Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Kills AutoRun In Windows

aesoteric writes "Microsoft has finally decided to push out an update to disable AutoRun in its XP operating system, a Windows feature that had been increasingly exploited by virus writers over the years. But because Microsoft still sees AutoRun as a feature and not a security hole, it isn't calling its Windows Update a "security update" but rather an "Important, non-security update" — but it effectively disables the AutoRun feature anyway."

340 comments

  1. Re:FP by gringer · · Score: 1, Funny

    did you use autorun to post that?

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  2. XP now more secure than Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After the recent AutoRun on Linux scare, will this mean patched XP boxes are more secure than Linux? The mind BOGGLES!

    1. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

      As long as you never run IE, don't connect your computer to the internet, and never insert external media, then YES!

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by black6host · · Score: 1

      Man, that's too much trouble. Want the surefire way to avoid viruses, rootkits, malware, etc.? Simple: don't plug the damn thing in!

      As long as there are people, there will be such things. Or, if you prefer, as long as there are computers.

    3. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

      After the recent AutoRun on Linux scare, will this mean patched XP boxes are more secure than Linux? The mind BOGGLES!

      The 'autorun on Linux scare' appears to be primarily due to automatically displaying thumbnails of corrupted files which exploit holes in image and video rendering libraries; so Windows is at least as insecure. Windows was far more insecure when it would also happily load a DLL from the USB drive in order to perform that rendering because '.' was first in the DLL search path.

      Plus Ubuntu, at least, now seem to be wrapping the thumbnail generators in Apparmor which makes it far more difficult to exploit.

    4. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      The vulnerability was through the parsing of thumbnails, not though the actual autorun which requires requires user approval by specification.

    5. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by euroq · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right. I'm not exactly a Windows fanboy, but I think it's immature and small minded to frame Microsoft, Internet Explorer, etc. as "stupid" and/or "evil". The reason there is so much viruses and malware on Windows is because it's the dominant OS. If Linux becomes dominant, you can be damn sure that there will be lots more malware focused on Linux.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    6. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      That thumbnail stuff sounds similar to the windows "shortcut icon" vulnerability: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS10-046.mspx

      Perhaps Microsoft may start sandboxing more of their stuff too.

      IMO Windows and Linux are about the same from an IT security POV.

      By default if you can get a user to run something, all their data can be pwned, and you can also have malware running with the user's full privileges. Things don't have to be like this.

      --
    7. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There is no need for such tricks with windows. If the autorun.ini specifies a .exe file, Windows would happily run it.

    8. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Well that and the fact that there are some seriously stupid users on Windows. Believe me I knowshe opened and ran a password protected zip file with me sitting right exactly there and telling her "What are you doing? Don't open that! It's a virus!" and I got "Its from my BFF Kim, and she wouldn't do that! Stop being so paranoid." and then promptly infected the living hell out of her machine.

      So Linux guys, be happy where you are. Drop to your knees and thank RMS that Linux is still CLI heavy in Ubuntu if anything goes wrong, and the whole Linux setup seems "too hard" for the average Windows user. Be glad, oh dear Lord be glad. Because if you ever manage to lure them over the malware writers will be right behind them and your pretty OS will be turned into a giant festering turd. because users like that will happily run "Happy_Puppy.sh" or "Hot_Porn.py" and follow the nice instructions the virus writers hand them.

      Hell you can write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps just by using the social engineering that I see every damned day on Windows. With those kinds of users all the fancy security in the world is worthless, because they are more than happy to follow instructions if they think they get a goodie at the end...shudder...

      So while I'm glad that MSFT killed autorun frankly I can't remember the last time I saw it used as an attack vector on a PC I had to work on. Nowadays it is usually the "ZOMG! U got teh Viruz! Run this "Viruzkillz.exe" to kill it!!!" Or the classic "Having trouble viewing the free porn? Just run the "Supercodec.exe" to get all the free action right now!!!". Man they fall for those two every time..

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If popularity is the only significant metric then how can the market leader ever get better? If Windows is no less popular than it was a year ago then it must be no more secure? Windows never gets better? IE never gets better?

      For your regurgitated "MS can't help it because it's popular" assertion to work, the follwoing must also be true: 1. All software must be equally exploitable and 2. The top dog is helpless and can never improve.

      Or it cold be that an attractive target is both popular and weak, not just popular by itself.

    10. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      No. This argument is just wrong. Autorun IS a bad idea. Any security expert asked about it even long before it was implemented would have called it stupid. When it was implemented they called it stupid also and it took 10+ years for microsoft to realize it. That was stupid and still is.

      Also the "dominant OS gets more virus theory" doesn't hold water. Linux is the most dominant OS amongst servers and yet doesn't get more virus or worms.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    11. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      1. It doesn't matter how exploitable software, since the number of viruses that enter a system through security holes is insignificant relative to the number of malware that runs manually by the user. Social engineering >> security holes.
      2. The top dog does improve and it's also helped a lot by antivirus companies but it won't stop stupid people from running malware.

      I know all this because I work for a security company and we've had customers infected with Fake Antiviruses which is mindboggling: why would you trust a site that tells you to deactivate your antivirus and then run a file it gives you?... Actually there are other "respected" sites that do that (I'm looking at you Adobe)

      --
      ics
    12. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lin... what?

    13. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under those conditions, Linux is just as unlikely to be safe from infection. Nothing about Windows specifically makes it more secure (in fact, if it's XP, it'll be more likely, as you still run as Admin by default).

    14. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I've been thinking:

      seperate mount points for: /tmp and /home with no-exec on those partitions and no rights for normal users to change anything else.

      That would atleast be a start.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    15. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You can use the Group Policy editor (gpedit.msc) to do that in Windows too. I have it set to disallow execution in my downloads directory so that it is impossible to load anything before it has been virus scanned and moved to another location.

      Unfortunately you can't use it on your temporary directories because most installers extract their files in there and then run a secondary installer.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      On their home systems people will demand root access. You can't protect against a brick-brained root.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    17. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      Servers don't have users who think "oo puppies" and open an executable file conveniently named "dancing_puppies" (add the correct extension) and disables the virusscanner and firewall if it starts to complain. "Shut up firewall, I want to see the puppies!". People even disabled the rights escalation (UAC) in Vista and 7. "I don't want to see another warning when I install stuff, just install it".There may be more security holes in windows, but the biggest hole is the user.
      Replace puppies with naked women for male users.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    18. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The exploit that was demonstrated actually required AppArmor to be disabled, among other things. But I hope they add AppArmor profiles for all the thumbnailers.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by undecim · · Score: 1

      Also the "dominant OS gets more virus theory" doesn't hold water. Linux is the most dominant OS amongst servers and yet doesn't get more virus or worms.

      Not "dominant OS", but "dominant desktop OS"

      Servers are generally run and maintained by those with enough common sense that writing viruses to target those people are a waste of time. Desktops on the other hand are used by people of all technical caliber, and so there will always be some set of users that are dumb enough to run random pieces of software.

      Remember that fake screensaver that was on gnome-look.org? When Ubuntu becomes the dominant desktop OS, we will see a lot more like that.

      --
      The Internet has given stupid people the resources of intelligent people.
    20. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      On their home systems people will demand root access. You can't protect against a brick-brained root.

      Exactly, most users are not going to be too thrilled if they have to pay their local Linux guru every time they want to install a new game.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Also the "dominant OS gets more virus theory" doesn't hold water. Linux is the most dominant OS amongst servers and yet doesn't get more virus or worms.

      Anyone running Linux on a server is several orders of magnitude more computer literate than the average home user.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by operagost · · Score: 1

      I get the first one, but do lots of people really run linux without sharing media or connecting to the internet? Because, you know, Linux boxes can be owned too.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    23. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Euh... games/installers don't run from /home or /tmp. I can see your point though about being allowed to run an installer.

      I think if they can only install from the distribution repository, that would be fine.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    24. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      linux as a whole will not get many viruses, ubuntu or whatever gets huge will maybe the top 3 at the same time but never the whole

      --
      warning pointless sig
    25. Re:XP now more secure than Linux? by Malnar · · Score: 1

      No, alas, servers have equally dumb admins who think that p@ssword! keeps them safe. I work in a data center of about 3k Linux servers and 2K Windows server, the Linux ones tend to get compromised more often (2-3x as often). Again, not due to problems with Linux but due to horrible passwords and horrible web code. There is no avoiding stupidity and incompetence.

  3. Microsoft were kind enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To donate the functionality to Ubuntu. That's nice of them.

  4. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hopefully Ubuntu will do the same thing now.

  5. Option? by silentphate · · Score: 2

    Would be nice to have the option to enable/disable the feature..

    1. Re:Option? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Informative

      Would be nice to have the option to enable/disable the feature..

      It has been an option for as long as I can remember. It used to be one of the first things I turned off after a new install, right after I turned on the display of File Extensions.

    2. Re:Option? by stonewallred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One of the most annoying things about Windows. Hiding the file extension by default.

    3. Re:Option? by CastrTroy · · Score: 0

      OMG I hate this behaviour. It's the first thing I turn off on any windows install. Big vector for viruses, plus it's just plain annoying.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Option? by kindbud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hiding the filename extension is not a virus vector. Having the OS assume a file is just the type that the name says it is, is the vector whether the extension is hidden or not. Granting execute permissions based on its name rather than its permissions, is a virus vector. Assuming a jpg file is a image format and passing it unchecked to a thumbnail rendering subsystem is a vector, not hiding the jpg extension.

      You can hide file extensions in Linux file managers. MacOS hides file extensions. Files with hidden extension are not going to be a vector for you or for Mac users on account of the hidden extension. They don't work that way.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    5. Re:Option? by Hooya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A file name lolcat.jpg.exe is a mighty tempting thing to double click on. Granted, the user is the vector. But then, the OS is not helping by making it easy to dupe people into thinking a file is an image vs an exe.

      even if the OS fingerprinted the file instead of relying on the extension, the above scenario doesn't change. the file contents never lied about what the file was. the name was just mis-represented and the OS helped dupe the user into thinking it was an image.

    6. Re:Option? by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sigh. On a Mac, my drunken bigoted friend, a Mach-O file renamed to foo.jpg will happily run *because* the operating system dives into the file format to figure out how to run it. If I embed the appropriate icon resource in the file it'll even look like your default image viewer is going to open it, and if I subsequently start that image viewer once I've got control you'll never know it wasn't.

      That's the security flaw: you can make an icon look to the user like it will only open up the image viewer, when actually arbitrary code will be executed.

      Without file extensions being hidden you see foo.jpg.exe and say "that's an exe, I'm not going to run that", even if it has a friendly jpg icon embedded in it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:Option? by exomondo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A file name lolcat.jpg.exe is a mighty tempting thing to double click on. Granted, the user is the vector. But then, the OS is not helping by making it easy to dupe people into thinking a file is an image vs an exe.

      If, when UAC pops up to tell the user that the *program* lolcat.jpg.exe is about to make changes to the system, the user still clicks allow/yes/whatever then there's really not much more you can do.

    8. Re:Option? by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      How long has it been since execute permissions were based on the name? I'm pretty sure that hasn't been true since Windows 2000 and maybe even NT. At least with NTFS.

    9. Re:Option? by poity · · Score: 1

      The option's been in MS Powertoys since the beginning.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    10. Re:Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All operating systems should work more like this: Users should be able to install any program he or she wishes. However the programs should be constrained in what they have access to. Think of it like this: a pc has a virtual machine with a default operating environment. Each new application installed would get a clean instance of that environment. That instance would keep track of any files that got changed, updated, etc. If the application wanted to start-up by default the user would be informed "This application would like to start automatically when the machine is turned on. Is this OK?". The same would apply for Internet access. By default little warning should be required because that virtual instance wouldn't have access to other non-standard programs which have been installed or end-user files that have been saved. What would happen instead is if the application called a open dialogue the user would be presented with which files to provide the virtual instance. If the virtual instance asked for access to all files a warning would pop-up from the operating environment saying that "the program is requesting access to all of your documents (or all your pictures, etc). You can accept this or select which directories and files to provide access to. The virtual instance would not have access to programs in C:\windows or C:\program files. If a program turned out to be undesirable you could just pause or delete the instance from Add/Remove programs or restrict access to it as desired. The GNU/Linux desktop also has a good way of dealing with security by simply covering everything essential in distro repositories. GNU/Linux distributions could go one step farther with adding a white list for repositories. If a certain threshold of technical users whom participated and were authenticated identified a repository as not dangerous non-technical users would not be warned about the repository containing potentially dangerous software.

    11. Re:Option? by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      True, but by default on the NT familly all files have the execute permission. I mean I find the output of "ls --color" to be quite disturbing on Windows (executed via cygwin) because everything is marked executable.

      It is also worth pointing out that Windows almost never tries to run anything that does not have an executable suffix. While It is possible, it is very rarely seen. I believe the path search system completely ignores files without an executable suffix, so the full path of such a file needs to be specified.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    12. Re:Option? by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      This sort of thing is available via UAC or SELinux, but it can be difficult to setup. You can also put a file jail around every program. The chromium engine also puts jails around every service and thread, and renders every page in a new thread.

    13. Re:Option? by TheLink · · Score: 4, Informative

      AFAIK if you download that mach-o file from a website the resulting downloaded file will not be set to executable automatically, and the "victim" cannot run it.

      The victim will have to do the equivalent of chmod +x on it first.

      On the other hand if you create an appropriate disk image file and set the mimetype to application/x-apple-diskimage OSX will mount the disk automatically. And if you put the right things in that disk image (like a package), OSX will start the OSX "Installer" to install it.

      Depending on the situation or what the user does it may even run some "preinstall" or "installation check" scripts you supply with that package.

      --
    14. Re:Option? by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2

      I could have sworn the problem there was that "open with default viewer" was activated with the same action as "allow this program to do anything it wants to with my files"

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    15. Re:Option? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The two features that make this attack possible - embedding icons into executables and hiding extensions by default - were both introduced in Windows 95. The countermeasure of UAC wasn't introduced until Windows Vista.

    16. Re:Option? by thsths · · Score: 1

      > It has been an option for as long as I can remember.

      Yes, but it was never officially support, and you need to install additional software to configure it (or poke around in the registry).

      The official way to disable autorun is still to disable change notification in your CDROM drive. Apart from the fact that this also breaks other things, it does obviously not protect against USB sticks, because those use a different notification mechanism.

      So no, officially this has never been an option. And it is not now either, the great MICROSOFT has declared it OFF.

    17. Re:Option? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This is only the default in client versions, though - server has been set up properly (in this and other ways) out of the box since 2003.

    18. Re:Option? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Or you can have it pretty butt simple (and free to boot!) by just giving your family/customers Comodo AV which by default runs everything in a sandbox unless you tell it not to. Makes it real easy to deal with those that are "clicky clicky" happy and since it has a whitelist of "known clean after scanning" Windows system files it doesn't interfere with things like Windows Update.

      So if anybody here has friends/family or customers that get infected waaay too often, give Comodo AV a try. It is free, easy to install, its default are sensible and err on the side of caution, and so far none of my users have gotten a single bug in over a year since I switched them to it, and these folks could get more viruses than a Bangkok Whore, so that is saying something!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re:Option? by takev · · Score: 1

      The installer is a fixed signed application I believe. You cannot make your own installer and allow it to execute automatically.
      I am not sure if the installer is actually on the disk image, I think they are .pkg files.

      If there are application bundles in the disk image, they will be executable, but you will get a warning that you are trying to execute an application which you have just downloaded from a website (it shows the website).

    20. Re:Option? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      So, what is this sandbox ? How is that done ?

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    21. Re:Option? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The summary is incorrect, this does not disable AutoRun entirely. It disables it for all devices except CD/DVD drives. I suppose the assumption is that most CDs are legit where as USB flash drives are easy to infect because they are read/write.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:Option? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Here let me help, BTW I'm not working for them, I just got tired of dealing with infected PCs and basically ran through just about every AV until I found the right one that worked for me and my family and users.

      The link is here but for those that don't RTFL basically they have combined an AV using a default deny policy with a virtualized environment where the file system and registry is virtualized to the app being run. The big problem with many AV is they are basically blacklist so if an app doesn't match the list or get caught by heuristics they are boned, and Comodo takes the opposite approach by treating everything as potential malware and sandboxing it unless you specifically (which it will pop up with a box that will let you choose between "Always sandbox" always allow" or you can sandbox or allow once) tell it not to.

      Personally I love the way Comodo does things, and it has worked wonders for my users. I just tell them "leave it in the sandbox" and everything works without biting them in the ass, and if they have one or two resource intensive apps like Photoshop or QuickBooks I run them once and tell Comodo not to sandbox those apps. Although frankly I think I'm gonna stop doing that as I haven't even noticed it slowing down my games thanks to its built in "game mode" that lowers resource intensive tasks while you game, pretty cool.

      Hell it is 100% free for home OR business use, no restrictions (They make their money on the pro version with live support and with their server apps) so why not give it a spin? you have nothing to lose, and unlike some OTHER AVs I could name (cough cough...AVG) I have NEVER had an update screw up Windows, and I have been running it along with my family and customers for nearly 2 years now. No nagging, no emails, no limited updates, no resource hogging (currently using just 56Mb and 0% CPU), just a damned nice free AV.

      If you or the user is on Vista/7 I recommend Comodo AV, If on XP I recommend the also free Comodo Internet Security, due to the fact the WinXP Firewall doesn't block outgoing and the firewall in Comodo IS is better than the XP one. For the ultimate "fool proof PC" you should pair it with the also free Comodo Time Machine which gives them a simple way if they manage to somehow bork Windows to be back up and running in minutes with NO skill required (just push F11 at boot, choose restore time, that's it) and is much better IMHO than System Restore. Hell they even make their own free browser based on Chromium with better security baked in, which I'm using right now and is actually quite nice and fast.

      So give them a try and if you like it pass it around to your friends/family/coworkers. They really do make some really good products that take a lot of the risk out of Windows.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    23. Re:Option? by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      A Sandbox is basically protected memory. A sand-boxed thread can only write and read within it's protected memory and file system space except calls to necessary services and API's.

    24. Re:Option? by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Our 2k3 servers still don't show extensions on a default install.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    25. Re:Option? by kantos · · Score: 1

      Sadly this is due to COM+ registration, every single file type that has a program association (including exe in which case the association is the loader) is registered to tell windows what to do with it.

      .NET CLR takes care of some of these issues... but doesn't sadly change the overall system. The fact that so few devs take advantage of application manifests to lock down their programs and use Side by Side to specify the precise dependencies allows virus writers to simply bypass the OS and aim for third party apps

      --
      Any and all content posted above may be ignored, considered irrelevant, or otherwise dismissed.
    26. Re:Option? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      With Tweak UI you can disable autorun on all disks.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    27. Re:Option? by weicco · · Score: 1

      "The victim will have to do the equivalent of chmod +x on it first."

      The same goes if you download an file with Internet Explorer. When you double-click it Windows asks if you really, really want to open this file, it came from the internet and internet is a bad place and this file might do something nasty. So the victim has to click yes, I'm sure I want to infect my Windows setup.

      I think there is some other browser which sets this "internet-bit" too but can't remember it's name right now.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    28. Re:Option? by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      There's plenty you can do. Somewhere developers and computer folks in general had misguided notion that as long as click or grant permission that you should be able to do anything you want on a computer.

      The vast majority of the general public, like my friends and family find it insane that juts by installing or clicking something, it can cause harm to your computer.

      What can be done? Plenty... I'm not saying the following should be done... but there's plenty you can do beyond just 'ask for permission'

      1. Only run executables for installed programs
      2. Make sure all installed programs are registered with the OS with appropriate checksums
      3. Give applications limited rights unless run in some sysadmin mode. They can only access their program directory and all user files must be passed in by the standard os file selection.
      4. Monitors programs for suspicious behavior. Windows should come pre installed with Security essentials for example.
      5. Protect all system files by only having them accessible in a sys admin mode (above the administrator mode).
      6. If connected to the internet, submit the file name/hash to the OS for analysis to see if there's a security risk.
      7. Have an executable file system mask as on unix which requires you to actively mark a file as executable

      I could keep going... but it's besides the point. There's plenty the OS could do to be more secure. User prompts are not the only solution.

    29. Re:Option? by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      ...except when the trojan just installs itself to %appdata% instead of %windir%. I've seen plenty of malware recently that's infected NT6 machines and installed itself in a purely per-user context without ever making a UAC prompt appear (at least according to the users). UAC only seems to block access to HKLM and not HKCU.

      Wouldn't be surprised if those viruses are later capable of using priv escalation exploits to install themselves or other malware under an administrative account.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    30. Re:Option? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Installer is part of OSX.

      The preinstall scripts are not, but supposedly they are sandboxed (or ignored nowadays?).

      It's still easier to get a "normal user" to keep clicking next than to get them to chmod the right file and run it.

      --
    31. Re:Option? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Just like Windows. If you download an executable, it will always ask you if you want to run it when you try to run it. Until you turn the warning off for that particular file, that is.

    32. Re:Option? by Sczi · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I just installed server 08 r2 x64 an hour ago, no extensions, ran windows update, still no extensions.

      Btw, you don't need "now" as it is implied by /p

    33. Re:Option? by hey · · Score: 1

      That's is so crazy. Especially if the file is called MyPhoto.jpg.exe

    34. Re:Option? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      No, the REALLY annoying thing is determining a file's purpose by its file extension.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    35. Re:Option? by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      They pop up a dialog box asking if you want to cancel or allow the package script, using wording that makes it overly confusing as to why you'd ever want to cancel.

      I think it's something like "a script needs to run in order to determine if you can install this package. Do you want the script to run?"

      I think later you need to provide admin rights to install software that requires it, and that requires a password.

      In essence, it's very reminiscent of Microsoft's UAC. The stuff Apple made fun of in their ads.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    36. Re:Option? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I meant to ask what it does on the technical side on Windows. Seems hairyfeet says Comodo AV does the following: the file system and registry is virtualized

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    37. Re:Option? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your explanation. It is a bit more than I wanted to know. I just wanted to know the technical bits: the file system and registry is virtualized to the app

      Which atleast gives me some idea how that is done.

      Anyway I do not recommend their browser, they block to many HTTPS-certificate authorities/root certificate-types. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just Chrome with some of those disabled to make other CA's look bad.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    38. Re:Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I had to reinstall Windows, the first changes I made were to show file extensions, and show hidden files. It's just smart practice.

    39. Re:Option? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      The two features that make this attack possible - embedding icons into executables and hiding extensions by default - were both introduced in Windows 95. The countermeasure of UAC wasn't introduced until Windows Vista.

      If you're still running windows 95 your a moron.

    40. Re:Option? by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      duh but he was saying windows was very open for years

      --
      warning pointless sig
    41. Re:Option? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      duh but he was saying windows was very open for years

      While we're at it, new vulnerability discovered in Irix!

    42. Re:Option? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      1. Only run executables for installed programs

      How are you going to install it then?

      2. Make sure all installed programs are registered with the OS with appropriate checksums

      What checksums and what's this 'registered with the OS' that legitimate apps will somehow have but illegitimate ones won't? Sounds like some kind of AV whitelist where apps would have to be vetted.

      3. Give applications limited rights unless run in some sysadmin mode. They can only access their program directory and all user files must be passed in by the standard os file selection.

      Standard OS file selection? You mean i need to confirm every shared file the program wants to access? Yeah that won't be annoying at all.

      4. Monitors programs for suspicious behavior. Windows should come pre installed with Security essentials for example.

      Then you need some definition of 'suspicious behavior', that could be anything, which is why malware and viruses are so widespread and AV definitions have to be constantly updated.

      5. Protect all system files by only having them accessible in a sys admin mode (above the administrator mode).

      Why? They are protected in user mode, and not protected as much in administrator mode. What's the point of admin mode then?

      6. If connected to the internet, submit the file name/hash to the OS for analysis to see if there's a security risk.

      How will the OS know if it's a risk? Sounds more like AV software.

      7. Have an executable file system mask as on unix which requires you to actively mark a file as executable

      So then the file you copy would already have that mask, otherwise every time you copy a file you have to already know which one is and is not supposed to be executable and manually go and set that flag on each file.

    43. Re:Option? by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      "irix" ummm k, yes in ubuntu and hasnt been exploited repeatedly and it isnt related to the one; of hiding extensions for no good reason

      --
      warning pointless sig
    44. Re:Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Embedding icons into executables was an OS/2 feature years before Win95

    45. Re:Option? by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      How did you turn it off, out of curiosity? There seems to be about a dozen different ways, which I found quite frustrating after finding an SD card that had a windows virus on it. (luckily found that out when plugging the card into my mac, not my PC)

    46. Re:Option? by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Proper use of Strong Named assemblies, and the Global Assembly Cache do prevent a variety of attacks, from infecting dlls, to simply placing fake versions in locations where a program is likely to accidentally pick them up.

      The problem though is by default a reference to "log4net, Version=1.2.10.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=1b44e1d426115821" does not allow "log4net, Version=1.2.10.1, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=1b44e1d426115821" to be loaded, despite being signed with the same public key.

      A publisher can create a publisher policy to redirect to the latest bugfix version, but Microsoft has not made this sufficiently clear to many developers, and has not provided any means of automatically creating on each compile a new policy assembly that redirects all the 1.2.10.x series names to the version of the newly built 1.2.10.55 assembly.

      The core developers of the .Net framework don't see this issue much, since Microsoft does not change the versions of the core assemblies.
      For example, mscorlib.dll from .Net Framework 2.0, and mscorlib.dll from from .Net Framework 2.0 SP2 (which shipped with .Net Framework 3.5) are both "mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089".

      Regular developers cannot do that, since the GAC cannot distinguish between two assemblies with exactly the same name, so you would fall back into DLL Hell where your bugfixes would be overridden by the next application that is installed that uses your library.

      (On a slightly related note, I've always found it interesting that programs can also export symbols and therefore be shared libraries (native or CLR) themselves. The .Net Framework/CLR makes that a little more discoverable, as the assembly naming scheme intentionally does not distinguish between applications and shared libraries. Indeed, .Net reflector's API is to add the exe as an assembly reference to your project.)

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  6. Should have never been there. by olsmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you do not know how to start a piece of software running, or cannot follow some simple directions to do so, you really have no business using a computer in the first place.

    1. Re:Should have never been there. by haruchai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've never worked a helpdesk, have you?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:Should have never been there. by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Betty Crocker has a FAQ on all the ways you can screw up cooking Hamburger Helper. Would you say the people who need the help have no business eating?

      I'm not entirely joking - it's in the best interest of everyone for companies to make their products accessible to as large a market as possible. In this case, MS probably decided that autorun was doing more harm than good, but the concept (make it as easy as possible to install software) was a good one.

    3. Re:Should have never been there. by dnaumov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For as long as stupid people will continue to have money, computers and operating systems will be made (and sold) to accomodate such people. That's just the way it is.

    4. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HUR HUR lookit me, all-knowing and smart. One can't learn by not doing it and making mistakes, asshole.

    5. Re:Should have never been there. by brusk · · Score: 1

      True in general, but some Windows installation disks do more than just run setup.exe on startup and instead have rather involved scripts in autorun.inf. I had a driver/utility CD for an NAS device that created a menu of the manufacturer's different models via autorun and could not be invoked any other way. Since I had autorun disabled, this was very annoying.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    6. Re:Should have never been there. by sharkey · · Score: 2

      Too true. How hard is LOAD AUTORUN.EXE,8,1 anyway?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    7. Re:Should have never been there. by LordNimon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Betty Crocker has a FAQ on all the ways you can screw up cooking Hamburger Helper. Would you say the people who need the help have no business eating?

      No, I would say they have no business cooking.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    8. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are helpdesks exempt from removing infections spread via USB?

    9. Re:Should have never been there. by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd wager he has.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    10. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the auto-run/auto-play in some flavors of Linux. That way I know if multimedia/DVD playback works on a particular distro, out-of-the-box. No sound or no video? Next, please.

    11. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is not a commentary on autorun. This is a commentary on a vendor's piss-poor software quality. If the software could not be invoked any way other than autorun, then the vendor, and not Microsoft, is to blame.

    12. Re:Should have never been there. by BitZtream · · Score: 0

      Perhaps if there was actually a standard intuitive way to do it, something as simple as say ... putting a key in the ignition and turning it like a car ... then you might be right.

      The reality of it is, most people I know have far better things to do than giving a shit about this sort of thing so autorun works well.

      As surprising as it may seem, some people have better things to do than play with a PC to understand how it all works.

      Saying it never should have been there just makes it obvious your a curmudgeon who doesn't actually have anything of value to the discussion but repeats of what we've already heard a thousand times before and rejected. Yes there are security issues to worry about, but unless you're completely locking down the PC the person who's going to get you infected via autorun is going to do it some other way do to their ignorance anyway, so from a practical standpoint you just sound like a raving loon.

      Security is worthless if no one bothers to use the system.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    13. Re:Should have never been there. by cinderellamanson · · Score: 0

      Hehe, no, what he's saying is that the A+ Certification, in fact, most first level certifications are filled with stuff engineers thought normal people could do and they still tell normal people they can do it, but all added together - everything the engineers thought you could do adds up to too much very quickly.

      Incidentally, we've had this turned off on XP at work for some time.

      --
      Hey buddy, can i bum a karma? ~}CinderellaManson{~
    14. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too hard, as you forgot to enclose the name in quotes. SHIFT-RUN/STOP was so much easier.

    15. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd wager he has...which is why he's got the position he has.

    16. Re:Should have never been there. by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Informative

      True in general, but some Windows installation disks do more than just run setup.exe on startup and instead have rather involved scripts in autorun.inf. I had a driver/utility CD for an NAS device that created a menu of the manufacturer's different models via autorun and could not be invoked any other way

      There is no scripting in AUTORUN.INF...it's really just a very simple INI file. The only thing that could be considered a "script" is the ability to run different programs based on the machine architecture and OS version (controlled by square-bracketed INI section heading tags).

      If you trust a disc, you can just open the AUTORUN.INF file with a text editor and copy what is to the right of "open=" and paste it into the start menu run box and it will do exactly what would have happened if autorun was enabled.

    17. Re:Should have never been there. by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 1

      Betty Crocker has a FAQ on all the ways you can screw up cooking Hamburger Helper. Would you say the people who need the help have no business eating?

      I'm not entirely joking - it's in the best interest of everyone for companies to make their products accessible to as large a market as possible. In this case, MS probably decided that autorun was doing more harm than good, but the concept (make it as easy as possible to install software) was a good one.

      I'd say the person involved needs to save up that Hamburger Helper money and order pizza.

    18. Re:Should have never been there. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      As surprising as it may seem, some people have better things to do than play with a PC to understand how it all works.

      If I may use a car analogy, those are the people who get eaten by inbred cannibal rednecks because they don't know how to change a flat tire.

    19. Re:Should have never been there. by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yes, anyone who can't cook hamburger helper has no business eating.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    20. Re:Should have never been there. by shentino · · Score: 2

      If you're not a mechanic you have no business driving a car.

    21. Re:Should have never been there. by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      If you're not a mechanic you have no business driving a car.

      Obligatory car analogy:

      Imagine a car without an ignition key or similar; a kid might touch something and make it start.

    22. Re:Should have never been there. by alienzed · · Score: 1

      Anyone with enough money has business to use a computer, how else they going to access Slashdot?

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    23. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YeS! AbSoLuTeLY! I SuRe aS HeLL WouLD!

    24. Re:Should have never been there. by kronosopher · · Score: 1

      It's not simply the propensity of software to appeal to the lowest-common denominator that drives adoption. Wide-spread adoption enables monopolies which then force otherwise intelligent individuals to make poor decisions.

      TL;DR Stupid people ruin it for the rest of us.

    25. Re:Should have never been there. by computer_guy57 · · Score: 1

      I think a better analogy might be that if you don't know how to operate a car, you have no business driving it.

    26. Re:Should have never been there. by aiht · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but when I have AutoRun disabled I can still right-click on the drive in Explorer and manually choose AutoRun. It's a misnomer at that point, but it still runs.

    27. Re:Should have never been there. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      You've never worked a helpdesk, have you?>/i>

        I briefly worked for AOL. I was thinking OH NO when I saw the article and cringed.

      Many older grandmas and /.ers mothers depend on sticking something in and crossing their fingers that they can figure out what to do next. Yes these older users exist and the baby boomers double the generation Xers in size.

    28. Re:Should have never been there. by HRH_H_Crab · · Score: 1

      While I suspect you are right, that in no way invalidates the position of the poster you are replying to.

    29. Re:Should have never been there. by lxs · · Score: 1

      You forgot the quotation marks.

    30. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it still required for people to get a driving license before getting into traffic, isn't it? So, who does not have a driving license has no business driving a car. You need a qualification for that.(and I am one who thinks that getting driving licenses is far too easy. And I say this because I have been a real hazard on the road for the first 5 years of driving. A more serious driving school syllabus and harder, serious exam could have made me much less dangerous).

      Figuring how to launch an installer from a CD isn't exactly black magic.

      P.S. I'm not stating I am a perfect driver now, no one can. simply that I'm much less dangerous on the road now than what I used to be.

    31. Re:Should have never been there. by Adayse · · Score: 1

      I have kids 5 and 7 and they like to play games. Spore is their current favorite but they have played their way thought all the Lego titles. They don't speak english or read english. Without autorun I have to spend a bit more time getting their games installed and running. With autorun they can often manage by themselves so I think autorun has a place. DRM is worse, malware wise, because kids download nocd hacks without understanding the risks.

    32. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For as long as stupid people will continue to have money, computers and operating systems will be made (and sold) to accomodate such people. That's just the way it is.

      Yes, those computers are called Macs.

    33. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, the sheer number of "stupid" people (using a geek definition of stupid) is so high that they will define what smart people can buy, at least for personal use. Case in point: Linux on a phone became viable when Google figured out how it could be sold to "stupid" people. And with cars it's even more clear. You don't have manual cranks or manual chokes anymore, and manual transmissions are getting rarer.

    34. Re:Should have never been there. by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      A user who *needs* autorun enabled, should *not* be using it .... ...a user who does not need it , probably should not use it either ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    35. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For as long as stupid people....

      Linux failed as an end user OS until the android addons because the stupid linux distributions never accommodated the three needs that people need to use a computer. 1) The ability to install/uninstall software 2) A UI that didn't depend on the archaic and clunky X11 windowing system. 3) The ability of the OS to work with hardware.

      Those three things were all that was required for linux to take off, and it took Google to wrap java apps into an package that was then augmented by hardware manufactures to make the thing work. Now there are Linux phones and tablets that are arguably on par with say the iPhone and iPad/iPod touch. To date, no other linux offering is even close to being as good as OS X or Windows.

      What bothers me most is that people like those in this thread still say stuff like "People are too stuuupid to use their computer". I'm not an electrical engineer, but I'm quite proficient at changing light bulbs, flipping switches, and even breakers. I'm not a race car driver nor a mechanic, but like most people, I drive every day without issue. I'm not even a cosmologist, but I'm still made of star dust and I can meander around and pretend things are important even though nothing I do or say is even remotely cosmologically important.

    36. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone misses a free-throw, they have no business playing basketball.
      If someone strums a chord incorrectly, they have no business playing guitar.
      If someone conjugates a foreign verb incorrectly, they have no business trying to speak another language

      Moral of the story, the instant you fail, however minor, is the instant you should quit forever.

    37. Re:Should have never been there. by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Your kids should not have the admin password, so they should not be able to install anything. They should always ask someone like you to install stuff. Once they figure out you can download stuff from the internet and install it you will have a very busy internet connection.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    38. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they are sold and marketed, but so far, none have been made (that actually accommodate such people).

    39. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 quatloos on the new comers.
      400 quatloosagainst the new comers. ...

      5,000 quatloos that the newcomers
      will have to be destroyed.

    40. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never worked a helpdesk, have you?

      hahaha
      First level Supporter here.
      Thats exactly what i thought when i read his comment.

    41. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Betty Crocker has a FAQ on all the ways you can screw up cooking Hamburger Helper. Would you say the people who need the help have no business eating?

      No, I would say they have no business cooking.

      It would certainly solve a lot of our problems if they did stop eating.

    42. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need to follow instructions or start software when I pop a DVD into a DVD player, why should a computer be different?

      But yeah, convenient computers, what an utterly silly idea, right?

    43. Re:Should have never been there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know that whole joke about a user so stupid, he thinks the cd-tray is a drink holder? I've had that call. These people exist. Dear god, I pray for our society.

    44. Re:Should have never been there. by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      You need a license to drive a car. You have to know how to work the ignition, get into and out of gear, how to signal turns, accelerate and stop, how to add fuel and recognize basic problems like burnt out lights and flat tires. If you can do those sorts of things then no, you have no business driving a car.

  7. Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by nebaz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, this is just like Sony removing the "Other OS" feature from the PS3. I PAID for Windows XP because of the Auto-Run feature, as I'm sure many others have as well. This is a clear case of bait-and-switch deceptive marketing practicing. I wonder if a legal case could be made...

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  8. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny that MS disables this right after this article showed up.

    1. Re:Funny by bky1701 · · Score: 2

      One might even suggest it wasn't a coincidence, but that would be absurd!

    2. Re:Funny by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      It's funny that MS disables this right after this article showed up.

      I think it's funnier that MS disables it two years after this article. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/04/29/2110241/Microsoft-To-Disable-Autorun
      And years after Microsoft admitted that their suggested methods of disbling autorun didn't really disable autorun at all. http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1038167&cid=25850755

    3. Re:Funny by LO0G · · Score: 1

      Except that TFA says that what MSFT did was to backport the Vista change to XP (which it did two years ago). It's been available for XP all that time. What's changed is that they've collected enough data to make them believe that pushing it to more users is a good thing.

      When MSFT first announced they were disabling autorun on Win7, people screamed that the world was going to end. Well, it didn't.

      Part of the reason that they were able to make this change is that they've had two years of operational experience with Windows 7 where nothing horrible happened.

      There's a decent post on the MSRC blog that describes the logic behind the change.

  9. What about AutoPlay? by paultwang · · Score: 2

    When I insert a USB stick, Windows XP opens an AutoPlay window asking me what action to take. If the autorun.inf file is found, the default choice in the AutoPlay window is to run whatever is in autorun.inf. What now? Does XP completely ignore autorun.inf with this update?

    1. Re:What about AutoPlay? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the MS article thing on it, that won't happen anymore. Autorun only happens for CD/DVD discs now. In fact this update SPECIFICALLY targets thumb drives for disabling autorun (though it affects all non-disc drives).

    2. Re:What about AutoPlay? by grayn0de · · Score: 1

      When I insert a USB stick, Windows XP opens an AutoPlay window asking me what action to take. If the autorun.inf file is found, the default choice in the AutoPlay window is to run whatever is in autorun.inf. What now? Does XP completely ignore autorun.inf with this update?

      That is what I gathered from the article. For instance, you pop your new software disc into the optic drive and are prompted with the installer. This will not happen, post update. This loss of "functionality" also prevents certain attacks utilized by hackers and malware, think USB switchblades, Conficker, etc..., but also slightly decreases the usability that average users have grown used to.

      Personally, I think this is a good call, provided there is a way to enable it. Features like Autoplay should, IMO, be disabled by default with an accessible option to enable it. I say that with a security mindset, mind you. My question is: Why only on XP and not Vista or 7?

    3. Re:What about AutoPlay? by venom8599 · · Score: 1

      My question is: Why only on XP and not Vista or 7?

      Probably because Vista and 7 already use this same behavior.

    4. Re:What about AutoPlay? by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "What now?"

      The functionality of the following...

      "Open up regedit, and go to
      HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Cdrom
      Look for the key 'AutoRun', and toggle between 1 for 'Enable' and 0 for 'Disable'."

      will now apply to external drives, but, oddly, the above is STILL not in effect with this update. You still need to do the above if you want to block autorun on CDs/DVDs in a drive. My guess is soooooo many people are used to installers coming up automatically after popping a disc in a drive that many less-informed users might assume a problem with their drives when that doesn't happen anymore, not to mention that many will not know what to do at that point anyways. Figuring out to double-click the setup.exe may seem obvious to you and I, but...

      I've always found it very annoying to plug in an external drive and have it start installing backup/crypto/anti-virus software without asking, and this will stop that.

      So, basically no more holding down the SHIFT button while plugging in external drives (which, by the way, blocks both auto-run and auto-play, and as far as I know, and always has). For full coverage, install the update and make the above registry alteration--no auto-run or auto-play on CDs/DVDs or external drives and no holding SHIFT.

    5. Re:What about AutoPlay? by Culture20 · · Score: 1
    6. Re:What about AutoPlay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's easy enough to manipulate a USB device in such a way as to make Windows believe it is a CD - Most "secure" USB drives, the now defunct U3 drives and other media do this now. So this really doesn't solve that problem.

    7. Re:What about AutoPlay? by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      According to the MS article thing on it, that won't happen anymore. Autorun only happens for CD/DVD discs now. In fact this update SPECIFICALLY targets thumb drives for disabling autorun (though it affects all non-disc drives).

      So if someone wants to start spreading malware and can't use USB drives, they need to start sending out CD/DVD disks to every house hold possible, potentially with some offer to the reciever of getting something for free if they put the disk in their drive.

      Oh hang on, I think AOL did that a few years ago.

  10. HA-Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ;
    ;
    autorun=NelsonMunt.exe

  11. not the same thing this is just takeing away a aut by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    not the same thing this is just taking away auto running you can still run stuff manually and the up date is not forced on you.

  12. What about Autoplay by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    XP also has Autoplay which can also be coerced into doing nefarious things. Is that taken care of as well?

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:What about Autoplay by JoltinJoe77 · · Score: 1

      Yes, this update specifically updates autoplay's autorun functionality. You might be thinking of other types of "autoruns" such as the run key in the registry, etc, but those are out of scope for this update.

  13. How does autorun get you a virus? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Unless it's from an infected USB drive I guess...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:How does autorun get you a virus? by pz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or an infected CD-ROM or DVD, etc. Or the infected ISO you downloaded and mounted as a drive. Or the network drive that was just mounted. Or your MP3 player mounted in UMS mode. Or an infected external drive. Or a CF or SD/SDHC card mounted through a USB adapter. Or ...

      You get the picture. Auto-Run was a bad idea. I'm glad they disabled it.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    2. Re:How does autorun get you a virus? by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Can anyone say Sony Root Kit? Disabling autorun was a good (if long overdue) idea but it's like closing the barn door after the horses have been let out.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    3. Re:How does autorun get you a virus? by bananaendian · · Score: 1

      it does not impact "shiny media" such as CDs or DVDs that contain Autorun files. We are aware that someone could write malware to take advantage of that, but we haven't seen it in the wild. (We also think malware on shiny media would be less likely to have widespread impact, because people burn CDs less often than they insert USB drives.)

      They are just messing with windows registry settings for autorun. Any admin concerned with security has already done this manually since conflicker.

      The only sure way to kill this vector for infection is :

      REGEDIT4
      [HKEY_LOCALMACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\IniFileMapping\Autorun.inf]
      @="@SYS:DoesNotExist"

      --
      www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
    4. Re:How does autorun get you a virus? by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      Autorun as not a bad idea. It was a very good idea that was badly implemented. For any media, there is no reason that the autorun needed to run an executable. It could have very easily have used an OS supplied splash screen that used an ini to supply text, a graphic and a few launch buttons. That is all most autoruns do anyway. By using the OS's executable, it would have made it as secure as any other application that could display a graphic and text. Since IE was in the OS and could do both, the OS supplied autolauncher would not make the system any less secure than not having it at all. For writable media, the OS should let you generate an encrypted key that gets written to the media authorizing it to autolaunch an actual executable.

    5. Re:How does autorun get you a virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

    6. Re:How does autorun get you a virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean as secure as invoking other buffer overflow prone User32.dll code?

    7. Re:How does autorun get you a virus? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Or it could provide a web page that is automatically opened in the browser.

      Microsoft would never allow that however, as it would make it trivial for the disks to work in other operating systems. Can't have that, can we?

    8. Re:How does autorun get you a virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supplying text and graphic is already problematic, as is displaying the custom icon for the drive, because any of them could trigger a buffer overflow.

    9. Re:How does autorun get you a virus? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Since your web browser is dramatically more complex than any of that, your point is like pissing in the ocean. If you had any real concern that supplying text and graphics was a serious threat, you would not have been able to read this message, as you have allowed me and thousands of other Slashdot users to feed text into your system that could trigger a buffer overflow. "as is displaying a custom icon' is redundant to supplying graphics, as an icon IS a graphic.

      So, no. Supplying text and graphic is not 'problematic'. It is only problematic if it poorly implemented. If MS really decides that text and graphic really are problematic and should not be allowed, Windows simply will cease to exist, as you won't have a PC anymore, you will have a radio.

    10. Re:How does autorun get you a virus? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      If supplying your system with text and graphics is going to cause a User32.dll buffer overflow, then you should stop reading Slashdot, as I just put text into your system. Since you are reading this, you clearly believe that third party text can be delivered to your system without it being a serious threat to you.

  14. Sony will be annoyed by Ynot_82 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Their CD rootkits won't run automatically

    Bet you there's a super-secret way to re-enable autorun on a specific medium for just such reasons
    (which will be discovered and exploited by malware writers)

    1. Re:Sony will be annoyed by Centurix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wonder if they've disabled the fetching of custom icon files from the drive as you insert it. Nice place to find buffer overflows.

      --
      Task Mangler
    2. Re:Sony will be annoyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this only affects USB drives and similar. CD and DVD autorun still works like normal.

      So don't worry, Sony can rest assured that their rootkits still work like normal.

    3. Re:Sony will be annoyed by ILuvRamen · · Score: 4, Informative

      actually the update, which I just downloaded, states in the summary that it disables autorun for all devices except CD and DVD drives. At least it'll kill USB drive viruses and the even worse autolaunching U3 crapware on some USB drives lol.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    4. Re:Sony will be annoyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres been a way to redirect any query for autorun.inf to the void, thus effectively removing the feature and all its implication, if they're doing it that way it will solve the icon problem as well.

      http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA09-020A.html - see solution #III

    5. Re:Sony will be annoyed by woolpert · · Score: 2

      At least it'll kill USB drive viruses and the even worse autolaunching U3 crapware on some USB drives lol.

      Nope. U3 "crapware" works because a U3 flash drive mounts with two USB endpoints, one of them identifying itself as a CD drive. All the autorun "magic" of U3 happens from the CD-ROM endpoint.

    6. Re:Sony will be annoyed by Adayse · · Score: 1

      If they did that it would slow my illiterate youngsters down. Might make them better at their letters though.

    7. Re:Sony will be annoyed by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Actually the U3 drives give USB identifiers claiming to be CD drives. One partition acts like a read-only CD drive while the other is a read/write removable volume. Unfortunately, these pieces of junk will continue to work.

      Its a real shame there isn't some standards based USB drive encryption that 'just works' on all platforms. Would it kill the industry to just do simple AES encryption and have a mandatory 8 character or more passphrase?

    8. Re:Sony will be annoyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm actually U3 will still run as the hardware EMULATES a usb hub with a usb cd-rom being attached which then causes it to autorun.

    9. Re:Sony will be annoyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the U3 crapware is on an emulated CD drive so it'll probably still autorun!

    10. Re:Sony will be annoyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one of them identifying itself as a CD drive

      Why can't malware do this as well?

    11. Re:Sony will be annoyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because malware isn't hardware (yet).

      The part you failed to quote is the reason.

  15. Flashback to the 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Autorun was one of the main reasons Amiga was the darling of the virus writers and Windows just carried on the tradition. Here it took them two decades to finally throw in the towel. That's stubborn.

    1. Re:Flashback to the 80s by ewhac · · Score: 1

      Autorun was one of the main reasons Amiga was the darling of the virus writers and Windows just carried on the tradition.

      It's obvious why you're an AC -- you have no smegging idea what you're talking about.

      Amiga had autorun to the same extent DOS did. There was a bootblock that contained a small snippet of binary code to get the machine booted and running. This bootblock was not accessible via the filesystem, and only specialized tools could write there.

      In other words, it was exactly analogous to the bootblock/partition table that's on the hard disk you have today.

      Yes, virus writers exploited this feature on Amiga, exactly as they exploited it on DOS and Windows.

      Schwab

  16. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Bobakitoo · · Score: 0

    Agree. Now Windows is not easy as advertised. I cannot just insert the CD and have it work like magic!

    Seriously, autorun is full of shit and i always disabled it when i had a windows workstation. Microsoft is such a bad corporate citizen, it deserve to be sued and sued for all the harm it did. I do hope there is a case for this. For great justice ..or for the LULZ.

  17. Still available for CDs and DVDs. by Kippesoep · · Score: 2
    This is only for things like USB sticks etc. It's not like every CD-ROM that John W. Clueless has ever bought is suddenly going to stop auto-running. From the original source:

    ...so this update does not turn off the feature entirely. For example, it does not impact "shiny media" such as CDs or DVDs that contain Autorun files.

    I for one think this is a sensible thing to do.

    1. Re:Still available for CDs and DVDs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like when MS shipped a shitload of CD's with a trojan on them

    2. Re:Still available for CDs and DVDs. by bananaendian · · Score: 1

      How about also linking to the original source.

      Who reads slashdot TFA:s anyway these days? All they do is linkfuck you into some blogfarm multipage sprawl with regurgitated 'content' from the actual source. Most of the time you have to google the original source: corporate press-release, university research group submission etc. because they can't be bothered to put in an actual hyper-link to their hyper-fucking-document!

      Sincerely TimBL

      --
      www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
    3. Re:Still available for CDs and DVDs. by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Thank you. This was what I was wondering about and TFA implies CDs and DVDs are also affected.

      I know quite a few people who would be baffled by running a CD manually, though they're competent in other ways. I can just imagine the increase in tech support calls if CDs and DVDs were affected.

  18. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Palpatine_li · · Score: 1

    Trolling? Window update is NOT mandatory. You can choose not to install a specific fix and then it will not prompt you for it in the future. It's not like PS3, where you have to update to play online.

  19. Knowledge Base references by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is an update to KB967940, regarding the patch offered in KB971029 going to automatic updates.

    I had to look up the numbers, so I thought I'd just share, and save anyone else the trouble.

    1. Re:Knowledge Base references by initialE · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    2. Re:Knowledge Base references by initialE · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hate to reply to myself, but this http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2011/02/08/breaking-up-the-romance-between-malware-and-autorun.aspx needs a read too. It plots the relationship between autorun and malware. Interesting how Microsoft still considers this a "non-security related update", as autorun has been an easy vector with which to poison your windows installation. Important to note that autorun will still work as expected on CD and DVD media, meaning Sony Rootkits are still going to be installed on your computer.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    3. Re:Knowledge Base references by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      It is a feature (regardless of how ill thoughtout a feature), disabling that feature shouldn't and doesn't constitute a security update, just like turning off the internet for a user incapable of safely surfing while fantastic for security would also not be considered a security update.

    4. Re:Knowledge Base references by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubleclicking on executables also starts viruses, and should be disabled for all OSes, and should be considered a "high priority" update.

      Just because a convenience feature was used for malicious purposes doesn't mean the original feature wasn't useful at some point.

  20. Re:not the same thing this is just takeing away a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Whoosh.

  21. Correction:What about AutoPlay? by grayn0de · · Score: 1

    That is what I gathered from the article. For instance, you pop your new software disc into the optic drive and are prompted with the installer. This will not happen, post update.

    You pop in your external harddrive and are prompted with the installer for the manufacturers proprietary software... Parent was a bad example.

  22. Why only XP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see how the situation would be any better in Vista or Win 7, other than the fact they are theoretically more secure. Or do they "solve" the problem in Vista/Win 7 by popping up a nagging warning box in addition to the silly task window that I never used in XP?

    1. Re:Why only XP? by c0lo · · Score: 0
      You ask "Why only XP?" ??? I'm asking "why only autorun?"

      Like in "Why MS kills only autorun? There are plenty other things that need killing, Vista included".

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Why only XP? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Because autorun doesn't happen by default in Vista and Win 7. That "task window" you mention appears for media that would have autorun in previous editions of Windows, and basically removes the security problems.

      And if you found it naggy then turn it off. Personally, I really like it. And I think the moving of the autorun functionality to the task window is a pretty good compromise between the convenience aspect of autorun and the security enhancement of not autorunning.

      About the only thing that immediately comes to mind in terms of what I would improve is to add the ability to say "always take this action for this particular volume". Then I could tell it to never do anything when I plug in my camera for instance, but to open that dialog when I put in my USB stick. I don't know how to do that.

    3. Re:Why only XP? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Being able to permanently authorize a volume would make it 99.9% as convenient as not having the dialog box at all, and would give 100% of the security.

    4. Re:Why only XP? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Why, do your pressed CDs regularly change their contents?

    5. Re:Why only XP? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I miss spoke. I should not have said "at all". I meant that if you could authorize the volume, you would not need the dialog AFTER that. I was agreeing with you.

    6. Re:Why only XP? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Ah, no worries. I see what you meant... I read the "and 100% of the security" as a bit of sarcasm, and referring to "100% of the sarcasm of the old XP way (not having the dialog box)."

  23. Not where I work... by voxra · · Score: 1

    A computer that would run owt from a CD, unchallenged, needs her head's examined (sorry Sian Massey).

  24. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also whoosh.

  25. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Pharmboy · · Score: 0

    Since it is not considered a "security update", you can always not install it. Or uninstall it easily from the built in "add/remove programs" menu in the control panel.

    This is not remotely the same thing as your strawman argument makes it out to be.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  26. 7 and Vista still vulnerable by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Informative

    Interesting that this bugfix was released only for XP. In 7, there's a dialog, but autorun.inf can show anything there, so most users will be just as easily fooled.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:7 and Vista still vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only half accurate. The update was released for Vista also, as well as Server 2003/8.

      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/971029

      Also, it has always been possible on XP and Server 2003 domains to disable autorun in group policy. Anyone with Win7 can (and should) still do that.

    2. Re:7 and Vista still vulnerable by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Also, it has always been possible on XP and Server 2003 domains to disable autorun in group policy.

      They fixed that then? Because it never really disabled anything. You had to create a GPO to change the registries so that any file named autorun.inf couldn't be accessed. The nuclear option was the only option that worked.

    3. Re:7 and Vista still vulnerable by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Not always. a year or so ago Windows XP did not completely implement that policy. That is, it would not auto run it, but would still read the autorun.inf file and let it change/replace the context menu and the default behavior when you double click on the drive icon. So a virus could still be unintentionally started by double clicking the drive icon. A registry hack was needed to prevent windows from reading autorun.inf. Later, Microsoft released an update that made Windows work as intended with the autorun.in file, but you had to turn that behavior on in the registry (the setting was named HonorAutoRunSetting).

    4. Re:7 and Vista still vulnerable by Tacvek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The exact set of changes being offered here were a part of Windows 7 from day one. Windows 7 completely ignores the "Open=" entires in any autorun.inf file except for those loaded in devices that claim to be optical media. (So CDs and DVDs will still show the autorun option in the autoplay menu, as will U3 style flash drives, etc)

      This is just a patch to older systems to include the same behavior.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    5. Re:7 and Vista still vulnerable by Manip · · Score: 4, Informative

      This patch turns XP's autorun into the Windows Vista/7 version. The dialog will appear. Right now on XP programs will launch without any user interaction at all...

    6. Re:7 and Vista still vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that this bugfix was released only for XP. In 7, there's a dialog, but autorun.inf can show anything there, so most users will be just as easily fooled.

      Uhm. you are saying there isn't much difference between silent drive-by install and user prompted/approved install? You then could say "the file on the disc can show anything, so most users will be just as easily fooled.". And you are in effect saying that OSX/Linux running as users with admin prompts when needed doesn't really help much..

    7. Re:7 and Vista still vulnerable by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      XP can autorun programs without any interaction. However, prior to this patch, you could set it to not autorun or to display a dialog box of the available options. The latter is what I use. I have a USB drive with a bunch of portable apps. When I plug it in, the Portable Apps menu system is one of the options to choose from. I select that and I'm good to go. If, for some reason, I didn't want to autorun anything, I could just click "cancel" and nothing will run. To me, this seems like the best option available. Yes, some malware authors could craft autorun options to trick users into running their programs, but that's a social hack more than an OS hack. You can only protect the user so far. Eventually, they need to take responsibility for their own actions.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:7 and Vista still vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So inserting something into your computer isn't considered user interaction?

    9. Re:7 and Vista still vulnerable by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      Howsabout if you merely want to backup some stuff from the computer to a USB key?

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    10. Re:7 and Vista still vulnerable by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      When you put a music CD in your drive do you expect it to run executable code (that potentially roots your windows install)? Of course not. Media has long been used more for file storage than for executables/installs, even moreso now that installation discs are out of date by the time they ship.

  27. "shiny media" not affected, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or an infected CD-ROM or DVD, etc. Or the infected ISO you downloaded and mounted as a drive.

    Presuming it's mounted as an optical drive, all of the aforementioned are not affected by this update. You have to follow a few links to find it, but...
    http://blogs.technet.com/b/msrc/archive/2011/02/04/deeper-insight-into-the-security-advisory-967940-update.aspx

    it does not impact "shiny media" such as CDs or DVDs that contain Autorun files. We are aware that someone could write malware to take advantage of that, but we haven't seen it in the wild. (We also think malware on shiny media would be less likely to have widespread impact, because people burn CDs less often than they insert USB drives.)

  28. We Need: Verify hardware prior to system start! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The kernel should include rootkit/trojan protection with frequent updates and comparison of signatures of valid firmware on PCI, AGP, etc. including router firmware. Enough of the malware scanner updates, the system should ship and run with powerful scans each boot, complete with a BIOS checksum verification.

    The dirty malware which survives drive wipes hides in BIOS and PCI cards, but how many antiviruses protect against PCI card attacks? Tell me of one and of how they do it, I've noted ZERO so far.

    Only when a system and all of its HARDWARE firmware is checked and verified EACH BOOT, should an OS load if security matters at all.

    Sadly, how many router and pci cards (and other hardware like dvd drives) ship with checksums and firmware checksums and/or verified gpg signed files?

    The state of HARDWARE security is pitiful! Some BIOS allows you to enable protection against writes, but most do not, this in and of itself could be a conspiracy.

    When an OS starts and verifies ALL devices attached, prior to autoloading ANYTHING, then and only then will I begin to have faith in the security process of mainstream IT.

    1. Re:We Need: Verify hardware prior to system start! by shentino · · Score: 1

      Blue Pill.

  29. Microsoft's not the only one by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    The thing that boggles my mind is Apple has 'Open "safe" files after downloading' as the default for Safari (and yes, "safe" is in quotation marks in the preferences)! I have to remember to uncheck it every time I use a new Mac.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Microsoft's not the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the mac it is opening a file not launching an unknown piece of software. It may not be to your taste but it's not quite the same thing.

    2. Re:Microsoft's not the only one by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      On the mac it is opening a file not launching an unknown piece of software. It may not be to your taste but it's not quite the same thing.

      It is when that's a PDF file exploiting the latest hole in Adobe's PDF viewer.

    3. Re:Microsoft's not the only one by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Does anybody actually use Adobe for PDF? I have to remember to always throw away the plugins from the library folder after installing any CS version because they don't work with Firefox, crash Safari and generally are very slow compared to Preview - loading a 120MB program to view a PDF is idiotic.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  30. Optional for 7 and vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can pull the autoupdate disable from the optional updates.

  31. Incomplete Solution by Rizimar · · Score: 1

    Sure, Auto-Run can help execute malicious code. But what's stopping users from navigating to that CD or flash drive and executing the code themselves? Aren't they the ones connecting the devices or putting the disks in their computer in the first place?

    I know plenty of people who try to do things like download MP3s, somehow end up downloading and running viruses on their machines instead. I'm kind of seeing this as a similar problem. Unfortunately, there isn't a universally-satisfactory solution to these sorts of incidents on the software level: disabling autorun for everyone will take away the ability to do something like pop in an audio CD and have it play right away. Enforcing the use of antivirus software to catch all potentially malicious code can be taxing on older systems. Blocking the execution of programs when they're starting up until the user clicks an "Allow" button can be frustrating for anyone wanting to perform a few simple tasks. These features may prevent something bad from happening, but until that thing happens, the average user will probably find them to be annoying and disable them. Microsoft seems to think that it's best to hold the hands of those who may not entirely know better and take away this feature completely when they should just make an attempt to educate their users as to why they should be cautious when having auto-run enabled to keep them aware.

    Then again, as this is an optional update, I could just be blowing smoke. Still, an update that removes a feature doesn't seem like the optimal solution.

    1. Re:Incomplete Solution by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      But what's stopping users from navigating to that CD or flash drive and executing the code themselves? Aren't they the ones connecting the devices or putting the disks in their computer in the first place?

      Nothing, but a lot of the infections were due to unintentional activations of the virus. Insert flash drive, go to My Computer and double click on the icon, you have a virus. OTOH, some people actually know that they should not double click on executable files if they do not know what the file does.

    2. Re:Incomplete Solution by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      they should just make an attempt to educate their users as to why they should be cautious when having auto-run enabled to keep them aware.

      PC users have been living with viruses and other malware for, what, over 30 years now? And still your average user will happily double-click boobies.exe in his inbox.

      There's no real solution to PBKAC. At best you can mitigate by treating the user as a 3 year old, which is the iOS approach - it works, but a lot of power users are understandably annoyed by it.

  32. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

    Trolling? Window update is NOT mandatory. You can choose not to install a specific fix and then it will not prompt you for it in the future. It's not like PS3, where you have to update to play online.

    Hmmmm.... Seems you must be unable to recognize sarcasm. And here I thought I was humorless. ;)

    --
    "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
  33. AutoRun was always broken by scdeimos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) has been around longer than Internet Explorer, I could never understand why autorun.inf files weren't signed. Didn't Microsoft learn from all the problems induced by autorun-like behaviours on Amiga and Macintosh?

    Up until about MacOS 8 (I think) the Finder used to automatically execute .CODE resources in files on disk/HDD/CD whenever a new disc came online which is how most Mac viruses got propagated.

    1. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As the inventor of AutoRun (Microsoft even contacted me for prior art when they were sued over it) it saddens me to have it killed off like this.

      The original autorunner on the Amiga had a UI element to easily toggle it on/off for a drive, which is about as secure as trusting users not to just click on spyware.exe anyway. You can't protect users from running spyware if they are careless, but you can make it easy for them to control the behavior. Instead Microsoft buried the controls and made it next to impossible to turn off for a particular disk... I think you could disable it by holding shift, or alt, or control, or something. Nobody can remember that and there's no indication that it's working.

      Back in the days of swapping actual disks because there was no HD or it was tiny autorun was an awesome tool, and it's still a nice convenience for users to install drivers, etc. It didn't need to be such a security problem like it was on Windows.

    2. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you Dave?

    3. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what it's worth, I'm not installing the update.

      AutoRun works perfectly fine for me. If it ain't broke, I ain't gonna fix it. I don't insert random USB drives into my computer, and if I insert a CD or DVD, it's probably because I intend to install whatever's on it, so go ahead and save me an extra click.

      Oh, and it's SHIFT that you hold down to bypass AutoRun on a CD/DVD. I do it all the time when I'm just browsing a disc without intending to install what's on it.

    4. Re:AutoRun was always broken by JoltinJoe77 · · Score: 1

      The recent stuxnet virus revealed that even PKI isn't foolproof, as someone issued stuxnet a valid verified realtek signature so that autorun could direct Windows to install the virus as a trusted signed-driver. Even companies that tried to be safe by enforcing policies that only allowed signed-drivers from trusted publishers on their systems were suddenly vulnerable. The next stop in raising the bar is to simply not allow autoruns. Malware authors kill all our fun features. :(

    5. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could never understand why autorun.inf files weren't signed.

      Signed with whose key? Microsoft's?
      No autorun is definitely better than that can of worms.

    6. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude! You have a cool story. We hear about the evil of Microsoft. I'd love to hear this story.

    7. Re:AutoRun was always broken by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. (Even though we can't verify that the parent actually invented AutoRun, it's interesting regardless.)

    8. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Pentium100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Autorun made some sense when it worked only on CD-ROM disks, though sometimes it still was annoying (start a game, the game asks for the CD, insert the CD and the installer starts - this on slow PCs with little memory and slow CD drives). It did not work on floppies, so maybe someone saw that it would be bad. When USB flash drives replaced floppies in every day use it was only a matter of time before virus writers took advantage of Autorun.

    9. Re:AutoRun was always broken by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Instead Microsoft buried the controls and made it next to impossible to turn off for a particular disk... I think you could disable it by holding shift, or alt, or control, or something. Nobody can remember that and there's no indication that it's working.

      Sure there is. You get a dialog that pops up about "filter keys".

      I'm not sure exactly what that has to do with autorun though.

      Disclaimer: the content of this post is sarcastic.

    10. Re:AutoRun was always broken by yuhong · · Score: 1

      When USB flash drives replaced floppies in every day use

      And support for what was renamed AutoPlay was added to XP.

    11. Re:AutoRun was always broken by rallymatte · · Score: 2

      Sounds nice, but a little bit nostalgic to me.
      Suppose you do mention that it was an awesome tool and that it's only nice at best these days, but I say, get rid of it. No need really. Pop up a window with the disk, disk image or whatever it might be and let the user decide what to do.
      Works rather well on my mac, it even works really well for my dad now that he's gone over to Mac, and I assure you, he's not that technical.

    12. Re:AutoRun was always broken by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      Pop up a window with the disk, disk image or whatever it might be and let the user decide what to do.

      but, but... Microsoft's real customers won't be able to install their copyright "protection" drivers then... you know, Sony et al...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    13. Re:AutoRun was always broken by ztransform · · Score: 0

      As the inventor of AutoRun

      F*** you as*h**e!

      I've been trying to figure out how to disable autorun ever since Windows started forcing it upon us.

      Dare you to reveal your true identity!

    14. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Alt0n · · Score: 1

      Because 90% of them look like this?

      [autorun]
      OPEN=SETUP.EXE
      ICON=SETUP.EXE,0

      ;-)
      Seriously though, prompting to execute an unsigned setup.exe might weaken this particular line of attack.

      --
      -- Foolproof systems do not take into account the ingenuity of fools.
    15. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      You hold down the shift key while inserting/attaching the disc.

      You're correct in that the setting to disable it is buried, and I can't remember where it is - though it's one of the first things I turn off on a new XP install so I've not even looked for it in about 5 years.

    16. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "game asks/installer still starts" behavior is a bug in the game. They've failed to (correctly) implement IQueryCancelAutoPlay. A proper game would suppress autoplay after asking for a DVD until seeing the game DVD.

      As for Autorun not working on floppies, well, that's not a Microsoft design decision. Autorun triggers on the insertion notification, and most floppy drives don't have those. That's why you had to hit any key after changing a floppy in a multi-disk installer.

    17. Re:AutoRun was always broken by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's buried in the fucking registry. You can access it through the GUI only by downloading Tweak UI from Microsoft, which is at least free. Or by using group policies. here is a trivially located MS KB article on the subject.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:AutoRun was always broken by owlstead · · Score: 1

      PKI was *never* foolproof. Handing out certificates or signing stuff can be useful, but as long as private keys can be stolen, and as long as they are used to sign more than one application, and as long as anybody cannot be trusted forever, and as long as certificate revocation is not on by default, they are far-far away from being foolproof. Of course, the malicious ActiveX software that got signed by a key that could not be disabled was already a good demonstration of the problems of PKI (and good key management in general).

    19. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Threni · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? It's simple - look at this page:

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

      Don't forget to read the whole page first, including hiliarious "faq" questions like "Why am I being redirected to update 967715 when I was looking for update 953252?".

    20. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      The "game asks/installer still starts" behavior is a bug in the game. They've failed to (correctly) implement IQueryCancelAutoPlay. A proper game would suppress autoplay after asking for a DVD until seeing the game DVD.

      May be, but with disabled Autorun I can just launch the setup.exe file on the CD if I want to.

      I do not like things auto starting when I insert a CD. Or connect to the internet (in case where the connection is not always-on). My CD player requires me to press play after I insert the CD, which is good. Windows wants to automatically start playing a music CD, which is not good. Nobody ever thought that I might insert the CD now to play it later?

      As for Autorun not working on floppies, well, that's not a Microsoft design decision. Autorun triggers on the insertion notification, and most floppy drives don't have those. That's why you had to hit any key after changing a floppy in a multi-disk installer.

      Hmm... So I gave Microsoft too much credit. OTOH, if Autorun was possible on floppies, the Autorun viruses would have started to spread much earlier and the Autorun would have been already disabled by the time USB flash drives became popular.

    21. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pardon me, but features such as AutoRun ranks in there with dialog boxes, pop-up windows, windows stealing focus even though you've "fixed" it in the registry, baloon boxes from the taskbar, multiple control panel menus and "helpful context", and other "automagic annoyances". That AutoRun is a security hole makes it even worse, but how can someone in their right minds not see what a tragedy Windows Vista and 7 UI has become?

      This is a small step in the right direction, but it doesn't make that much difference concerning the giant leaps in the wrong direction with Vista and Windows 7.

      Posting anon because of /. herd-think and sceptical blinders. F u stupid moderation abusers.

    22. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the inventor of AutoRun... [Amiga,awesome]... it didn't need to be such a security problem like it was on Windows.

      And you still didn't learn: Automatically executed code from unknown origin is from a design point of view an #epicfail. There is no technical solution that can help, in the past filtering on transport media, user preferences and digital signatures have not changed the game. Not convinced? The Windows "trust chain" is so weak, that even digital signatures have not prevented the latest worms. Having a single point of failure in a often used system is not a good idea, because when your protection mechanism fails the user will not even be aware of 3rd party software execution.

      /M

    23. Re:AutoRun was always broken by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Insightful, really? What good would signing .inf files actually do, if every developer or installer had to have a key to do so with? Would that not leak out a lot quicker than Sony's key?

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    24. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your computing privileges should be taken away permanently for thinking up such an insidious feature.

    25. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can stop auto run this way http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows/disable-autoplay-of-audio-cds-and-usb-drives/ with group policy editor. Is this not enough?

    26. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part about holding Shift to disable AutoRun is when you've been holding it for eight seconds and stickykeys or whatever turns on.

      Of course, you can get around that by lifting up and pressing again. As long as you don't do it at exactly the wrong moment. And as long as you don't do that more than twice (like for a slow CD drive spinning up), because then you've pressed shift 3 times and ANOTHER accessibility feature helpfully turns itself on.

    27. Re:AutoRun was always broken by illtud · · Score: 1

      It did not work on floppies, so maybe someone saw that it would be bad.

      No, floppies had no signal that a disk had been inserted, the OS had to try the drive to check that it had a disk (hence the grinding floppy action as a first thing in a boot - in case you wanted to boot from a floppy). Macs always had floppy insertion notification. The later (and failed) LS-120 (aka superdisk, 120MB floppy drives - I had one!) had it for PCs as well, and could read normal floppies, so at one point I had a linux system that automounted floppies on insert.

      But no, it wasn't an OS design decision to not have autorun on floppies.

    28. Re:AutoRun was always broken by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I have a LS120 drive too (and since I have disabled autorun I wouldn't know if it worked on LS120).

      But no, it wasn't an OS design decision to not have autorun on floppies.

      So I gave Microsoft too much credit.

    29. Re:AutoRun was always broken by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      I've always thought of autorun as a ridiculously obvious attack vector. But you have a good point, in that once upon a time the only CDs available were software (that you were going to execute anyway) and music CDs (whose creators were not malevolently-inclined towards their users). Around 1998 or 2000 when CD-R drives were in every computer, that's when MS should have removed autorun or done this prompt-ever-time fix. I wonder how many corporate systems were infiltrated simply by leaving an unlabeled CD-R on someone's desk, or mailing them one.

  34. it's not only XP by story645 · · Score: 1

    I run vista and I'm installing it right now, using windows update. I think the summary's just bad or people focused on XP 'cause so many of the attacks are geared towards it (the computers at my school get infected all the time through USBs).

    --
    open source modern art: laser taggi
  35. Sysinternals Stuffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using sysinternals stuff seemingly forever. Mark Russinovich, he of Sony rootkit fame, has made his utilities available for download since the web was young. Many of the utilities, such as Procmonitor, aren't for neophytes, but Process Explorer and autorun should be on every windows box. Please note I'm not well informed as to the details of the story and am just throwing the above out there should it be of benefit to anyone.

  36. The Feature Was Actually Removed Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft designers felt it was too "Ubuntu-like."

  37. auto run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's always something..if it's not one thing it's another..you gotta take the bad with the good...

    "Doctors are whippersnappers in ironed white coats

    who spy up your rectums and look down your throats

    And press you and poke you with sterilized tools

    And stab at solutions that pacify fools.

    I used to revere them and do what they said

    Till I learned what they learned on was already dead."

                                                                                  -poem by Gilda Radner

  38. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it makes you feel any better, you got me to laugh. I didn't seriously think you were standing up for that other company.

    Now how the heck do I get the "bonus software" on this hot new pop audio CD from $corporate_label_x to install on my system? Root-kit? what's that? Is that what the dentist uses to perform a root-canal?

  39. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice of them to FINALLY remove this "feature". Seems a little late now though, you can't even buy machines with Windows XP still on them...

  40. Yeah by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    And the villagers rejoiced.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  41. This was a needful thing. by symbolset · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will nobody else say it? Ok, I'll say it without inserting some criticism about the timing, the need for this change, or whatever.

    This needed to be done. The patch needed to be the default. The patch is here and it provides an improvement on the Windows experience not only for the Windows users, but for those of us who share an Internet with them.

    So thank you, Microsoft, for doing the right thing.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:This was a needful thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BLASPHEMY!

    2. Re:This was a needful thing. by phntm · · Score: 1

      FU M$
      First you bought off the U3 technology I actually used, which made sandisk stop make these wonderful drives with a cd partition
      Now you put the nail in the coffin by killing off autorun?
      what's next? kill of XP altogether?!

    3. Re:This was a needful thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and I should thank Congress for protecting me from evils of comingling investment and depository banking, too. The fact that Microsoft propped open the backdoor is ridiculous on the face of it. Asking me to thank them for abating the pain is just stupid.

    4. Re:This was a needful thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for doing the obvious after so many fscking years?

    5. Re:This was a needful thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So no more stux bot auto run on XP?

      How are they going to infect future plants? Can't run the malware automagically from a usb drive anymore (assuming this patch is installed).

    6. Re:This was a needful thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So thank you, Microsoft, for doing the right thing.

      It only took them 9 years and a few months.

      Yay.

  42. misleading; just disabled for *some* media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've only disabled it for media that appear not to be "optical". CDs, DVDs, and the partitions on "U3" thumb drives that pretend to be CD-ROM drives will still trigger AutoRun. For more authoritative info, see Adam Shostack's blog post: http://blogs.technet.com/b/msrc/archive/2011/02/08/deeper-insight-into-the-security-advisory-967940-update.aspx

  43. non-security updates don't always auto-update by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Informative

    non-security updates don't always auto-update. This will remain an attack vector until they declare it a security update.

  44. And what about the U3 style CD-ROM automount? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't kill this, what's to stop a virus from creating the same fake CD-ROM drive and auto-running from there?

    1. Re:And what about the U3 style CD-ROM automount? by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Creating a fake optical drive requires hardware support. However, it is true that nothing prevents a virus from replacing the U3 drive's ISO with malware, which would then autorun. For some crazy reason, on most U3 drives the ISO is stored in flash and is updatable, although they don't make it particularly easy to discover how to write a new image.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    2. Re:And what about the U3 style CD-ROM automount? by bdo19 · · Score: 1

      U3 enabled flash drives emulate a CD-ROM from the *hardware* level - it's not just software on the drive, but actually seems to appear on the USB bus as a CD-ROM as well as a flash drive. So a virus on a standard flash drive couldn't do this. Perhaps the contents of the emulated CD-ROM on a U3 drive could be hacked to load a virus, but that part of the drive is not user-writable in any apparent way, so it wouldn't be trivial.

    3. Re:And what about the U3 style CD-ROM automount? by aiht · · Score: 1

      At which point, it's probably easier to simply burn a CDR with the virus on it.

  45. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

    Trolling? Window update is NOT mandatory. You can choose not to install a specific fix and then it will not prompt you for it in the future. It's not like PS3, where you have to update to play online.

    Hmmmm.... Seems you must be unable to recognize sarcasm. And here I thought I was humorless. ;)

    [sarcasm] He has auto-sarcasm turned of, you insensitive clod! [/sarcasm]

  46. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Autorun is not a bad idea. It has just been badly implemented. MS obviously found it easier to just disable it than to make it secure.

  47. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure you are about to be sued by SONY for using their name in a derogatory manner.
    Out of curiousity, would their CD root kit have had any traction, if autorun had already been disabled?

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

    As the others have said, you can not install the update. You can uninstall the update. You can, you know, turn autoplay back on.

    But...really? You bought windows for autoplay? I guess clicking on [insert setup.exe-like autorun program here] is too much for some people.

    Also...bait and switch on a program released about a decade ago?

  49. Wheres the link for the update? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cant find the link in the article. And google returns this http://support.microsoft.com/kb/967715 but that is for network drives.

  50. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Palpatine_li · · Score: 1

    bad analogy destroys sarcasm. But since you get 5 funny, I have to admit that sometimes bad sarcasm can still be funny sarcasm.

  51. Micorsoft has to accomodate stupidity by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    Microsoft had to create autorun because too many people are too stupid to figure out how to navigate somewhere and find the file they need. Seriously.

    A couple of years ago I copied a bunch of files onto a CD for my wife's boss. The next day she calls me from work -- he can't figure out how to access the files (this is a guy with some pretty substantial education). So I say "just tell him to copy the files from the CD to his hard drive". He literally had no idea how to do that. I refused to play along and spell out every exact step required and I just kept saying "I don't know any other way to explain it -- just copy the files from the CD to the hard drive." I don't know if he ever did it.

    1. Re:Micorsoft has to accomodate stupidity by Adayse · · Score: 1

      She calls you for help rather than solving it herself? You have a stupid wife and you picked her so you are stupid and probably gave your wife's boss a blank CD.

    2. Re:Micorsoft has to accomodate stupidity by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Education has never equated smart. Ever.

      I have to deal with professors and scientists on a regular basis. These people have multiple PHD's and have been in academia for decades... But they are dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to computers, using their phone, or even driving a car. I had to help one use a microwave oven once.

      Highly educated usually means they lack a LOT of education in everything outside of their study.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  52. Re:not the same thing this is just takeing away a by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

    Dude thanks for the belly-laugh. I needed that. ;)

    --
    Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
    Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
  53. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Double woosh

  54. Re:Opt-In option... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Micro$loth

    *sigh* We're really still doing this? Honestly?

  55. You don't understand it, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're confused about the reason for the feature, as you think it's to cope for ignorance. While that is a useful benefit, the REAL advantage is convenience. If I'm plugging in a USB stick, or inserting a CD or DVD, or anything else, most of the time I WANT something to pop up, to save me a step in enabling it or whatever.

    Think of it as a UI feature, rather than a user feature.

    Then you can get past your hang-ups and think of ways to make it work safely and effectively. And yes, Microsoft could have done a lot more in that regard to make things work better, but I don't see it just as a software issue. Some of the worst vulnerabilities are hardware ones instead.

  56. Re:not the same thing this is just takeing away a by psithurism · · Score: 1, Funny

    you can still run stuff manually

    Really? If an autorun menu doesn't pop up what do I do? How do I make the CD, y'know do stuff?

    and the up date is not forced on you

    Microsoft is pushing it on me. I think my computer gets those automatically. I can't make CD work and you want me to stop the whole of Microsoft pushing an update?

    I'm suing.

  57. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

    LOL. Seems to me you need to learn to recognize the difference between ffreeloader and nebaz. Nebaz is the funny man. I'm the humorless guy that can still recognize sarcasm....

    --
    "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
  58. Shouldn't that be... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...a car that would start its engine and ran straight into traffic as soon as anyone sat into it?

    It is auto-run after all...

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Shouldn't that be... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I think when someone takes a hold of the steering wheel. That would be more realistic I think.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    2. Re:Shouldn't that be... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      That would imply actually opening the USB drive. With auto-run you just plug it in.

      Perhaps, if we were to consider the USB drive as a suitcase, which you would place in your car's trunk or back seat?
      Out of which there would promptly jump out a midget that was hiding among your shirts and underwear all along - and drive away with your car. Wearing your underpants and shirts.
      Possibly even with your wallet and various forms of ID.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  59. Re:Shouldn't be necessary by Zomalaja · · Score: 2

    Don't post as AC, get a nickname. Maybe something with "pompous" in it is available.

  60. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by LocalH · · Score: 1

    Yeah, in a ten-year-old OS. I'd rather the people who might have been implementing a more secure XP Autorun instead do work on W7 or 8.

    --
    FC Closer
  61. The smartest don't use computers at all by judeancodersfront · · Score: 0

    I just stick an abacus up my asshole.

    1. Re:The smartest don't use computers at all by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      You must start working for the RIAA then, they constantly pull numbers out of their asses...

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  62. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Turned of what? :P

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  63. You Need to Format ... before you can use it. by xtracto · · Score: 1

    OR worse yet... what about the annoying message of You need to format the disk in drive X: before you can use it. It is so annoying that everytime I want to plug a HDD with half ext3 half ntfs partitions I have to see that annoying message.

     

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  64. Re:not the same thing this is just takeing away a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not the same thing this is just taking away auto running you can still run stuff manually and the up date is not forced on you.

    I have a disability that prevents me from manually running stuff from a CD, you insensitive clod!

  65. Re:not the same thing this is just takeing away a by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 1

    It doesn't stop autorun on CDs and other shiny media. What it now stops is autorun on portable USB drives and the like. See this El Reg article which is more enlightening than TFA.

  66. Re:FP by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

    A False Positive? Yeah, many autorun applications get that...

    --
    ics
  67. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    I'd give you that if I thought for a second we would see it in 7 or 8.

  68. Re:Shouldn't be necessary by ledow · · Score: 1

    Please, then, tell me how it is that every Windows network I've ever worked in / on or built in the last 15 years has succumbed to a virus on at least one client sooner or later, even if managed by a huge multi-national company? Could it be that antivirus is actually pretty worthless because it doesn't do its job as advertised?

    Back in my previous workplaces, we would refer to it as a "canary". When the antivirus was disabled and stopped talking back to the antivirus consoles on the server, we knew that machine was infected and would require reimaging. Viruses disabling or slipping past the antivirus without any other indication there was something wrong were very common. The antivirus itself ever only detected false positives and/or very trivial, fleeting "viruses" like a javascript malware page that only worked in IE (and we weren't using IE - it just saw it in the Firefox cache!).

    Antivirus is snake-oil. If you're relying on that to protect you against malware, good luck. Chances are that your antivirus will *not* catch the majority of viruses that you're likely to encounter. Go check out the statistics on VirusTotal.com - most antivirus programs, even the most up-to-date, can't even detect viruses that other antivirus do, let alone all the ones that sneak past ALL antivirus packages.

    Antivirus is a tool, not a cure. It's useful for detecting an existing virus infection. It does *not* prevent it, by any means. However, autorun being off can *totally* prevent an autorun-distributed virus.

    Viruses *work* by deliberately crashing, hanging, exploiting, etc. programs into order to execute code - in the process they then want to download more code, store it, modify the disk, trampoline onto another saved executable, etc. By the time something hits the disk, the virus is already executing, by the time something appears in the process list, the virus is already executing - and it *doesn't* necessarily mean that at any point any antivirus "hook" (like disk reads/writes, etc.) would even execute.

    Antivirus, generally, doesn't stop virus infections, it merely detects and/or cleans them. Decent security procedure (and proper programming) is the only thing that *stops* a virus - firewalls, least-privilege and turning off crap that wants to execute code.

  69. yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eventually

  70. Huh ? Wasn't that quite easy to do yourself ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I misunderstanding something here ? I thought that disabeling that was a just question of altering a registry-key. I did, and was never bothered by self-starting USB or CD media again.

    http://antivirus.about.com/od/securitytips/ht/autorun.htm

  71. Re:not the same thing this is just takeing away a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do I make the CD, y'know do stuff?

    You stroke it's back and ask really nicely.

    Microsoft is pushing it on me.

    Because they love you.

  72. That's why UAC was ripped a new one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why UAC was ripped a new one when it came out and nearly every day since: it pops up FAR TOO OFTEN. Therefore the user (again the vector), gets used to clicking "OK" on the UAC prompt because they had to do that to even mount the USB drive.

    UAC only helps if it is uncommon enough to be an ACTUAL warning, not just a pain in the arse you have to click over and over again to work on your machine as you intended.

  73. When do the fix the bigger hole in ALL OS's? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    Remove the "hide file extension" stupidity that makes it easy for trojans to get ran.

    Honestly, the manager that green-lighted that feature and continues to make it exist in the OS needs to be fired, tarred, feathered, and then put in stockades so the rest of us can do what we want to him.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:When do the fix the bigger hole in ALL OS's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. implement this in a linux desktop
      2. write article how it makes linux less secure
      3. wait for minor non security update for xp

    2. Re:When do the fix the bigger hole in ALL OS's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely AGREE.

    3. Re:When do the fix the bigger hole in ALL OS's? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      or ...remove file extensions completely!

      If you cannot tell the type of a file by looking in the file, then you are guessing ... does renaming hello.txt to hello.exe turn it into a valid program?

      Linux/Unix has done this for years ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    4. Re:When do the fix the bigger hole in ALL OS's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "make it off by default" right?
      I recently turned mine back on when I had a bunch of filenames I was editing, it's annoying to have to move 4 characters back before I started typing. or adding those 4 characters back on if I wipe the filename.

      I keep it off by default for security, but it has a use, is what I'm saying. Not that I ever run arbitrary files anyway.

    5. Re:When do the fix the bigger hole in ALL OS's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that even if you do turn off hide file extension, it still hides some file extensions.

      My .mat files from matlab are hidden and get an idiotic icon that has nothing to do with matlab.

    6. Re:When do the fix the bigger hole in ALL OS's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that most people have any idea (or pay any attention to) file extensions then you are naive and possibly part of the problem.

    7. Re:When do the fix the bigger hole in ALL OS's? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Is that sort of attitude the reasoning behind the nickname lumpy?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    8. Re:When do the fix the bigger hole in ALL OS's? by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Also know as: BritneySpears.jpg.exe

  74. Re:Shouldn't be necessary by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    You sir are what we call in the IT world as a....

    N00B.

    Please come back when you actually know something about computers.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  75. Uh-oh... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    So Linux guys, be happy where you are. Drop to your knees and thank RMS that Linux is still CLI heavy in Ubuntu if anything goes wrong, and the whole Linux setup seems "too hard" for the average Windows user. Be glad, oh dear Lord be glad. Because if you ever manage to lure them over the malware writers will be right behind them and your pretty OS will be turned into a giant festering turd.

    Bad news, I switched my mom and my sister (a deadly living weapon of indiscriminate cyber-destruction) over years ago, neither of them have had any trouble or know what the hell a CLI is :-(

    I think I may have triggered the Linuxpocalypse O_O

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  76. windohs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    man, they have serious issues.
    microshaft needs to see a psychiatrist.

  77. It's not a bug - it's a feature. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "AutoRun isn't an accident -- it's by design, and as I mentioned we care about the very real positive uses of the feature. In other words, in a very real sense, it's not a bug, it's a feature," said Adam Shostack, a Microsoft security program manager.

    I /knew/ this is how Microsoft thought about its security holes.

  78. Autorun could work if... by master_p · · Score: 1

    ...Windows had a decent security model. The automatically run software shouldn't have write access to anything, in the first place, unless the user explicitly says so.

  79. While they're at it... by ProfanityHead · · Score: 2

    They need to also by default show file extensions in explorer.

  80. Re-Activate Autorun with USBDLM by geggo98 · · Score: 1
    When you want to (selectively) reenable autorun, you can use USBDLM. This program runs as a Windows service and manages changeable media. It can assign fixed drive letters, enable write caching, open a file manager when a medium is inserted or run a file on the medium (atorun). These actions can depend on configurable criterions, e.g. the USB ID, a certain string in the autorun.inf (shared secret) or the existance of a certain file on the medium.

    Details can be found in the documentation

    Example:
    [Settings]
    AutoRunInf=1
    AutoRunKey=MySecretKey
    delay=2000

    [Settings]
    AutorunInfRestricted=1
    This checks for "MySecretKey" in the autorun.ini file. If the key is found, it waits 2 seconds and then executes the autorun.ini file, but with reduced privileges.

  81. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

    Autorun is a bad idea. There is reason for 'insering a cd' =='do what ever is instructed on it'. Remember that it was also the mean of the sony root kit.

    It entierly depend on the good will of the maker of the cd. Anyone can write removable media and the one that use profesional press are know to not be reliable. This is not just bad implementation, it is no implementation.

    Note that autorun is not prompting the user about what to do when a media is inserted. It is the blind execution of what ever is in autorun.inf. There is no correct implementation of this.

  82. FINALLY! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Should have been done from the get go on windows 95...seriously, how much code does it take to say default autorun=NO!

    1. Re:FINALLY! by kb1ikn · · Score: 0

      It only took Microsoft, what, 12 years to patch this?

  83. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by JDBurnZ · · Score: 1

    lol i'm sure everyone when they purchase a pc with windows is thinking, "gee, i'm sure glad they have that autorun feature!" last i checked autorun is what makes ur pc so damn slow when booting up cuz i loads all this bloatware at startup- printer, sound, graphics, adobe stuff, microsoft stuff, blah blah blah blah. ... and THEN there are those viruses which take advantage of this. it should have been done earlier. all autorun generally does is make programs load faster when you start them for the first time. and haruchai's comment about help desk? are y'all too stupid to understand what autorun accomplishes? hint.. if you're too lazy to open a program when it first boots, you can always put a link on your desktop so you don't have to search through the start menu! if you're too stupid... well i guess that doesn't make you much different than nearly every other american i've met.

  84. Stupid question by spitzak · · Score: 2

    Although everybody keeps saying that it will display "MyPhoto.jpg.exe" as "MyPhoto.jpg" and thus mislead people, while I certainly admit it is quite likely, I am confused why the MS defenders don't point out that it should not confuse people because a real "MyPhoto.jpg" would display as "MyPhoto" and thus be different than the bogus file.

    Can somebody explain this?

    If in fact it deletes the entire ".jpg.exe" it would explain confusion, but then it means MS is using different rules in different parts of the code (ie it uses only the ".exe" rather than ".jpg.exe" to figure out what to do) which I think is far stupider than I believe even they would have done in the dark ages of 1990 or whenever they started this...

    1. Re:Stupid question by DaleSwanson · · Score: 1

      Although everybody keeps saying that it will display "MyPhoto.jpg.exe" as "MyPhoto.jpg" and thus mislead people, while I certainly admit it is quite likely, I am confused why the MS defenders don't point out that it should not confuse people because a real "MyPhoto.jpg" would display as "MyPhoto" and thus be different than the bogus file. Can somebody explain this?

      Because people are dumb. We're not talking about savvy tech users here. We're talking about people that don't really understand anything about how a computer does anything. You may argue that photo.jpg when extensions are supposed to be hidden should set off warning bells, and indeed it should. However, in practice people know .jpg is a picture, and that is what they are expecting the file to be. It is not uncommon at all to see legitimate image files named photo.jpg.jpg.jpg and similar.

      Simply displaying the extensions is an easy fix, because even mostly clueless computer users know that a image shouldn't end in .exe. I also see no way that hiding the extensions is helpful to the user. Microsoft seems to be constantly trying to insulate users from the processes that make their computer work. With that mindset .exe is a confusing behind the scenes piece of info that the users don't need to know about. However, I think most users are quite comfortable with the concept that extensions tell them what type of file a file is.

      As others have said, disabling autorun and turning on extensions are some of my first steps in setting up a PC. MS corrected one of these, maybe they will finally fix the other. Failing that, there seems to be a bunch of other simple fixes they could implement without fully displaying all extensions. For example they could selectively display extensions for any file that will execute itself (eg, .exe, .bat, .com). Or, they could outline executables in red to make them stand out a bit.

  85. Re:not the same thing this is just takeing away a by JDBurnZ · · Score: 1

    i understand if clicking Start-> My Computer -> Right-clicking on CD-Rom Drive and clicking Run/Open is too complicated for you... three steps is generally 2 more than the average lazy person is willing to take...

  86. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    Man, this is just like Sony removing the "Other OS" feature from the PS3. I PAID for Windows XP because of the Auto-Run feature, as I'm sure many others have as well. This is a clear case of bait-and-switch deceptive marketing practicing. I wonder if a legal case could be made...

    You jest, but it's likely the change diables Autorun by default rather than actually removes it. Removing (or adding) features is a difficult task, especially in Windows. Things can break in the oddest places when you remove the code. Heck, it's so bad that Microsoft will often do binary-patches rather than re-link executables (apparently they've been burned by relinking and processor errata).

    Plus, who knows how many companies require Autorun to actually work for some of their processes. Scary, but true.

    Heck, we're bound to see people complain about the new default off setting.

  87. Re:Shouldn't be necessary by hubie · · Score: 1

    What a coincidence! Where I work we have nifty little software utilities called Antivirus Programs too. (Disclaimer: I haven't personally run one of these nifty utilities on my own computer in a number of years, but I've had to help many people who do run them regularly). It is hard to tell how well they work, because we don't seem to regularly work with infected discs or drives like you do (I do wonder how you manage to get all these infected media, but I digress), but I have noticed that these utilities are very good at promoting contemplation. Some of our computers get so slow that it gives the users time to contemplate what they are working on, or what they are writing.

    One of our users found that their nifty utility would no longer update itself, and he was advised to reinstall. The installer would hang, so some friendly people overseas advised him to remove the software and reinstall. It seems that the software did not want to completely uninstall, so the friendly people overseas sent him a super-secret nifty program to completely remove the software. Well, that software couldn't uninstall it either, so the friendly people from lands afar used some magic software to take control of this computer so that they could run the same un-installer. After that, the computer would not reboot into Windows. When these friendly people were contacted, their response was "If your computer cannot boot after our software was removed, then it obviously is a problem with the operating system and you need to contact your operating system vendor."

    I have another very amusing story about another person who apparently did not fully appreciate all the contemplative time he was being given by his nifty utility, so he decided to switch to a different vendor who provided their own nifty utility software. Well, maybe it's more like one of those "some day we'll look back on this and laugh" kind of story.

    Tada! Problem solved.

    Well, maybe that problem was solved ...

  88. MOD PARENT DOWN by ewhac · · Score: 1
    I may need to double check, but I'm 98% certain the author is lying. To my knowledge (and I have a fair amount on this subject), Amiga never had an autorun-style feature.

    Amiga had a "disk inserted" event, which would often trigger programs looking for the event, such as Workbench, to look at the just-inserted disk to see what was on it. But except for initially booting the system, Amiga would never load and run code off a disk merely because you inserted it.

    Schwab

  89. Doesn't help with shortcuts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to the malware. The autorun worm running around on our network places shortcuts to itself on the root of the flash drive. It hides (attrib +h) the users original files, then creates shortcuts to the files (which really point to itself). It also creates other shortcuts links like Passwords, Music, Pictures, but they all link to the executable on the flash drive.

    Even with autorun disabled, users will double-click the shortcut to their document, thinking it's their document they are opening, but it runs the malware instead.

  90. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bait and switch 8ish years later is hardly a bait and switch....

  91. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Not true. Auto run does NOT have to be 'insering a cd' =='do what ever is instructed on it'. That is the discription of badly implemented autorun. Autorun doesn't have to be any more dangerous than surfing the web. In fact in all ways, a system that takes equal care in security will always be more vulnerable via the web.

    Autorun done right would still play music and video automatically. If there is a security hole in the audio or video codecs, you are already screwed by having a web browser, as that is a dramatically easier way to deliver those payloads. For executibles, instead of blindly running any executable on the disk, OS should supply the splash screen/menu that virtually all legitimate software has. By having the OS supply the splash menu and only use text and graphics from the removable media, again are no more at risk that being on the internet. You are dramatically safer, as the splash menu can be dramatically simpler than a web browser, and thus has less surface to have attack vectors. The splash menu can checksum the and with the users permission allow all future attempts to run without user intervention. Since the user was asked if they want to run the full executable, you are in no greater risk than if the user launches the executable by hand.

    When you opened this page, code was Autorun on your system. Autorun from removable media does not have to be any more dangerous that reading Slashdot.

  92. Auto-Run Killer.... by Footsienabackyard · · Score: 1

    Yes, but in a moment of no concern, I hit the Install Updates button but this patch(1026) was not auto-applied.

    The update came back to me, I could not apply until I read the data.

    I hid this update!

    Thanks for posting that this was not a security issue....

    --
    Don't you think...? Or don't you?
  93. Good Buy? Autorun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I a day where HR wants us to be more than three people and work for less than one person, Microsoft is becoming less and less, then charging more and more! Moving Microsoft offshore to India or then CHina will not save its demise. The trend is to move to something that give more and more for free. The JAVA box cometh for all the Fffffuuuuckers!

  94. Crap + Crap = More Crap by VirtualJWN · · Score: 1

    M$ will keep having trouble until their "boilerplates" are made from good American steel rather than the shoddy and communist Chinese crap. Windows is such a crap pile that you can actually compost your garden with it. Trouble is all plants fertilized by Windows are subject to GATES EULA and you can't eat them unless you have a valid license.

    --
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
  95. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

    That is not autorun. Autorun is execution of arbitary code specified in autorun.inf. Also what you discribe is not a autorun but a multimedia 'icon'. All of this are interesting ideas but they do not constitude an autorun.

    When i loaded this page, i loaded code to be executed. Inserting a removabole media is not loading code.

    Doing presentation spash screen in sand boxe is very useless and do not corespond to what microsoft intended with the autorun hack.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorun

    AutoRun was introduced in Windows 95 to ease application installation for non-technical users and reduce the cost of software support calls. When an appropriately configured CD-ROM is inserted into a CD-ROM drive, Windows detects the arrival and checks the contents for a special file containing a set of instructions. For a commercial application, these instructions normally initiate installation of the software from the CD-ROM. To maximise the likelihood of installation success, AutoRun also acts when the drive is accessed ("double-clicked") in Windows Explorer (or "My Computer").

    For this to work as intended it need to be able to run arbitary code at the loged user id or system administrator, or be able to escalate to system administrator.

    Without that autorun bullshit, audio cd will still play, photo import will still start and lame flash animation could still be played if configured corectly.

  96. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no correct implementation of autorun. It cannot be fixed. You obviously dont know what it is.

    On slashdot, ignorant are insightful.

  97. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, this is just like Sony removing the "Other OS" feature from the PS3. I PAID for Windows XP because of the Auto-Run feature, as I'm sure many others have as well. This is a clear case of bait-and-switch deceptive marketing practicing. I wonder if a legal case could be made...

    Really? You paid for XP because of the Auto-run feature...
    I wonder if a legal case can be made for committing you to an asylum...

  98. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    You are being pedantic about the definition of 'Autorun'. By your definition, the report earlier of an Autorun exploits on Linux was completely wrong because if it is running on Linux, and is not executing arbitrary code specified in autorun.ini. You are using a different definition of Autorun than pretty much everyone else. Autorun is being used as a generic description of having stuff happen on your computer automatically when you insert a disk. Even differentiating between Autorun and Autoplay is just pointing to different shades of gray, as Autoplaying a DVD does launch code, as virtually every single commercial DVD has code in it, and 'autoplay' launches that code.

    If you take a step back and look at what is trying to be accomplished by autorun, it can easily be tweaked to to offer 99.9 % of the functionality, while removing all of the security risks that don't already exist in your web browser.

    You are wrong also wrong about your definition of loading code. If putting a inserting removable media into your computer makes code load, then inserting media into your computer is loading code. Just as putting a DVD into an XBox is 'loading the game'. So, my statement still stands that you are loading code either way. And, even if loading a web page IS loading code and putting in media isn't, it only points out how lame it is to complain about the existance of autorun when you are running code implemented by unknown sources on your computer every day.

  99. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    You are wrong. Autorun is used on every single console ever released that has removable media. Every single one.

  100. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

    Runing the right application base on what media was inserted is like associng a file type with some app. It do not execute what is on the media, it merely pass the data to a pre-installed application that is authorized and configured for that purpose. The removable media is treated like data, it is not code. It is not autorun.

    Autorun is a microsoft invention and i think their diffinition of this "technology" is the right one...

  101. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only if by autorun you mean automaticly run any piece of code when a phisical media in inserted/contect. Then yes, console use autorun.

    Unfortunatly you are a moron. The autorun in this case is the microsoft's autorun.inf on the media root. It is not the same thing. Removable media on PC are data. On a console it a game. Not program, not data but "game" which happen to be a mix of both data and code like all thing in computing.

  102. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Funny, my atari 2600 would disagree with you, so would my DVD playing software.

  103. Re:Removing a feature? That I PAID for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please. No one on Slashdot PAID for Windows XP.