep your computer secure.

  17. A Worm? by MikeMacK · · Score: 1

    So it's like a bottle of tequila?

    1. Re:A Worm? by ZeBam.com · · Score: 1

      No, it's like a bottle of mezcal.

  18. Olympus response by Tuqui · · Score: 2, Funny

    Olympus should send an Ubuntu CD to their customers.

  19. Yep... by msauve · · Score: 0, Troll
    From the summary:

    consumers should learn to always ensure Autorun is disabled

    That _should_ read: "Microsoft should stop shipping its operating systems with security holes wide open."

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  20. Why can't MS make the radical decision? by Ilgaz · · Score: 3, Informative

    On a fully secured (DEP, non Admin account, all updates) Windows machine, I can see "quarantined" items which all appear to be "autorun.xxx.worm" , pick anything you like. It is already out of hand.

    If something happened like this on Apple OS X land, Apple would roll out an operating system update and disable Autorun. Perhaps, they could show a help document about installing applications with double clicking.

    Shrink wrapped/boxed software is _dead_. Even if it is not dead, it is trivial to add the "install software" control panel back. Just a line needed to be on box or "driver cd". That is all. It won't be the first time some convenience is given up for security. How many times people install the same software anyway?

    1. Re:Why can't MS make the radical decision? by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Yes for all that people moan about Apple being a walled garden yada yada I can see Steve Jobs demanding a quick fix regardless of the consequences if there was this kind of foolishness in OS X.

      At this point in my life when I see the same old things broken and no real fixes from Microsoft (short of taking things into your own hands and disabling it yourself -- something Grandma will never do) I wonder if the internet has been responsible for too many casual "push it out, fix it later" attitudes. The average Joe kind of expects their system to have viruses and extra crap running and doesn't care enough / doesn't have time to chase down a way to fix all these problems.

      I think until there are more srious consequences for software and hardware manufacturers to deliver a product that doesn't get you owned the first time you connect to the Internet, or get infected just because you connected a hardware device, or actively attempt to infect you (as in this case) this will continue to be par for the course. I'm disappointed, disillusioned and a bit jaded and I have no more patience left for this type of foolishness. There's no excuse.

    2. Re:Why can't MS make the radical decision? by mogness · · Score: 0

      Apple would roll out an operating system update and disable Autorun.

      Oh really? Like how they responded to this security issue? After two years I'm pretty sure it's still possible for a website to download and launch arbitrary local applications that handle registered URIs without the user's permission in Safari on OSX.

      --
      that's teh shizzle bizzle
    3. Re:Why can't MS make the radical decision? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might, months after it was discovered and while threatening to sue the researcher (actually, they'll pay you too) to keep mum before the patch is out. They'd call it a new "feature" though while burying the security announcement 15 links below the announcement of the new "feature". And even then they'd call it a security hole in Safari (a lot of security holes in MacOS have to do with the image/video core of the OS, but Apple always calls them Safari vulnerabilities) and not the core OS itself.

      Posting anonymously as I whistle my way to the bank (New Safari update!)...

    4. Re:Why can't MS make the radical decision? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      It won't be the first time some convenience is given up for security.

      Sounds better the way Benjamin Franklin said it; "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

      So, I guess we are saying Freedom is not Convenient?

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    5. Re:Why can't MS make the radical decision? by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Shrink wrapped/boxed software is _dead_.

      It's easy to assume that your experience is the same as everyone else's, even when it is not. If no one is buying shrink-wrapped/boxed software, why do stores (in the US) like Best Buy, Circuit City, and Target still have large selections of it in stock?

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    6. Re:Why can't MS make the radical decision? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds better the way Benjamin Franklin said it; "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

      Except he didn't. *Essential* liberty. *Temporary* safety.

    7. Re:Why can't MS make the radical decision? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      It won't be the first time some convenience is given up for security.

      That's a good point. People are apparently willing to go through strip searches just to do a little pleasure travel, but can't be bothered to double-click an installer icon? Really?

  21. Windows 7! by microbee · · Score: 1

    I heard it no longer enables autorun on USB drives by default!

    1. Re:Windows 7! by ZeBam.com · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, one way to find out...

    2. Re:Windows 7! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true, I plug in on win7 and it auto runs

    3. Re:Windows 7! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't need to be found out. Read the fucking news. This is as goddamn annoying as retards claiming Linux "dusnt support mah hardwair." It sounds stupid to anyone who has used it.

    4. Re:Windows 7! by dingen · · Score: 1

      The box popping up and asking you what to do with the inserted medium is not the autorun screen.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    5. Re:Windows 7! by mlts · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is how I fix it:

      Start->Run->gpedit.msc
      Local Computer Policy->Administrative Templates->Windows Components->AutoPlay Policies
      Turn off Autoplay -> Enabled, all drives
      Don't set the always do checkbox -> Enabled
      Turn off AutoPlay for non volume devices -> Enabled
      Default Behavior for AutoRun -> Enabled, set do not execute any autorun commands
      gpupdate /force

      My beef is why this is not the default on all Windows machines. AutoPlay and AutoRun are separate entities, so one needs to make sure both are disabled.

    6. Re:Windows 7! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At all, or just not as functionally as you would like? Not to imply the latter is a good thing, but there is a difference.

  22. gee thats a nice website you have... by RobertLTux · · Score: 2, Informative

    it would be a shame if 30,000 pissed off geeks were to hit it (or do any number of "interesting" things to it)

    [Picture of nice store front] This is your webstore

    [Picture of smoking hole] This is your webstore on Slashdot

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:gee thats a nice website you have... by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      hmmmmm.... slashdotting spam off the face of the earth? Why did no one think of this before? Tomorrow is a new dawn for nerds everywhere:
      "No, I'm not time wasting, I'm slashdotting for the benefit of mankind!"

  23. No it is cheapness by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    It has nothing to do with where it is made. It is just, Olympus who isn't a no name company doesn't buy 3 of best antiviruses and setup a system where every single byte which goes out of company (digitally or physically) is checked. "All files regardless of content and header" in Kaspersky fashion.

    As a Video guy, once I had to ship a CD with Video players (back in days when you need to install a mpeg player) and I clearly remember buying 3 antiviruses from leading companies of that time (didn't change a lot) and scanning the file in master ISO before giving it out. A single video guy does that at home. It doesn't cost much anyway.

    I heard IBM made a similar mistake recently, it is plain sad, once the undisputed king of AV/Security suites, the big blue...

  24. Re:Keep It by tywjohn · · Score: 0

    I'd re-gift it

  25. Autorun became the absolute comedy by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Recently I helped a friend who had 1TB disk formatted in FAT32 to convert it to HFS+ Journaled. As I image the disk, I notice some really strange things, like .exe files in Pictures folder, the _hard disk_ itself having autorun.exe. It is not some Taiwanese invention either, it is the Western Digital.I believe it is one of the most expensive ones.

    It turns out, WD _idiots_ had this great idea of installing their USB drivers named something TURBO (no kidding!) who are supposed to speed up the drive transfer. I bet it does some cache hacks etc. It also does some very unwelcome things like adding itself to startup, not removing itself automatically (of course!), does trivial and dangerous hack of adding some "WD" logo to OS X icon of the drive. OS X, of course doesn't have autorun functionality, I believe on Windows, that drive is the ultimate driver hell machine which will _also_ install couple of viruses!

    That is one of the most prestigious Hard Disk manufacturers. Just imagine what those no name freaks do.

    The rest of files? Some really bad worms who _all_ uses autorun functionality. If I was responsible for security of Windows, I would really say "please, get a life" to those autorun loving companies and disable it the next day. Just output of ClamAV scan for that disk should make anyone who did anything about security alerted.

      MS spent billions for security and fixing their image and yet, they just can't give up the absolutely stupid idea of automatically running an executable.

    1. Re:Autorun became the absolute comedy by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I corroborate. I have had exactly that problem with WD drives, and also with Cruzer USB drives. The Cruzers were a pain -- a simple reformat wasn't even enough, I had to really nuke the darn thing. Nowadays I just ignore the WD software, but I still wish it weren't there.

      Look, you guys make hard drives, okay? Just sell me a hard drive with nothing on it, okay? Like, wipe that damn drive to all zeros and give it to me and when I plug it in the first time my OS can format it.

  26. Linux had that functionality by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Well, Redhat Linux, back when the time they were shipping a Desktop Linux (5 I guess) had that neat idea of autorunning software from CD. Quake 3 from Loki did it.

    Of course, as Redhat (and other vendors) have normal logic, they saw what is coming and it became a thing of past very quickly.

    The problem with MS is, they even "extend" the functionality let alone getting rid of it. There is a huge risk of endless BSOD/system freeze in case of corrupt media since they made sure Windows Vista+ will check the contents of drive, reading whatever it can to show that nag window about what to do. Of course, if there is a flaw in their TIFF/JPEG etc. handling... Something way worse may happen like the Autorun/JPEG virus.

  27. Re:Keep It by robthebloke · · Score: 1

    the worm or the pc?

  28. Re:Easiest way to avoid infection... by mogness · · Score: 0

    Oh wow, I didn't see that one coming. Whoop whoop, you're so original.

    --
    that's teh shizzle bizzle
  29. Blame the victim by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So your employees are too stupid/lazy to learn how to use a computer. Either train them or fire them.

    So your brilliant solution is to fire people you spent training how to do an actual job, and replace them with people who need more training and still will not know how to use a flash drive "correctly".

    All because Windows can't keep its virtual pants on at the sight of a new device.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Blame the victim by delinear · · Score: 1

      Erm, you know, he did give two options. You could always try the "train them" route before the "fire them" route. As you even mentioned yourself, you've already had to give them training to do the job, why baulk at training them how to properly use the systems?

    2. Re:Blame the victim by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Erm, you know, he did give two options. You could always try the "train them" route before the "fire them" route.

      I thought other people would also realize how ridiculus the first solution was so I simply said nothing about it.

      USB training. Really? So you are going to take people out of work for a day? Or direct them to internal training websites that NOONE uses? You are then back to sqare one,

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Blame the victim by Sxooter · · Score: 1

      No, it goes like this:

      Stupid (L)user: It's not running automatically! See it's broke!
      You: No, you just do this (dblclick my computer) and this (dblclick removable drive) and this (dblclick application)
      Stupid (L)user: Why do I have to do that?
      You: Because autorunning things when you put in a USB key is a security hazard and can cause your computer to get infected with a virus or trojan.
      Stupid (L)user: OK.

      There. 5 minutes tops.

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
  30. Re:Easiest way to avoid infection... by layingMantis · · Score: 1

    Fail.

  31. It happened on Apple first. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If something happened like this on Apple OS X land, Apple would roll out an operating system update and disable Autorun. Perhaps, they could show a help document about installing applications with double clicking.

    There were Apple viruses as of the original Macintosh, which had a similar feature for automatically loading drivers, software updates, and such.

    They've been there, had that done to them, and moved on.

    For some reason it took Microsoft decades to get the same message.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:It happened on Apple first. by Sxooter · · Score: 1

      Correction, For some reason it took Microsoft decades to CARE...

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
    2. Re:It happened on Apple first. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Correction, For some reason it took Microsoft decades to CARE...

      Yep. (Sorry if I was being too subtle. B-) )

      But I must admit: Somehow they've managed to continue raking in the billions despite their product being the swiss cheese of software security. From a business perspective, maybe they had no NEED to care. B-(

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  32. no worries by nten · · Score: 1

    The antivirus companies will have a market at least as long as users have root privileges on the machines they buy at the store. It doesn't matter if they ship loaded with linux and SElinux *correctly* configured. People will do stupid stuff and the home user doesn't normally having anything worth wasting a first use exploit on, so the virus scanner will continue to be a moderately useful and necessary tool for any computing equipment with significant marketshare. And actually the iPhone is an example showing that even if all the user has is physical access, they will gain root and subsequently get attacked by malware.

    That is why I primarily use OSs with little marketshare for my financial computing. Maybe I just made an argument for fragmentation?

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:no worries by delinear · · Score: 1

      True, but GP's point still stands because it's the OS of choice for AV vendors right now (low hanging fruite, and all that - it's much easier to convince a Windows user that they need AV than it is a Linux/BSD/OSX user, not to mention the volumes are there for a decent ROI). They have every reason to want users to stay on an insecure system while publicly decrying security flaws elsewhere.

  33. It's not a worm.... by LuxMaker · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's a feature!

    --
    I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
    1. Re:It's not a worm.... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It's a creature feature.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  34. Worm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I know I got some tequila once that was shipped with a worm.

  35. Re:autorun? in 2010? by dotgain · · Score: 1

    I sometimes wonder if people are going to get tired of exploiting AutoRun years before Microsoft fix it.

  36. Copies itself via drive letter by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've ran into this worm before (or one like it). One of my clients got an external HDD full of video data. They're into video production (not porn), so often they will require data from their clients. Anyways, this worm hides in a fake Recycle Bin folder which is executed by the autorun.inf file. In turn, the infected PC will replicate to all possible drive letters. Once on a server share, all other clients will soon get infected.

    It's real annoying. But if all your PCs and Servers have an up-to-date anti-virus scanner, it they should now all prevent from getting infected.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  37. Windows users aren't that smart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The average Windows user has no idea how to disable Autorun. Or even what that means for that matter.

  38. Evolutionists say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That if it weren't for parasites, we wouldn't have sex. Just think... if it weren't for Windows malware, we might not have Ubuntu :|

    I mean, what kind of banal existence would *that* be?

  39. Re:You must work for Seagate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WD usb drives include an autorun function to install backup software, to assist customers who would otherwise be too daft to manage setting up a robocopy routine. There is no "TURBO" feature on any of their commercial products, but nice FUD you've got there.

  40. The larger problem by istartedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everybody harping on autorun. The larger problem is insecure defaults. Autorun hasn't been nearly as bad as "Hide file extensions". For people like myself, it lead to filenames like foo.txt.txt before I realized that stupidity was turned on. For people who weren't paranoid enough, it was the legendary HotChick.jpeg.exe kind of stuff.

    But I digress. The real problem is poor default choices. Again and again. MS needs to realize that you can't pander too much to the very stupidest users who haven't used their product EVER. Double-clicking a CD icon, file extensions, and the permission dialog for Active X controls should be taught on day one.

    In other words, MS needs to back off just a bit from the cult of useability, and educate the users ever so slightly. I mean, this is one time when their incredible market share would be helpful. It's not like all Windows users are just going to get up and leave. In the long run, it'll help them stay too.

    Give up on the "cup holder" people (CHPs). They will either move beyond that stage, or they won't; but you can't, Can't CAN'T design an OS that can be used by CHPs without also making it useful for script kiddies... unless maybe you go to an AppStore model, and that's got other issues.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:The larger problem by maitai · · Score: 1

      We have a webdev using Dreamweaver on MacOS... He stored all his files via SFTP to the dev server (which runs Debian) and then promptly deleted the whole directory. Losing all his files. And complained that Debian (Linux) didn't have a trash can.

    2. Re:The larger problem by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I agree. The first five percent of Windows know-how would solve three-quarters of Windows n00b mistakes and problems. Let's at least get to that level.

    3. Re:The larger problem by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I'm with him. Removing files in Unix should move them to a trash directory. The trash directory could be configured to delete immediately (parallel the traditional behavior), or delete after a waiting period (five minutes, five days, five months), or delete when hard drive space is needed, or whatever.

      Basically, the idea is that dangerous operations should be undoable when possible, and in this case it's easily possible.

  41. Re:Keep It by Gamer_2k4 · · Score: 1

    Probably the PC, since worms do a good job of re-gifting themselves.

  42. Hmm. by adolf · · Score: 1

    Amusingly, this sort accidental infection would be totally prevented if media (including SD cards, device internal storage, etc) were shipped unformatted, just like it was back in the days of floppies.

    It wouldn't really be a big deal: First time you switch the device on, or insert the thumb drive, or whatever, it/your computer simply formats the media. Done.

    This would obviously not stop a more sinister (firmware-based) attack, but I see nothing here to indicate that this particular attack vector was deliberate.

  43. Is there a problem with it? by houghi · · Score: 1

    I mean there is a worm in Mezcal as well and nobody complaints. They even use it in their marketing and advertising.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  44. Well, it depends....... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Do you like subbed, or dubbed?

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  45. Happens all the time. by LordDfg · · Score: 1

    Well, it's better than finding porn or child porn on your gadgets. [Not]. In Pakistan most of the cds sold in shops [pirated] are infected with viruses, this also holds true for any consumer product which is tested by the shop owner. Not many people are tech savvy here and they don't understands the risks involved when dealing with storage devices. It's a shame to see Olympus screw up in this case, but sooner or later it was bound to happen. I hope that in future they will keep an eye on things. inb4theusednortonsecuritysuite. Btw there are numerous free Antivirus software’s which can easily take of the problem. I recommend Avast.

    --
    Follow me: http://www.twitter.com/dfg
  46. Re:Keep It by delinear · · Score: 1

    They're the quintessential gift that keeps on giving.

  47. Good point by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    So lets require every piece of software and every gadget to be tested just as electronics have to be tested.

    You willing to deal with delay and extra costs? Thought not.

    For one thing it would mean we would need REAL software engineers. The kind with real titles and real salaries and real accountability. It would change IT back to the IBM prediction: Nobody wants a computer in their home.

    Mostly because they couldn't afford it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  48. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a simple batch file to make your USB flash drive immune from autorun.inf attacks:

    @echo off
    set /P drive=Drive (ie: D, E, F...):
    %drive%:
    cd \
    md autorun.inf
    md autorun.inf\con\
    md autorun.inf\aux\
    md autorun.inf\com1\
    md autorun.inf\com2\
    md autorun.inf\com3\
    md autorun.inf\com4\
    md autorun.inf\lpt1\
    md autorun.inf\lpt2\
    md autorun.inf\lpt3\
    md autorun.inf\nul\
    md autorun.inf\prn\
    if exist %drive%:\autorun.inf\con\ echo Autorun Proof successfull!
    echo.
    pause

  49. Autorun isn't on by default by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    The problem with the article isn't that it blames the consumer, it's that it's flat out wrong. Autorun is off by default these days - so there's no need to blame the OS, or the consumer. (If the consumer grants privileges to an untrusted application, then yes they are to blame - and that's a problem in any OS, not just Windows.)

  50. Help me out here... by modi123 · · Score: 1

    I was reading this and it struck me that I really don't *get* how this happens. The hardware is stamped out... assembled.. and then the device imaged from one source, right? Is this a case of an infected source via some jackass in the office playing around on 4chan, or is this a deliberate and malicious action ala corporate espionage?

  51. Reminds me back in the day... by Tmack · · Score: 1
    When you had to virus-scan your freshly un-shrinkwrapped box of floppy disks because they came formatted with worms/virii in the bootsector/mbr... surprised it hasnt happened earlier with the boom of usb thumbdrives out there.

    Tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
  52. Learn about your products by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    "There is no "TURBO" feature on any of their commercial products, but nice FUD you've got there."

    Dear AC or WD something

    Here is the directory from that drive:
    $ls
    WD_Windows_Tools autorun.inf

    (remaining file, since it is virus cleaned)
    $WD_Windows_Tools: ls
    restart.exe

    Please tell me a logical reason why an hard disk, portable one runs "autorun" and why it even needs a restart? Let me tell why. Those incompetent friends of yours also installs a windows driver, in old fashioned way. My friend is very glad that she works at DTP sector where "everything happens", someone could even claim that she was installing trojans to their private network thanks to WD.

    There is no "Turbo" software? WD support site says otherwise:
    http://support.wdc.com/product/download.asp?groupid=116&sid=108&lang=en
    File Name: WD+TURBO_Installer_v_1_1_0.zip

    It is full of kernel extensions. At least it is OS X where such junk is easily hunted thanks to directory structure. On Windows with 3000 file system32 and 100MB registry? Good luck.

    BTW, the drive which that image resides is a WD hard disk too and I am perfectly happy about it, my first drive that actually hit SATA1 bandwidth speed limit.

  53. So, copy MacOS/OS X by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    OS X has a HFS flag (bit I guess) that will display the content of the removable storage if it is set. Toast Titanium has that function and Apple -of course- uses it for OS X Install DVD, iLife tools install DVD. Note it DIPLAYS, doesn't do anything else. So you see a nice "Install xxxxxx" to double click on it, by _your_ decision.

    Once upon a time, we users had a convinient feature, that we can install input managers to our home directory (e.g. 1password, grammarian) without needing to install them as Admin. The day couple of morons exploited this feature for their trivial "OS X can get viruses" demos, Apple depreciated it and totally removed it from 10.5+. Now, an input manager has to have very strict permissions and owner (root) and has to be installed to /Library/Input Managers. Input managers in home directory are ignored. That required a lot of software to be changed and in fact, unfortunately, some software to be totally dead for average user.

    There are several decisions like that on Apple land which generates a lot of Developer flame sometimes. MS should take "good aspects" of Apple OS X just like Apple does sometimes. There would be no loss if some explorer window pops up instead of automatically running something.

  54. Scan BEFORE using? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even better, how do you scan it before you use it on your computer? You have to connect it before you scan it, right?

  55. Every week? by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Stupid (L)user: OK.

    Yes, and five minutes after they are calling you back to explain it again. And again.

    You have obviously never worked anywhere near IT support for a company of any size whatsoever.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  56. non-executable mounts by krischik · · Score: 1

    You would need an execute file attribute first of course