Microsoft Blocks FSF Donation Website As a 'Gambling Site'

An anonymous reader writes "The FSF slammed Microsoft for categorizing donate.fsf.org website as a 'Gambling Site.' Corporate systems that use a Microsoft 'network security' program cannot access FSF donation website because of this and as a result, many people were unable to make donations. FSF has submitted a correction to Microsoft and they are now waiting for a response. However, John Sullivan warned corporate about Microsoft's proprietary network security programs."

Comments

Stay grounded

[meekg]

Hysterics and hyperbole do not serve us well.
IF MS ignores the correction, sure. But that hasn't happened, has it?

Re:Stay grounded

[Arancaytar]

Frankly, the idea that this could be accidental in the first place is ludicrous.

Antivirus vendors classifying the competition as malware is an easy mistake due to antivirus software employing similar methods to viruses in examining memory. Classifying a non-profit organization as a gambling site? Not an easy mistake. Doing it to a site belonging to a rival organization? Yeah, no.

Re:Stay grounded

[Anonymous Coward]

Hysterics and hyperbole do not serve us well.

I'm an advertiser you insensitive clod!

Re:Stay grounded

[beelsebob]

Frankly, the idea that this could be accidental in the first place is ludicrous.

Frankly, the idea that it wasn't accidental is ludicrous, I would doubt very highly that MS has humans categorising sites, instead it's probably all automated based on roughly the same tech as email spam filters.

Re:Stay grounded

[NotBorg]

Hysterics and hyperbole do not serve us well.

You must be new here. What have you done with 30651? Is he ok? What are your demands?

Re:Stay grounded

[elrous0]

You, sir, win the internet today.

Re:Stay grounded

[Anonymous Coward]

All it takes is a simple whitelist to prevent this kind of idiotic mistake. Microsoft, a market leader in these solutions, should know better to allow this kind of accident. As such, people are suspicious. And Microsoft deserves it, if they didn't think put in place the most obvious safeguards.

Re:Stay grounded

[1u3hr]

Frankly, the idea that this could be accidental in the first place is ludicrous.

No, MS aren't stupid. They would know such a block could not stand for long and would generate much bad publicity for them. They'd much rather just ignore the FSF. Now they'll probably have to apologise to them. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

More likely the FSF home page, with all of its talk about "free software" was classified by MS's filters as a warez site.

Re:Stay grounded

[beelsebob]

All it takes is a simple whitelist to prevent this kind of idiotic mistake.

A simple white list that has to be built somehow... The traditional way of building this white list, is wait and see what gets blocked that shouldn't, and white list it when someone complains. Someone has complained now, so I'd expect a white listing within the next day or two >.

Re:Stay grounded

[hendridm]

Frankly, the idea that it wasn't accidental is ludicrous, I would doubt very highly that MS has humans categorising sites, instead it's probably all automated based on roughly the same tech as email spam filters.

Here's an idea: Then don't filter our shit! Let me decide where I want to visit.

-Mac user, so I don't really care

Re:Stay grounded

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, the idea that it wasn't accidental is ludicrous, I would doubt very highly that MS has humans categorising sites, instead it's probably all automated based on roughly the same tech as email spam filters.

Here's an idea: Then don't filter our shit! Let me decide where I want to visit.

-Mac user, so I don't really care

That is funny, the single largest malware infection in modern times, as percentage of user base infected, was the Mac Flashback malware infecting 1% of OSX user base. The biggest Windows epidemic, Conficker, infected 0.7% of Windows machines. (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/253403/mac_malware_outbreak_is_bigger_than_conficker.html)

Re:Stay grounded

[Anonymous Coward]

"-Mac user, so I don't really care"

"Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not fear your friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exist because of their silent consent." ~ Bruno Jasienski

Re:Stay grounded

[Xtifr]

No, MS aren't stupid.

Citation needed. Bringing obviously-faked evidence into a courtroom seems like a strong counter-example to this claim.

Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

Wait, now you're saying they are stupid? :)

More likely the FSF home page, with all of its talk about "free software" was classified by MS's filters as a warez site.

That might make sense if it had been classified as a warez site. But it wasn't. If I had to make an honest guess, mine would be an in-house joke used during testing that got left in when they went live.

That's assuming they do fix it and apologize. Otherwise, I think we're back to malice. ;)

Re:Stay grounded

[hendridm]

That's neat, wtf does that have to do with Microsoft telling me where I'm allowed to visit? fsf.org works just fine on my MBP.

Re:Stay grounded

[hendridm]

So you're saying that I should care? What do you suggest I do? Vote with my dollars? I've already done that.

Maybe write a strongly worded letter to Redmond? Maybe rage on forums about it until Microsoft folds?

I'm open to ideas.

Re:Stay grounded

[kefkahax]

"No, MS aren't stupid." [...] "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity." OK, I am confused.

Re:Stay grounded

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how people assume malice and stupidity cannot coexist.

Re:Stay grounded

[h4z3]

Any chance you write for Fox news? I'm sure 0.7% of 75~80% of the pc market is bigger than 1% of 7~15%.

Re:Stay grounded

[hairyfeet]

Yeah this should be listed under "shit happens" as its no different than that time somebody at AVG fucked up and had svchost listed as malware, or that time one of them labeled Steam as a bug.

Its security folks, shit happens, things go wrong, mistakes are made. if MSFT refuses to correct? Sure you have every right to call them to the carpet. But as long as they have it fixed within say the next 48 hours (giving them extra time because naturally shit screwing up on a weekend is usually a bigger PITA) then i see no reason to get upset, anymore than i would at any other security company that screws up and lists my fav site as a bug, shit happens.

Re:Stay grounded

[X0563511]

You could start by leaving little comments like "I don't care, I use a mac" out of your post, because while you might have intended it to have no harm, that transforms the rest of your post into flamebait. Don't bitch when your kindling catches fire.

Re:Stay grounded

[Antique Geekmeister]

fsf.org is not a Microsoft partner, and does not have contract relationship with Microsoft. Expect whitelisting to be slow and require excessive steps of confirmation through an outsourced support line where "your call is very important to us", they insist on having the registration number of your copies of Windo2ws software, and they are unable to spell "fsf.".

Re:Stay grounded

[Kalriath]

If you're running their security software, you've already decided (or the owner of the computer has decided) to allow them to decide whether such sites could be accessed. That's not Microsoft's fault, so what the fuck does your post have to do with anything?

Re:Stay grounded

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the general public will ever hear the bad publicity.
This isn't going to be permanent, but for Microsoft it was a nice free stab at the FSF.

Re:Stay grounded

[1u3hr]

"No, MS aren't stupid." [...] "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity." OK, I am confused.

Yeah, that was contradictory. I meant that they didn't decide/plot to do it, where "they" is someone like Ballmer, because anyone thinking about it would realise that it would rebound. But it could well have happened by some mistake by a flunky, or an automated process designed to block warez, defined carelessly enough to block any "free" software.

Re:Stay grounded

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because actively preventing access to one of your biggest critics must be a simple oversight. M$ wouldn't actively try to block access to a site critical of its business practices and models.

Re:Stay grounded

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, the idea that this could be accidental in the first place is ludicrous.

Frankly, the idea that it wasn't accidental is ludicrous, I would doubt very highly that MS has humans categorising sites, instead it's probably all automated based on roughly the same tech as email spam filters.

This isnt the first time something like this has happened. A few years ago, Windows Live search blocked the term "XFree86" (the precursor to X.org) as porn. "XFree85", "XFree87" and "XXX hot sluts" were all fine, however.

Re:Stay grounded

[Arancaytar]

That is completely nonsensical. The option to override the process manually must exist simply to correct mistakes like this. That same option can therefore also be used to introduce mistakes.

Therefore, the only question is how likely it is that the heuristic algorithm could have determined this category, and how likely it is that a human could have done it. The keywords found on the FSF site has no overlap with the keywords on common gambling sites, so the first is unlikely. A human who does not like the FSF has a motive to do this, so the second is not unlikely.

People act as if this were moon-landing type conspiracy theory stuff; as though it required nefarious dealings at the highest level and everything you ever believed would have to be wrong. It's not as if Bill Gates has to personally sign off secret orders to sabotage the competition, just like the Google board of directors likely didn't authorize the sabotage of OpenStreetMaps. It'd just be a bit of opportunistic trickery, maybe done by an overly enthusiastic employee or to get back at a personal rivalry with a GNU-evangelizing acquaintance. As such, it's not an extraordinary claim. No extraordinary evidence required.

donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[xiando]

You can go directly to http://my.fsf.org/donate/ if donate.fsf.org is blocked by your local friendly firewall. You can also use Tor to bypass blocks like these.

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[betterunixthanunix]

You can also use Tor to bypass blocks like these.

Eh....

It is not impossible to block Tor. A standard approach is to have the firewall block all Tor entry nodes, which forces people to use bridge nodes instead. Increasingly, though, there is an approach that is much harder to evade: blocking of connections that match Tor's "fingerprint" i.e. because Tor uses OpenSSL in a way that can be distinguished from Firefox+NSS etc.

Of course, there is a bright side if you are dealing with a school or corporate firewall: you can always set up a system at your house that you SSH to, and use as a proxy server. That was something friends of mine used to do in high school.

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[Anonymous Coward]

That is so 1990's .. ssh proxy, you're showing your age. Today you just jump on a 4g/lte hotspot and away you go... :)

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[Anonymous Coward]

That is so 1990's .. ssh proxy, you're showing your age. Today you just jump on a 4g/lte hotspot and away you go... :)

Looks like somebody's mommy is paying for some spoiled kid's phone bill again...

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[Anonymous Coward]

You may now go directly to the HR department to hand in your resignation for violating your Terms of employment for using an unapproved device during office hours. ;)

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[heypete]

Evidently one can also try connecting to the suspected Tor node in question and seeing if it "speaks Tor" -- this utility appears to use that method.

My understanding is that's what the Chinese are doing to detect bridge nodes, though I very well could be wrong.

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[Anonymous Coward]

Better ask her to opt-out of the filtering...or go use SSH like someone who isn't ignorant of technology.

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[jez9999]

So they're blocking Tor, but allowing SSH connections?

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[betterunixthanunix]

Well, that's how China does things. It is reasonable to think that a school or corporation might allow SSH but not Tor, since there are more obvious "legitimate" uses for SSH.

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[Kalriath]

Of course, there is a bright side if you are dealing with a school or corporate firewall: you can always set up a system at your house that you SSH to, and use as a proxy server. That was something friends of mine used to do in high school.

Or, you know, you could just actually work/study and stop misusing someone else's resources.

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[jaymemaurice]

Of course, there is a bright side if you are dealing with a school or corporate firewall: you can always set up a system at your house that you SSH to, and use as a proxy server. That was something friends of mine used to do in high school.

That is so 1990's .. ssh proxy, you're showing your age. Today you just jump on a 4g/lte hotspot and away you go... :)

I moved out young so I didn't have a printer. I discovered the schools windows 98 machines with netware would let you into the winhelp application where you could "print" a help section and the schools print drivers would allow you to visit the manufactures website to order supplies. From IE you could open a shell or just fire up mindterm java ssh applet. I'd often connect to a linux box and open a reverse tunnel to the printer so that way I could print my homework from home and pick it up in the morning.

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect

[jaymemaurice]

Back in my day, our school did not have the ability to detect the difference between SSH on port 443 and SSL. Now, I think many schools can/do and may even man-in-the middle the SSL with their own trusted CA cert in all their client machines.

malice or incompetence?

[Anonymous Coward]

what's that old saying "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence" or whatever? I mean this is MS we're talking about...

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely just incompetence. Perhaps the fact that FSF accepts Bitcoin caused the block.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[AliasMarlowe]

what's that old saying "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence" or whatever? I mean this is MS we're talking about...

Which makes malice in the guise of incompetence particularly insidious and effective.
In the absence of clear evidence one way or the other, it's best to reserve judgment regarding malice vs incompetence where a recidivist company notorious for its dirty tricks is concerned. The aphorism you quoted (especially the "never" bit) is overridden in this case by Microsoft's track record of cunning malice, mind-boggling incompetence, incompetent malice, and malicious incompetence. It could be any of them.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[arobatino]

Especially since the number of people who want to donate to the FSF while using Microsoft's software is approximately zero.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean this is MS we're talking about...

Yes, it is MS we're talking about which means you can lean either towards malicious intention, or incompetence and have an equal chance of being right!

Re:malice or incompetence?

[gbjbaanb]

yeah, they should sue microsoft for defamation and ... effectively get a large donation.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Hentes]

In any case, the damage done is the same. Saying "I didn't mean to!" is not an acceptable defence for a bug.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Mabhatter]

The most obvious answer is that a handful of Microsoft fanboy admins submitted the site just to mess with FSF fanboys. These things have all been crowd sourced for years.

Most of these tools us a proprietary list that takes an unknown number of input votes to block something. Then you have to ask very nicely to get off the list that gets published to the masses. It's censorship by the noisiest submitters. It's much like how big websites like yahoo or Engadget keep getting their emails "automatically" blocked by spam filters. A few high influence admins just keep hitting the Spam button on work accounts and 1000 users have to unblock to get it off the spam list.

There IS a process at most of these filter agencies if you grease the right palms, you will get on the mythical "white" list. Whether you are big name sites like Amazon that can bully to keep your name off, or the list runner has a sweet spot for Equestria Daily... But that's a "private list decision"

Re:malice or incompetence?

[k(wi)r(kipedia)]

The 21st century version: Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to automation.

It would be extremely tempting to attribute stupidity and incompetence on Microsoft's part. Stupider than that however is not knowing up to what point you should trust a system. Example: GPS. If your GPS shows there's supposed to be a bridge in front of you, but all you see is a ditch, do you drive on, confident that the GPS is never wrong, or do you trust the evidence of your eyes?

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Anonymous Coward]

I say it's incompetence. Just look at M$'s entire quality history!

Re:malice or incompetence?

[beelsebob]

I would struggle to even call it incompetence, I would bet the lists are made up by web crawlers applying roughly the same algorithm as email filtering... Quite frankly, it's not incompetence if your bot hits the occasional false positive.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[kvvbassboy]

Automation is supposed to be smart enough to detect edge cases. If not it's just buggy software. Saying that something is automated, is not an excuse for it to make wrong decisions.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because something happens automatically does not mean it contains intelligence. 'Edge cases' is this 1 site out of millions.

It isn't buggy, it's just not 100% effective, but then most of the automated data I come across always has a degree of failure in it. It's expected, and definitely isn't a "bug"

Re:malice or incompetence?

[houstonbofh]

You realise that this is not Microsoft Security Essentials, but the network security product, right? So anyone behind it on the network... Like at a company, or corporate guest network, or school, or very badly designed hotel wifi?

Re:malice or incompetence?

[oakgrove]

Actually, I would think that would be the best time to get'em, e.g., while the pain is still fresh in their minds.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Anonymous Coward]

To the Lawyers.

This will do everybody a lot of good, because as we all know, Lawyers are some of the most poor and needy people in the world.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[kvvbassboy]

I am sorry, but using a bitcoins as a single factor to rule out a site as legitimate is a bug in the design of the filtering machine. There needs to be different levels of severity based on a set of features. It is not 100% effective, but if MS labels it as being "not a bug but a feature", it just means they are being lazy (which is okay, maybe they don't have time to make it better).

Re:malice or incompetence?

[PNutts]

Agreed. Norton just started blocking my mom's blog site because Google made a minor change (blogspot.com). Stuff happens.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I think it's just an automation mistake.

Why such big news?

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard that argument before and it's still stupid. What possible endgame could they have? It's not like this block has any chance of standing, and therefore of appreciably impacting the FSF; it can only result it bad publicity for Microsoft (and there absolutely is such a thing as bad publicity when you're already well-known).

You can maybe make that argument if they do something that could conceivably advance their own goals in the long term. Maybe. This is something that is obviously a mistake.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Kalriath]

There are people crazy enough to punch in their credit card number on a work computer? With the dodgy BlueCoat peering over their shoulder?

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Kalriath]

No-one knows if it's anything to do with Bitcoin. You might want to wait for evidence rather than going on a rampage over an unknown.

Re:malice or incompetence?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

Though actually I don't think that applies here. This looks like a routine cock-up to me.

Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Crasoose]

"FSF has submitted a correction to Microsoft and they are now waiting for a response."

So there was a problem with their website that caused it to be blocked automatically by their web filtering software, how is this news? Why is everyone so paranoid and not even waiting for Microsoft to reply or give them an exception? Even if they don't allow it, maybe they would rather their employees donated in their own free time and not on their network?

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[betterunixthanunix]

Why is everyone so paranoid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents

Even if they don't allow it, maybe they would rather their employees donated in their own free time and not on their network?

You could at least read and understand the summary (RAUTFS?). It is not just Microsoft's own network; this is something a Microsoft product that is used on numerous corporate networks is doing.

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it doesn't seem you understand... It's not that they are being blocked for people coming from Microsoft.com, but they are being blocked for *anyone* running the Microsoft corporate software (ie: if your employer was using it, you wouldn't be able to access the fsf's page.

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[xaoslaad]

Stupid much? Most likely it was no problem with the fsf website and the correction was a form with a details section that said d.f.o is a domation site not a gambling site. Has it been adequately spelled out for you now?

And that being said I doubt MS did this out of malice. I had seen in websense false positives because one ip address shared multiple named vhosts, with one being porn or something else unsavory. There is probably an equally mundane explanation here. Hell maybe they got their hands on a block of addresses that used to belong to a gambling site. I can come up with more possibilities just brainstorming if you like...

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Crasoose]

This comment accuses me of not knowing things I was already assuming in my original post, nonetheless, thank you and everyone else replying to me for posting your ideas on the matter.

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Chris Mattern]

They didn't submit a correction of a faulty website. They submitted a correction of a faulty website classification. FSF has done nothing wrong; the only problem here is Microsofts amazingly self-serving mistake.

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Mabhatter]

Because if I labeled every Microsoft email "spam" in my Gmail would they get blocked for EVERYBODY on Gmail? Obviously each filter list has a SECRET way of keeping high profile organizations from being put on Filter lists no matter how many Slashdot admins try to get Microsoft.com blocked.

So WHO decides to put the Big Guys on that "untouchable" list that are known honest sites? This is the "secret censorship" of the modern corporate-run world. Just find a label like "Gambling" and you shame people from even REPORTING there is an error. The list is private so "facts" have nothing to do with said rating.

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Direct your "stupid" comment to Microsoft. A trivial whitelist would have prevented this for popular donation sites, but Microsoft is apparently so far above the curve that obvious safeguards are beneath them.

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[squiggleslash]

You know who else didn't assume that Microsoft was doing something malicious and when expressing this view used a somewhat ambiguous, albeit still obvious, form of wording (the word "their" used twice in the same sentence to mean two different entities) just to add insult to injury?

Hitler! That's who!

Thank God we have Slashdot's legion of anti-Microsoft grammar pedants to save us from the evils of, uh, something!

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Coeurderoy]

Well, either Microsoft decided to block FSF just because they do not like them, and that would be "evil", not because blocking the FSF is "bad" but because it's not what they sell to their customers.
Or, microsoft deceided that anybody accepting bitcoins is "evil" and necessarily a gambling provider, and then it's even worse, because it's censoring an alternative payment method under false pretence (it would not be the same if they would block saying "we block bitcoin because of ...." then the issue would be the ... not the lie that puts gambling and bitcoin together.

And even if they correct the situation for the FSF it shows that the implementation model is bad, I do hope that large corporation will think twice before trusting Microsoft on anything...

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Kalriath]

Your exhaustive list appears to be missing numerous, more plausible, options. Your bias isn't showing at all.

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God we have Slashdot's legion of anti-Microsoft grammar pedants to save us from the evils of, uh, something!

You really don't need to stay here if you hate them so much. Also, you can just read the headlines and stories by just reading the headlines and stories.

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Lisias]

Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

In what planet were you living in the past 25 years?

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

the only problem here is Microsofts amazingly self-serving mistake.

Yes, because Microsoft really prevented FSF from getting any donations.

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

numerous, more plausible, options.

Here's my list:

1. Ghosts
2. Aliens
3. Loch Ness Monster

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw diddums, did the GP hit a nerve?

MS

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of anti microsoft tripe. Calm your tits, it was likely a mistake, seeing how its obviously not a gambling website.

Re:MS

[xiando]

> Calm your tits, it was likely a mistake, seeing how its obviously not a gambling website.

How do you explain that a "mistake" was made when the site is so "obviously not a gambling website", eh?

Someone put that "gambling" tag on that site, eh? Is it likely that the person who put that tag on donate.fsf.org did it purely by mistake when it is so obviously not a gambling site?

Re:MS

[jellomizer]

You think there is a person in Microsoft who tags every web page out there?

The list is made by a computer to try to catagorize them based on words in the page and other links. Sometimes software makes odd mistakes.

Oh there is an exception then they fixed it.

Re:MS

[Dan541]

How do you explain that a "mistake" was made when the site is so "obviously not a gambling website", eh?

Someone put that "gambling" tag on that site, eh? Is it likely that the person who put that tag on donate.fsf.org did it purely by mistake when it is so obviously not a gambling site?

Oh, so you're one of these people who think malware, spam and virus filters are edited exclusively by humans?

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

The processes that create and maintain these lists are largely automated. I'm guessing it probably triggered some heuristic, not unlike legit email getting tagged as spam on occasion.

Re:MS

[Dan541]

What a load of anti microsoft tripe.

Pretty much sums it up.

Re:MS

[Haxagon]

Yes, that's pretty likely.
If Norton can mark critical system files as collections of viruses and delete them, I believe that someone at MS can mark a website incorrectly. This doesn't seem deliberate at all, given the gambling tag. It might have even been an automatic move, if MS is too cheap to hire someone to do the work.

Re:MS

[BasilBrush]

How do you explain that a "mistake" was made when the site is so "obviously not a gambling website", eh?

Because it's using an IP address (or is within a range) that is/was also used by a gambling site?

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes software makes odd mistakes.

Especially when that software is written by... Microsoft.

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's using an IP address (or is within a range) that is/was also used by a gambling site?

Let's see...
$ dig +short donate.fsf.org
member.fsf.org.
208.118.235.131

$ whois 208.118.235.131
...
Free Software Foundation, Inc. TWDX-208-118-235-0-1 (NET-208-118-235-0-1) 208.118.235.0 - 208.118.235.255
...

I doubt you'll find many gambling sites in that IP-range.

The IP-range has been assigned to FSF for the last 4 months (if not longer), so it's a bit late to tag anything in that range based on its former use.

Re:MS

[ericloewe]

Anyone is "too cheap" to hire people to do the work. You just write the bot and have a small team or two go over the reported false-positives and such

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

At least if you're paying Microsoft for the service, they're obliged to fix it. If it were open source and you filed a bug report, you'd probably be told to fix it yourself - if anyone bothered to take any notice of you at all.

Re:MS

[squiggleslash]

How do you explain that a "mistake" was made when the site is so "obviously not a gambling website", eh?

You're right! A mistake is when someone classifies something CORRECTLY! If the FSF site clearly WAS a gambling site, it would have obviously been a mistake, but because the FSF's site WASN'T, it clearly was ON PURPOSE!!!?!

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you use software you cannot fix? Learn to program if you want to use a computer.

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Microsoft is rotten to the core.

Re:MS

[djmurdoch]

At least if you're paying Microsoft for the service, they're obliged to fix it.

Can you show me where they guarantee to fix bugs? All I've ever seen is a denial of liability. They'll say it performs "substantially as advertised" for 90 days, but no more than that.

On the other hand, most open source software explicitly denies all warranty, but is still more responsive to bug reports.

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

I never said 'guarantee', and I'm not sure I'd even characterise it as a bug (in the traditional sense). It's a false positive in their definitions list, which is what you're paying them to continuously maintain as part of your subscription. As I understand it, they're not the only player in that market (and I don't think they're even the biggest) so if their definitions list is full of shit then presumably they're going to lose subscribers.

Re:MS

[wrook]

You think there is a person in Microsoft who tags every web page out there?

You think there isn't a person in microsoft who tags some web pages out there? It's not an all or nothing situation. It is certainly possible (even overwhelmingly likely, IMHO) that the list is made by a computer and then modified by humans. A human certainly could block a handful of sites that Microsoft doesn't like. They almost certainly do this for sites that don't get picked up by their heuristics. There aren't going to be that many you would want to block.

Does that mean it is not a mistake? No, but I would very much like to hear what criteria made their filter identify the FSF donation page as a gambling site. The fact that it accepts BitCoin has been brought up as a possibility. If this were the only criteria, then I think it would indicate that their filtering is very poor. Other explanations are more likely, IMHO (including the possibility of some employee or group of employees overreaching their authority).

Re:MS

[Kalriath]

For average customers no. But if you're an enterprise customer, by dammit you can expect that fix.

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly companies are gambling with their infrastructure by installing free software :) Those free software guys let just ANYONE contribute!

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

You think there isn't a person in microsoft who tags some web pages out there?

Yes, likely some machine learning algorithm was trained from some sort of database of websites known to be malicious, and those might have been tagged by hand. Honestly, looking at the fsf website it's no surprise it was tagged: it's a terrible website with a design that is reminiscent of shady pill-pushing websites. Seriously, if I didn't know any better I would personally be wary of any website that looked like fsf.org. wtf are they thinking? Hire a designer, christ.

Re:MS

[Dan541]

Except Microsoft is rotten to the core.

How? Oh.... they charge for their product.

MS sure has engaged the wrath of the hippies.

It's like this

[Anonymous Coward]

The situation is sort of like this:

"Crasoose is a bunny licking spoon bender!"

If you don't agree, you are free to submit a correction which may or may not result in correcting the classification.

Re:It's like this

[PNutts]

Your argument is invalid. There is no spoon.

Re:It's like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is invalid. There is no spoon.

So, the spoon is similar to the cake?

@Crasoose

It's not Microsoft's employees who are affected: it's ANY business using MSFT Security Essentials, which could be your local hotspot.

Nice try, though: -1 for you....

Non-proprietary options?

[elrous0]

John Sullivan warned corporate about Microsoft's proprietary network security programs.

Are there any non-proprietary corporate network security options?

Re:Non-proprietary options?

[betterunixthanunix]

First result on Google:

http://www.csoonline.com/article/597063/network-security-three-open-source-options

Re:Non-proprietary options?

[houstonbofh]

I used to do some work with Untangle. And it is MUCH easier to set up than and Microsoft product...

Re:Non-proprietary options?

[theshowmecanuck]

Proprietary security software is an oxymoron -- if the user is not fundamentally in control of the software, the user has no security.

99.999% of the users out there don't know jack shit about how to create a security application. Myself included. (Not the same as at least trying to write an application to prevent security leaks like buffer overflow etc). That said, if the user is fundamentally in control of the software, they are pretty much guaranteed to have no security. I would much rather pay money for a proprietary system written by people who know and understand security and how to create useful security apps.

If free software advocates want to be taken with any sort of credibility they need to stop with this "you can modify the code yourself" claptrap. Almost nobody does this. And nobody who isn't a real and true expert on security should ever do security software on their own. But here we are yet again, another ridiculous espousing that free software is better because you can change it yourself. When in fact, 99.999% of the people can't since they are not programmers and have no intention of being programmers. If this was so important almost every computer using person on the planet would have taken enough programming courses to become competent programmers, they would all be using Linux which would have a 99% market share, and it would run flawlessly because all these amateur programmers would have contributed to make it iron tight.

But surprise surprise, none of that is true. Proprietary systems thrive because people have other things to do than program. They work their own professions and leave programming up to people who have made programming their profession. And they are smart enough to know that they would be very stupid if they tried to program or control their own security programs. So they buy the software from people who know what they're doing. They don't use the free software because it is just too much of a pain in the ass to set up and use. ClamAV? No on access scans or malware detection. And no useful GUI. People don't want to fuck around with stuff to get it to work... they just want it to work.

If you know anything about software you will know that if people can't get a piece of software to easily... EASILY... do the things they need it to, they will use another piece of software or do it by hand. You will notice that most businesses and private users don't use Linux or BSD (aside from the Mac variant). And when they want support they don't want some guy telling them they should modify the program or control it themselves. Or being told by some wet behind the ears barely out of college never mind high school asperger tech wiz that they are lame because they didn't spend 20 hours scouring the internet and screwing with trial and error solutions to solve a problem that doesn't happen on other systems... meanwhile losing 20 hours of the time they needed to do their own job which they are paid for which is not tech support... and having to spend the weekend catching up.

And for the record, I'm writing this on a Firefox web browser, running on Kubuntu 11.10. And this is my primary machine. I keep one Windows 7 Pro box for software that won't run on this one and remote desktop to it (it doesn't even have a monitor attached). So if you want to, like a schmuck, label me some "Windoze" user, go ahead, since you'll be the schmuck. But yes, I am only on this system because my work relates more to server side systems and working on a similar (if aggravating for personal work) system makes sense.

Re:Non-proprietary options?

[Anonymous Coward]

i understand your perspective on some of these things. however, i would suggest that you make a copy of your post and if you've been forced to continue using kubuntu for work, after a year or so, once the microsoft poison has left your system, reread it. as far as your clamAV example: what would a linux user need that for? it is unreasonable to expect me to waste my harddrive space, time and system resources to try and protect neighboring legacy OS's from themselves. As for businesses and private users not using linux or bsd: if you say so. though, i would not believe the lower end of the install base numbers commonly espoused on the net. also, you may find a non kde desktop much less agravating. kde users are a special breed. though i haven't tried kde for some time now, so it may be wonderful now for all i know. things are changing fairly quickly in the linux world and you may count your blessings one day for being forced to use linux. you can write it off as server side stuff if you want but there is to be more and more of these "reasons" for other organizations/industries to encourage or require linux use and you will be more valuable. also, anyone who tried to start a business on a shoestring budget would have a more forgiving attitude towards linux's temporarily perceived weaknesses. but maybe you can't be saved. good luck. schmuck.

Legal Response

[sociocapitalist]

The FSF should sue Microsoft for loss of donations and ask for punitive damages for monopolistic anti-competitive behavior.

Re:Legal Response

[Anonymous Coward]

And loss of productive work time suffered by users of their unbelievably slow desktop file search featuring Tippy the Dog.

Re:Legal Response

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, great idea...take a company will a multi-billion dollar war chest to court because their heuristic-based proxy server didn't exempt your site from the get-go and before you get a response from your own request to update their software. Throwing away money is a great way for a non-profit to keep afloat.

Re:Legal Response

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

Yet I wouldn't be surprised if the FSF saw a small increase in donations due to this story bringing the FSF to the front of people's minds. How many readers here are thinking right now, "Oh yeah, I haven't donated to the FSF in a while, maybe I should go do that"?

Re:Legal Response

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just like Wikileaks.

If it's electronic, it's NOT YOUR MONEY ANYMORE. How long till people get this??

Keyword: vomited

Re:Legal Response

[kyrio]

Right on. I hope they win too! They'll get that whole dollar in donations they lost and the other dollar in punitive damages! Who the fuck is donating to the FSF on company time and why can't he do it at home after work?

Re:Legal Response

[sociocapitalist]

The point isn't work vs. home but that Microsoft is using it's power to block competition. They're not leaving it up to their customer to decide if they want to block access, but instead are miis-classifying that competitors site as a gambling site so that the customer is likely to block it as most customers are going to block gambling sites.

Re:Legal Response

[westlake]

The FSF should sue Microsoft for loss of donations and ask for punitive damages for monopolistic anti-competitive behavior.

Because the ever-paranoid geek couldn't wait to make his charitable donation from home after working hours?

But was more than willing to risk a donation to the EFF being exposed to his employer?

Re:Legal Response

[LurkerXXX]

Or...

The FSF should realize that twdx.net, their provider, also hosts gambling sites such as http://www.poker-tester.com/ etc, and that their IP may have either been previously used by a gambling site, or was blacklisted in a block along with other gambling sites hosted at that provider.

It's nice out today and doesn't look like rain. You can take off the tin-foil hat.

Re:Legal Response

[Citizen of Earth]

Illegal restraint of trade.

Re:Legal Response

[Anonymous Coward]

If the customer didn't want Microsoft deciding which sites to block, they wouldn't have bought a solution from Microsoft to decide which sites to block.

Re:Legal Response

[sociocapitalist]

Doesn't work that way. The customer buys a product from Microsoft (or any other vendor who sells such, as there are several) and as part of the setup / configuration, the customer chooses which categories of site to allow and which to block. Most customers will block the category of gambling sites but will not block the categories of software development sites or the donation mechanisms attached to them. It is not Microsoft who chooses the categories.

Microsoft has, perhaps deliberately, mis-catagorized the FSF site as a gambling site perhaps in order to block it from receiving donations. This is, arguably, anti-competitive behavior that has a negative financial impact on the target organization that Microsoft should be held accountable for as they have the responsibility of accurately categorizing the sites to start with.

Are they using IE ?

[phonewebcam]

All's fine until you try that. Like this guy, he can browse smoothly, usi .. see ... right pages using cleartype ...
oh, wait... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1zxDa3t0fg

Re:Are they using IE ?

[unixisc]

People who want to donate to FSF on company time should BYOD to work, and then have those devices loaded up w/ GNU Hurd. Then there will be no MS firewall to go through.

Never attribute to malice...

[vanDrunen]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Or incompetence in this case.

Re:Why is this news?

[genjix]

There's speculation that their accepting of Bitcoin inadvertantly categorised them as a gambling website. Bitcoin is popular for gambling sites now because of the lack of restrictions for such sites to exist compared with normal gambling sites which can take days to deposit and many hoops to jump through. It does not seem malicious or incompetent that this mistake happened.

Legal issues?

[SlashRAH]

It seems that this could be considered an anti-competitive practice that might have some legal consequences for Microsoft. They are basically using their privileged position to prevent their own clients from donating funds to an open source 'competitor'.

Re:Legal issues?

[kyrio]

Who, exactly, is donating to the FSF on company time, and can't make his donation after work at home, instead? Stop making idiotic comments.

Re:Legal issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who, exactly, is donating to the FSF on company time, and can't make his donation after work at home, instead? Stop making idiotic comments.

I am.

Now, who's the idiot?

How many more times are you going to post your tripe?

Re:Legal issues?

[kyrio]

You aren't, though. You're just mentally challenged and a liar.

Computer error

[sir-gold]

It's very unlikely that Microsoft would pay humans to manually create a filter list. They most likely wrote a custom Bing spider that searched for sites to block, with no human oversight. And we all know how accurate the Bing search engine is....

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and this is yet another example of them trying to extend their monopoly. Perhaps it is time for their corporate charter to be revoked so they do not do any more damage to the economy or to their competitors.

breast cancer web sites some times get flagged

[Joe_Dragon]

breast cancer web sites some times get flagged as sex / pron sites.

maybe some thing on the site trigger a bot to flag it.

Re:Why is this news?

[robthebloke]

I don't know why you say that, Microsoft have had an extremely good record supporting the installation of free software on their systems. Just look back at how easy they made it to install such common packages as the blaster virus, the chernobyl virus, conflicker, et al. Anyone who claims microsoft tries to stifle free software, hasn't really been looking at the facts.....

share/freeware

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... www.ubuntu.com and www.debian.org lists a scary red shield with a white x in the middle designated for the Shareware/Freeware catagory while www.redhat.com, www.suse.com, www.opensuse.org and www.fedoraproject.org do not.

Re:share/freeware

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Ubuntu is the Fisher Price of Linux.

Re:share/freeware

[Ash-Fox]

Well Ubuntu is the Fisher Price of Linux.

Pretty sure Xandros fits that description better.

Re:share/freeware

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's simple so simple to operate even a child could use it. Unlike fedora, which appeals to the fat, cheeto-devouring geeks with lots of grey hairs on their balls.

captcha: truths

Re:Why is this news?

[Rei]

I don't know who makes the ban list that my company uses, but fedora's site is blocked, classified in the category "Tasteless". Other Linux distros' sites are fine.

I think someone has a sense of humor ;)

It's not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always figured OSS was gambling on the human nature in an indirect form; you never know how software developers turn out. The project you liked may flourish or just die away. By giving money to a project you're betting on the human nature of the developers. Some might just pocket the money and take a vacation. Some might actually dedicate more time to the project. It's not like they're contractually required to do so.

Of course, non-free software is even worse; the people there are only in it for the money. More they can milk out of you, the better for them. Sounds more like extortion than gambling :-)

Who edited this article?

[mpbrede]

The last sentence doesn't even make sense - apart from the random closing quote.

However, John Sullivan warned corporate about Microsoft's proprietary network security programs."

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, I'm on the Microsoft firewall team. I'll explain what's going on.

First off I should say that the Free Software Foundation is in fact a type of gambling site seeing as how it can cause people to lose their sense of free market capitalism. Having free software means that for-profit software industries are losing money that would otherwise be spent on expensive and high quality software systems like Microsoft Windows. So yes the economy is losing money to free software just like gambler's lose money to the casino.

Microsoft also endeavors to protect children from obscene and immoral ideas that are related to socialism, like the free software movement. So yes, "free software" is among the words on our block list. Other dangerous words that we will protect children from are:

gun control
global warming
evolution
Noam Chomsky
Canada
medical marijuana
Green Peace
Al Jazeera
Julian Assange
Israeli Apartheid
corporate welfare
union
taxation
Digital Restrictions Management
public school teacher
anal probe

Abusing their monopoly???

[jmac_the_man]

Way too many people are hung up on the idea of Microsoft "abusing its monopoly" by accidentally blocking the FSF's donation page. Let's pretend Microsoft had a monopoly on web filters or something. Does preventing people from donating to the FSF make it more likely that people will donate to Microsoft's Open Source charity? Since Microsoft doesn't have an Open Source charity, I'd guess no.

Re:Abusing their monopoly???

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't accidentally add sites to block lists. Someone made the decision, they need to be named, and told to explain themselves. Microsoft didn't do this, an employee did. An employ has a name, job title and role to perform while at work. The issue here is why. Were they told to by a superior, was it from company policy?

Re:Abusing their monopoly???

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the appropriate /. response is: Interesting that you know so much about their product. Do you work for Microsoft?

Re:Abusing their monopoly???

[kyrio]

Oh, of course, the employee who scans millions of websites a day and adds the "bad" ones to a list did it. Your comment was so insightful.

Re:Abusing their monopoly???

[Kalriath]

Well, maybe it does make people more likely to donate to Microsoft's Open Source charity, the Codeplex Foundation. But I strongly doubt this is the case.

Re:Abusing their monopoly???

[jaymemaurice]

Maybe a FSF web developer added PICS-Label meta tag before a crawl and the MS Software picked it up... why do we always blame/assume Microsoft?!
I highly doubt they do not outsource their content rating to websense or some other

<HEAD>
<META http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.icra.org"
labels on "1970.01.01T00:00-0000"
until "2036.01.19T23:59-0000"
for "http://www.fsf.org"
by "IRAN"
rating (gambling 2 language 0 nudity 0 violence 0))'>
</HEAD>

Rocky's Response

[archer, the]

Ah, Bullwinkle, that trick never works.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Shocked??

[Yew2]

Microsoft has ALWAYS behaved this way. How many 3rd party applications or features have /.ers discovered dont work properly in Windows when there is anything remotely resembling a competitive product offered by Microsoft...anyone ever try to use hotmail in non-IE browsers or chat on msn via trillian? Browsers in general for those of us that remember the big IE integrated with windows debate/doj case and the resulting minor concession MS was forced to make. I am not just talking about when MS updates Windows and your display drivers start causing bsods and you grab a vendor update and its fixed, I mean real anti-competitive practices in Microsoft's consumer and enterprise products... If I sat here and thought about it I know I would have a long list - what about u? How many times have you all looked straight up and raged GAAAAAAAATES!!

Re:Shocked??

[heypete]

anyone ever try to use hotmail in non-IE browsers or chat on msn via trillian?

Er, yes. It works fine.

I don't think I've ever had problems with Hotmail and non-IE browsers since the service was founded. Of course, I usually just use Hotmail for throwaway junk accounts but I've never had any issues.

I don't use Trillian, but Pidgin works fine with MSN chat.

Microsoft has done some shady things in the past, but it'd seem rather foolish for them to screw around with their major services like Hotmail and MSN Chat...

Re:Shocked??

[elrous0]

I've never once had any trouble running any 3rd-party software on Windows. Apple's walled garden worries me WAY more than anything MS has ever done.

Re:Shocked??

[kyrio]

I find that Hotmail works better in Opera than it does in IE. Who uses closed source, late to the game software like Trillian? Pidgin updates their protocols within a day, if it actually takes them more than a few hours. I'm glad Bill Gates made MS the company that it is. It drove real innovation. I'm glad he didn't make Microsoft the horrible company that Apple is.

Re:Shocked??

[im_thatoneguy]

If software not working properly is evidence that someone is blocking it in order to further their own gains... then a lot of the software I try to run on linux must be competing with an open source offering that greased the Kernel dev's palms. :P

Either that or the obvious truth is that shit doesn't always work perfectly because platforms have bugs. But there's nooooo way that's the case. Clearly it's a conspiracy!

Re:Why is this news?

[tenex]

Okay, I'm replying to an AC--I know it's never a good idea--but that post was really "FUNNY".

Re:Why is this news?

[houstonbofh]

Bitcoin is popular for gambling sites now because of the lack of restrictions for such sites to exist compared with normal gambling sites which can take days to deposit and many hoops to jump through.

Bitcoin is getting more popular with everyone as PayPal continues to strive for new levels of asshatery. Unfortunately, I see this happening more. I also see myself looking more into bitcoin...

Re:Why is this news?

[marcello_dl]

There's speculation that a security program that ends up classifying sites featuring bitcoin as gambling, sucks.
What is the reason behind this mistake/sabotage/whatever? who cares.

Microsoft network security tools

[1s44c]

Microsoft have a terrifying security history, who is using their network security tools?

Can someone give me a list of those companies so I can make sure I don't deal with them?

Re:Microsoft network security tools

[mystikkman]

Here are some:

Not network security but built on .NET.

StackOverflow.
Newegg.
Plentyoffish.
Geico.

Re:Microsoft network security tools

[1s44c]

Here are some:

Not network security but built on .NET.

Here is a list of fish:
cod
salmon
place
haddock

What was your point again?

Re:brosefs let me ax u

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you ask someone who cares?

$ whois pornbb.org | grep -i email
Registrant Email:owner@pornbb.org.whoisproxy.org
Admin Email:admin@pornbb.org.whoisproxy.org
Tech Email:tech@pornbb.org.whoisproxy.org

Re:Why is this news?

[jrumney]

There's speculation that their accepting of Bitcoin inadvertantly categorised them as a gambling website. ... It does not seem malicious or incompetent that this mistake happened.

That looks pretty incompetent to me.

Re:Why is this news?

[elrous0]

I concur that we should do everything in our power to protect our children from anal probe.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot "Semprini" in there.

Re:Antivirus vendors & false positives... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'll excuse me AC'ing on this,
the most amusing thing here, from my point of view, is that only last week I pulled the corporate edition of the AV suite from 'Macdubhsith' from a client's machine as it had allowed 20 different Trojans to infect it (Infections spotted by the four other virus scanners I have, mbam and spybot, and confirmed by submitting a sample infected file to virustotal).

Somehow, the fact that their software flags a non-trojan application as a Trojan does not surprise me in the least.

Agreed

[Weezul]

I'd agree that fsf.org was almost surely miss-categorized by a filtering algorithm.

In particular, Microsoft has surely added filters that reduce the possibility that Windows users happen upon software that directly competes with Microsoft's offerings.

In principle, they'd avoid blocking important sites like fsf.org, but presumably they block less important stuff. It's simply that fsf.org fell through the cracks.

Re:Agreed

[icebraining]

FSF.org doesn't offer software. You'd have a point if they had blocked Gnu.org.

Re:Agreed

[davester666]

They offer gambling licenses.

As in, in Microsoft's opinion, it's a gamble for any business to include code that's licensed using the GPL, because you might have to open-source all code that business has ever developed.

Re:Agreed

[RobbieThe1st]

FUD, as I'm sure you know(I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, so I'll assume not). Worst thing that can happen is you'll not be able to sell your product again and you may be open to a copyright-related lawsuit resulting in some money lost, but noone can force you to open your code.

Re:Agreed

[maxwell demon]

Well, he explicitly qualified it as "in Microsoft's opinion".

summary fail -- John Sullivan??

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is John Sullivan? What "corporate" did he warn about Microsoft's propietary network security programs? Is with the FSF?

Windows users are gamblers in themselves

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Since Microsoft has no desire to secure its OS, you can get a virus at the slightest thing. It wouldn't be difficult to secure Windows OS. Just secure it so things can't be installed outside the directory you put them in, and can't affect things outside that directory. Leave a backwards compatibility mode for those who's systems rely on legacy software.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol @ Canada

Re:Why is this news?

[mister_playboy]

I think someone has a sense of humor ;)

Maybe they don't like systemd...

Failure to notice where you are.

[Anonymous Coward]

.. Why would you visit that kind of website on a corporate systems anyway? Do that at home.

Re:Failure to notice where you are.

[Xtifr]

What if trying to donate on behalf of your company, which still uses MS on the desktop, but has a server room filled with FSF software (in other words, if you're a typical modern company).

stomp on the hose?

[Anonymous Coward]

this situation brings to mind the supposed comment by Gates to the effect that Microsoft needed to stomp on Netscape's oxygen hose.

Re:Why is this news?

[joetainment]

I'm Canadian, and upon reading that part I burst into laughter loud enough that people are now asking me what was so funny.

Re:Well, here's what happens in those cases...

[icebraining]

Go away, APK, and stop shilling your software.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Whatcha ya laughin' aboot, eh?"

"You'll love this, someone mentioned Canada, eh."

"Ooh, ya, that's a good one, eh!"

Corporate structure = cover for the perfect crime

[bussdriver]

Some employee could be acting alone to do such things; but then the lack of documentation allows for the perfect cover. Unless required to keep emails and memos for every action and a policy or law to retain those in a secure fashion you can't be sure of WHO is behind many actions performed.

Obviously, SOMEBODY does it but with a chain of command it is so much easier to spread, dilute, and HIDE blame.

Re:Well, here's what happens in those cases...

[Anonymous Coward]

hey apk?

I downloaded your software, but it doesn't do anything after extraction.

I'm running Slackware -current, if that helps you out. Can't wait to try it.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it is tasteless...

It's not like BSD where we can bend the developers over and fondle away their crown jewels for repackaging as commercial software, is it?...

perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, let's put things in perspective:

1) These lists aren't made manually. They're made by an algorithm. Part of the algorithm searches for key words.
2) Let's say 95% of sites that accept Bitcoins are actually gambling sites. That means that the words associated with accepting bitcoins have a high correlation to gambling sites. If there are other words that trigger the "gambling" classification, it's probably going to get classified that way.
3) Let's say there is a whitelist of "good" domains. It's probably going to include domains like Google and Amazon. It probably includes all of the major websites. But major websites are determined by traffic, not by how well /.ers know about them. And by traffic, the FSF is number 49,225 according to Alexa. Hardly what I'd call a major website.

Re:Why is this news?

[TheMMaster]

Yes! Don't let children near priests!

Re:Why is this news?

[xigxag]

Your parent is agreeing that it's a mistake. But probably a mistake due to a slightly overzealous filter as opposed to gross incompetence. Even highly competent individuals/organizations make mistakes.

Summer Slashdotter, or what?

[Qubit]

Who is John Sullivan? What "corporate" did he warn about Microsoft's propietary network security programs? Is with [sic] the FSF?

Where have you been? Sullivan's been with the FSF for about a decade.

Re:Summer Slashdotter, or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know who Sullivan was but was able to derive that he was someone important to FSF just by context. It doesn't matter that the AC was living under a rock. The AC wouldn't have understood things anyway.

Re:Why is this news?

[beltsbear]

I would say it is just speculation. The biggest Bitcoin sites are NOT blocked by microsoft such as bitcointalk.org and mtgox.com. Microsoft is not scanning for bitcoin or bitcoin addresses alone to make this (wrong) call. There has to be something more to it.

I joined the FSF today because of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Microsoft I just gave the FSF $120 because of your actions.

Re:Why is this news?

[Angeret]

While I think that both sides in this debate/war are behaving like asshats, I do believe that you are tarring a whole nation with a rather broad brush here. The fact that a certain number of stupid people from either side wish to keep on killing doesn't justify the current Israeli policy (quietly supported by the US) of starving the population out of existence. And if you're looking for citations & quotes, fuck off, I really cannot be bothered today.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

• AARD code
• Halloween Documents
• Groklaw
• Ballot Resolution Meeting
• Thomas Penfield Jackson
• Windows refund
• Education and Government Incentives Program (EDGI)

...

Re:Why is this news?

[fritsd]

Well, I don't mean to complain, but they DO use those RPM packages instead of the blessèd tasty .deb packages.

Besides, have you ever tried to eat a fedora hat? Well then.

Re:Why is this news?

[flyingfsck]

Yankee go home, eh? Don't come over here just fer cheap shoppin, meds and weed and then poke fun at us, eh? Lest we thump yer ass and burn the white house down agin, eh?

Re:Why is this news?

[flyingfsck]

"It does not seem malicious or incompetent" I guess it must be religion then...

BS Legal Response

[xigxag]

FSF has no grounds to sue Microsoft, even if this is deliberate. Microsoft has no monopoly or close to it in the webfilter arena. Microsoft isn't secretly mucking with dns or some other blatantly illegal action. Client corporations voluntarily elect to use Microsoft's security software to control their own traffic. MS makes no claims that it is 100% accurate. Additionally, MS has procedures in place to correct a misclassification. And even if they didn't, there's no standard by which third-party private web filters are actionable, other than say, breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. But in that case, the proper plaintiff would be Microsoft's customer, not FSF.

Oh, FSF might lose some donations? How is that MS's problem? FSF's suing Microsoft is like advertisers suing the makers of NoScript and Adblock for depriving them of eyeballs.

Re:BS Legal Response

[theCoder]

The FSF could conceivably bring a slander (or in this case, libel) case against MS. After all, MS is telling a third party (their customers) something false about the FSF that could conceivably cause damages. It's that last part that's tricky though. It would be tricky to prove any actual damages.

It's probably worth more to the FSF as PR to get people sympathetic to their cause to donate more money. It's kind of like how political party X likes the most extreme member of party Y because they can use what that person says and does to raise money from their own members.

Re:BS Legal Response

[bmo]

>FSF has no grounds to sue Microsoft, even if this is deliberate. Microsoft has no monopoly or close to it in the webfilter arena.

Lanham act.

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which --
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

(2) As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.

In other words, if you slander or libel a trademark holder and do economic damage to the good name of the trademark holder, you are liable for damages.

--
BMO

Re:BS Legal Response

[jpvlsmv]

FSF has no grounds to sue Microsoft, even if this is deliberate. Microsoft has no monopoly or close to it in the webfilter arena.

Yet another person who doesn't understand antitrust law.

A party that has monopoly power in one market MUST NOT take actions (even in another market) that unfairly sustain that monopoly, or extend that monopoly to other competitive markets.

--Joe

Re:BS Legal Response

[bmo]

Totally ignoring the Sherman Antitrust act, the FSF has an open-and-shut case using the Lanham Act. Really, there isn't any debating about it. Microsoft spread the lie that the FSF is a gambling site and impacted the FSF monetarily. That's just as much libel as if I took out an ad in the newspaper calling you a criminal with no basis in fact.

And that guy gets modded up, which is fucking ridiculous.

--
BMO

Re:BS Legal Response

[xigxag]

Lol, "that guy."

If you are so sure that FSF has an "open and shut" case why don't you offer to represent them on contingency? Easy money, right?

Re:BS Legal Response

[bmo]

>get proven wrong by the actual text of the law.
>attempt to ridicule

Yup.

Meet your new status.

--
BMO

Re:BS Legal Response

[xigxag]

Laws don't "prove" anything. Winning a case in court proves something. If Lanham applied here, and if this was a slam-dunk, then FSF would be litigating right now, especially given Stallman's antipathy toward Microsoft. The fact that they aren't should tell you something. If at some point they change their minds, and take MS to court, and prevail, I'll happily eat crow.

Re:BS Legal Response

[bmo]

>The fact that they aren't should tell you something.

This *just happened* and you expect them to file a lawsuit without doing any research first? Without trying other solutions first, In the first week? You are what, 12 years old?

I merely countered your assertion that Microsoft was not in the wrong, legally, which you still haven't even provided a link to back up anything you've said. I've cited the law. Your move.

--
BMO

Re:BS Legal Response

[xigxag]

It seems to me that since you're now admitting that other solutions rather than litigation might be preferable, in other words, that it's not an "open and shut case" as you previously asserted, then we're done. But, regarding the statutory issue you raised, I'd suggest taking a look at this article, where it points out that the provision of the Lanham Act which you cited, S 43(a)(1)(B) contains the requirement

that the challenged description or representation be made “in commercial advertising
or promotion.” That provision was added to address First
Amendment concerns by excluding from the reach of
Section 43(a)(1)(B) “political promotion” and “‘consumer or
editorial content, parodies, satires, or other constitutionally
protected material.’”...Perhaps for this reason, the courts—to the extent they
consider the statutory language at all—frequently focus on
whether a defendant is engaged in advertising or promotion,
rather than on whether the challenged description or
representation is commercial speech.

In other words, there's only a violation under sub(B) of this statute when "advertising or promotion" is taking place. MS Forefront Threat Management Gateway isn't for the purpose of advertising or promotion; it's arguably a type of editorial service. And sub(A) doesn't really apply here, it's more concerning a situation where say hypothetically Microsoft had started referring to itself as the "Fun Software Foundation" so they could start saying "Richard Stallman loves us. We're the FSF, after all."

As well, see here. I still contend that none of this stuff has anything to do with making a mistake in rating a website.

Re:BS Legal Response

[bmo]

There is a logical OR between parts A and B.

If you read 1 and A, Microsoft is hosed. B can be ignored because it's an OR dependency, not an AND.

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which --
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person

Try reading again.

--
BMO

Re:BS Legal Response

[bmo]

And to follow up, I anticipate that you are going to say that I am arguing semantics.

Logical operators in laws mean the same thing in language as they do in math and symbolic logic (also math).

--
BMO

Re:BS Legal Response

[xigxag]

The part that you highlighted, "approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person" is regarding third party endorsements. In other words, the statute is referring to when, for example, a celebrity is made to look like they endorse a particular product when in fact they do not. Which, as I explained earlier, is why sub(A) is not pertinent to this discussion. Here's a 9th circuit decision mentioning this matter. It says, in part:

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), prohibits the use of false designations of origin, false descriptions, and false representations in the advertising and sale of goods and services. Waits' claim under section 43(a) is premised on the theory that by using an imitation of his distinctive voice in an admitted parody of a Tom Waits song, the defendants misrepresented his association with and endorsement of SalsaRio Doritos.

At this point, if you still care about this matter, I can only suggest that you research the subject on your own or find an attorney who will be willing to look up further case law.

Re:BS Legal Response

[xigxag]

I agree with you here. But see my above as to why sub(A) is not germane to this topic.

Re:BS Legal Response

[bmo]

Each of those things under B are connected by OR statements.

What you cited doesn't have to be tied to the last bit that I bolded.

>whether I care

At this point, I don't any more. You're not a lawyer even though you are trying to pretend to be one. I'm not a lawyer, but I can logic and I can read. The cases you are citing are not applicable to this situation because they are about different parts of that stuff between the ORs.

I would be more inclined to agree with your side if you actually cited cases that were applicable.

--
BMO

Re:BS Legal Response

[bmo]

I goofed the first sentence. It should read:

Each of those things under B and A are connected by OR statements.

--
BMO

Re:BS Legal Response

[bmo]

Incidentally, I removed the foe status, because I set it in a fit of pique.

--
BMO

Re:It's a Win32/64 app's why most likely

[BronsCon]

of course, from experience here? Anyone posting AC is usually a troll also!

There, fixed that for ya

Don't forget teen prostitutes...

[LostMyBeaver]

A whole ago, I watched a program on the huge teen prostitution problem in Vacouver. High school girls apparently found out that a little lip service was enough to fill their wardrobes with name brands. I have a daughter that will soon be a teen... So I'm not moving there!!!

Shit... I can't remember the name of that movie where some politician tried to gain points while running for office by trying to declare war on Canada... That was too good... Not joking when I say that I met someone who actually only caught a few minutes of the film back then and actually thought Canadians were dangerous. I told him "Only the French speaking ones. Their communists and hide behind their language.". Not sure what happened to him... But if he's still alive, he probably still believes it.

Re:Don't forget teen prostitutes...

[gmack]

Strangely enough that same story ran in Canada about teens in the midwest united states.

The movie you are referring to is "Canadian Bacon", a film written by John Candy and Michael Moore.

Re:Don't forget teen prostitutes...

[mhotchin]

Perhaps 'Canadian Bacon'?

Re:Ash-Fox's afraid to answer 3 simple questions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question, why do they let you contact the outside world from the crazy asylum?
Do they want to keep the money coming or something?

Probably origin of data is not Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I am almost certain this categorization originated from BrightCloud (subsidiary of Webroot), which is well known to be one of the content rating and categorization suppliers of Microsoft. Their systems perform categorization largely automatically (obviously this is the "secret sauce" of the business) with partial human audits, but also to some extent based on feedback which one can provide on their website. I don't believe this miscategorization is in any way connected to interests of Microsoft - probably it's just a glitch in automation.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time - I remember an occasion when they miscategorized ClamAV update site as malware site. Often their categorization is quite accurate on widely popular used sites in English, but on fringe sites and fringe languages can cause odd mistakes. It's very hard to see the great conspiracy behind them, despite the fact miscategorizations are certainly annoying.

Re:Probably origin of data is not Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh - I forgot to mention the strongest indication for my assumption: BrightCloud site indeed listed donate.fsf.org as a site in gambling category, just minutes ago when I checked.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the FSF called on organizations to use Firewalls licensed under AGPL 3 as opposed to GPL 3, so that the firewall that replaces Microsoft's proprietary firewall, is truly free, as opposed to the not-truly free nature of a GPL 3 based firewall, which wouldn't give out the source code to the firewall

You're off topic ac troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you realize Win32/Win64 exes are for Windows, not Linux?

APK

P.S.=> Trolling by ac replies on your part's possible too, from experience of having my "trolls anonymous 'fanclub of apk stalkers' @ /." club... lol! apk

Re:You're off topic ac troll

[BronsCon]

Well, to be an "off topic ac troll", I'd have to post AC. Since I, unlike you, APK, am still allowed to log in and have plenty of karma to burn, I don't bother with that checkbox. I just post as I see fit and let the banned trolls like yourself hide behind the AC badge. You do realize you're only still here because Slashdot *chooses* to allow anon posting without requiring a login first, and not because you've figured out some genius way around the system, right? You're just as much within the system as you were when you were actually allowed to log in.

He shows MS Security Essentials didn't err

[Anonymous Coward]

On his program, others did. Why's he downmodded? He's on topic on antivirus false positives too. What's wrong with slashdot inappropriate down moderations lately? It was a good tale to learn by.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft classifies fedora.org as 'Dubious'

You can check it at https://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/mrs/default.aspx

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Noam Chomsky is far more invasive and likely to leave an infection in young who haven't been vaccinated by reality.

Shouldn't Microsoft.com be blocked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't you think Microsoft.com should be blocked and black-listed as a distributor of malware?!?

MS Artificial Unintelligence

[cpghost]

In all likelihood, this will prove to be a false positive generated by some poorly engineered classification algorithm at Microsoft. I dislike Microsoft as much as everyone else, but c'mon guys, this is so obviously bogus that it can't be malice. Even if it is Microsoft we're talking about here. IMHO, it's a clear case of MSAU (MS Artificial Unintelligence) at work.

Re:MS Artificial Unintelligence

[Anonymous Coward]

Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malice.

Yes, I know that's supposedly backwards, but I view stupidity as a special form of malice.

What element is spoon?

[tepples]

Crasoose is a bunny licking spoon bender!

"Bunny licking" I get: helping a rabbit with its hygiene. As for the rest, I know of air bending, water bending, fire bending, and earth bending, but what traditional element is "spoon"?

Re:Antivirus vendors & false positives... apk

[marcosdumay]

So, you wrote a self modifying .exe that writtes on the hosts file, and you didn't imagine it would be tagged as a trojan?

I'd advice you to not compress the next version of your software, or if you really must, use a normal zip algorithm, using mainstream lib.

Thanks Microsoft

[boxfetish]

For convincing me to become a contributing member of the FSF today.

Re:Why is this news?

[marcosdumay]

Debian.org is classified with "Tecnical Information" that is good, and "Shareware/Freeware" that MS classify as bad. I don't know if it is enough to block the site.

What's more outrageous?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that Microsoft would try to block access to fsf.org is not plausible for the reason cited.

What they have really been caught at is blocking a website based on keyword scanning without any human review.

Surely a check of whatever reputation score Bing had compiled for fsf.org would have flagged this as a doubtful gambling site, and called for human review before taking automatic action.

Wrong on ALL counts on your part... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, you wrote a self modifying .exe" - by marcosdumay (620877) on Sunday June 24, @06:03PM (#40432353) Homepage

WRONG - My program PROTECTS ITSELF vs. self-modification OR VIRAL MODIFICATION, & via this idea I implemented decades ago vs. that(was modded up here in "Coding for Defcon" @ /. in fact, years ago) -> CODING FOR DEFCON (my compressed/packed exe + sizecheck @ startup technique): 2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158231&cid=13257227

If it detects modification to itself, & if not same size @ byte level, it shuts itself down (can't be infected if it changes size, which IS what true "computer viruses" usually do to executables)

(It works... in fact, I am astounded other coders don't use the idea, because std. virus in the classic sense in executable infectors would be a thing of the past... or prevented to a HIGH degree/extent).

---

"that writtes on the hosts file" - by marcosdumay (620877) on Sunday June 24, @06:03PM (#40432353) Home

So does Spybot Search & Destroy - in pretty much the same way/for the same purposes-reasons: Security vs. online threats. Mine does a lot more than just that... but, point's there - it FAR from malicious, & in fact it speeds up users online in 2 ways, + protects them from online threats, and also gives them more abilities like better "anonymity" vs. DNS request logs & being able to bypass DNSBL's IF they like too!

---

"and you didn't imagine it would be tagged as a trojan?" - by marcosdumay (620877) on Sunday June 24, @06:03PM (#40432353) Home

Not @ all, for the reasons noted above... & you're VERY OFF per the above also - did you think you were correct? No... sorry.

---

"I'd advice you to not compress the next version of your software, or if you really must, use a normal zip algorithm, using mainstream lib. - by marcosdumay (620877) on Sunday June 24, @06:03PM (#40432353) Home

My program's NOT MALICIOUS - it produces a file for users they "tune" themselves in fact easily, that does QUITE the OPPOSITE... and thus, who are you to give advice?

See above again - even when slashdot had an article on protecting code, for Defcon? I was uprated for the VERY IDEA you're trying to advise me on... lol!

APK

P.S.=> You're not one to advice, vs. the above, & ESPECIALLY when you have the mechanics of my program completely wrong & especially since it functions like others like it for security purposes, e.g. the program I noted above...

... apk

Re:Wrong on ALL counts on your part... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Genuinely curious: why actually compress your .exe rather than use a regular SHA256 type hash?

Re:Wrong on ALL counts on your part... apk

[marcosdumay]

I didn't say your program was malicius, and the anti-virus was right tagging it. All I said is that it does some things that normaly raise the suspicion of anti-virus (because lots of virus do them), and one should expect some of them to tag you because of that. Yes, they are wrong, but one could easily immagine that they'd be wrong and protect oneself beforehand, avoiding all the trouble.

Thank-you...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct on all accounts noted - I have a "Troll Fanclub" that likes to troll me by ac posts, & downmod my initial posts...

* That's since I have beaten the tar out of them in techinical debates here SO MANY TIMES, they're just victims of their own "geek angst", & act worse then women now, with those "honorable" (lol, not) 'tactics', in "effete retaliation" (because they know they can never get the best of me in computing related debates).. pitiful!

APK

P.S.=> Every once in awhile that happens - someone states the truth & obvious on 1 of my downrated posts that have nothing but facts in them... apk

Re:Thank-you...

[Anonymous Coward]

You get downmodded constantly by me and others because you are the most boring, smug and irritating person in the world.
Also, you repeatedly post the same posts in the same discussion rather than (e.g.) referring back (I counted 10 identical or near identical posts by you in a recent thread). Even playing fully by the 'rules of moderation', you deserve 9 redundant mods for that. Bet you won't address *this* particular point because you'd rather play the 'victim of unfair moderation', wah! wah!

Re:Why is this news?

[gmhowell]

Debian.org is classified with "Tecnical Information" that is good, and "Shareware/Freeware" that MS classify as bad. I don't know if it is enough to block the site.

Does Microsoft classify as good vs. bad, or do they just categorize and leave it to users to set up local policies for which they block?

I know which way it is for the site blocking software where I work...

Re:Why is this news?

[Falconhell]

Well said sir, but truth like this is sure to be modded down.

Re:Why is this news?

[Kalriath]

"Tasteless"? Sounds like it could be Websense.

innocent mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

There are indeed gambling references on fsf.org:

https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/dbd/sites/www.defectivebydesign.org/modules/contrib-5/spam/spam.install

            db_query("INSERT INTO {spam_custom} VALUES (1, '/(adipex|cialis|phentermine|viagra)/i', 1, 1, 2, 0, 0)");
            db_query("INSERT INTO {spam_custom} VALUES (2, '/casino games|poker online|texas hold\\''em|texas holdem/i', 1, 0, 2, 0, 0)");
            db_query("INSERT INTO {spam_custom} VALUES (3, '/(american|casino|free|grand|online|party)(|-)?(blackjack|casino|gambling|poker)/i', 1, 0, 2, 0, 0)");
            db_query("INSERT INTO {spam_custom} VALUES (4, 'diet pill', 0, 0, 2, 0, 0)");
        case 'pgsql':
            db_query("CREATE TABLE spam_tracker (
                sid serial PRIMARY KEY,

Re:Do you OWN /., boy? No...

[icebraining]

Nobody cares what you've done. We just don't want to get hit by you constantly self-masturbating over your own stuff. If you're a great programmer and you have nothing to prove, why do you insist on doing so? It's just sad.

Indeed

[Burz]

Never trust people who wish you to hold two mutually-exclusive things to be 'true'. We need to come up with a name for people like that. I don't think 'fanboy' does it justice.

Entirely co-incidental ..

[dgharmon]

"This is of course entirely co-incidental. Microsoft is an ethical company that would never stoop to breaking its own software in order to defeat a competitor.

Net greeting card company alleges Microsoft is trying to destroy them

One gigantic strawman ..

[dgharmon]

He said control - not write your own code. The rest of your piece is just one gigantic strawman.

Re:One gigantic strawman ..

[theshowmecanuck]

Did you learn the expression 'strawman' on slashdot? What the fuck do you think he meant by control? He meant all aspects. Another super literal nitwit heard from.

Re:Corporate structure = cover for the perfect cri

[jmac_the_man]

Your reply has nothing to do with monopoly abuse. If you want to post about some crazy conspiracy, write your own post. Don't piggyback off of mine.

Speculation over mistake?

[dgharmon]

"There's speculation that their accepting of Bitcoin inadvertantly categorised them as a gambling website"

Does the speculation have any idea why no other site using bitcoin were equally labeled?

For your protection

[Waccoon]

Given that this software is designed for corporate networks, I don't see this as bad as all the "safe browsing" stuff that's being put into web browsers these days. Automated blocking isn't really something we should be pushing with regards to things like gambling. Save the blocking (with overrides) for malware sites.

Also, do corporations have to use Microsoft's Reputation Service, or are they able to add/remove sites themselves? The comment from the FSF about the proprietary nature of Microsoft's software make it sound like any level of manual control is impossible. Is it?

One thing that isn't mentioned in the article is whether this security suite is meant for use by ISPs. Does it only work on corporate servers on their own intranet, or is this something that could potentially block people's home computers from accessing the FSF donation site? If it only affects corporate networks, claiming it could prevent people from making donations to the FSF is unnecessary and sounds like attention whoring to me.

I hate to sound like a devil's advocate, but I'd like more facts and less bashing.

Correction submitted

[PPH]

Anyone know the odds on Microsoft fixing this is?

Gambling......

[InspectorGadget1964]

Well, I guess M$ is taking a gamble at trying not reduce the money goint to FSF.....

Re:Why is this news?

[dakohli]

Of course the panel front and center which reads:

Stand up for your freedom to install free software
!
Join 30,000 people in opposing Microsoft's Restricted Boot by signing this statement

Has nothing to do with it.

Re:Why is this news?

[xigxag]

That theory fails to account for one thing: Cui bono?

How does Microsoft possibly stand to gain by effectively drawing more attention to FSF's campaign? Because that's the only conceiveable outcome to such a ham-fisted method of thwarting an opponent. Well that and destroying their clients' trust in their security suite. All to stop a minuscule percentage of the Internet (the small group consisting of the intersection of MS Forefront users and free-software enthusiasts) from looking at a homepage panel.

Or do people think that MS somehow thought they could squash the FSF's website with nobody in the tech world noticing it was off the Internet, and mua-ha-ha mission accomplished; now there's no one to stand in the way of Secure Boot!

Like most conspiracy theories, this requires the evil villain to have wickedly schemed 20 steps ahead of everyone else (step one, plant a birth announcement in a Seattle newspaper in 1955) yet somehow incapable of seeing the simple obvious flaws in the master plan.

I'm gonna make up a theory that Stallman sabotaged MS's security himself in order to cleverly mock the notion of Microsoft "secure"-ing anything, boot or otherwise. And to remind people that FSF still exists.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Karma whore. That's nice behavior, whoring for karma from racists...

Re:It's a Win32/64 app's why most likely

[jaymemaurice]

*wooosssshhhhh*

Maybe AC was trying to be Funny and posted AC in fears the humor would be missed and modded down. I mean, this is slashdot, the home of linux geeks and the thread is about the FSF. I don't think he downloaded your software, or wants to try it, or is running Slackware or deserves the negative connotation of "troll" with such obvious dry humor.

Re:Why is this news?

[Maritz]

anal probe

And vagina, surely.

Re:Why is this news?

[Maritz]

That should've been 'or' probably. Shouldn't post when up to 6am I guess.

Fuck you Microsoft

[diego.viola]

Fuck off.

Re:Why is this news?

[dakohli]

Nicely stated.

Of course, as with all gaffes, whether it was:

A) Malicious/Overzealous employee

B) Innocent Mistake

C) Nefarious Plot

The most important thing will be how it is dealt with after the fact. If it takes too long to fix, or if there is an overly complex explanation, there will be Streisand Effect and the optics will be murky. Any time Corporations use filters that someone else maintains, this sort of thing is bound to happen. Look at the debates that rage over filters in use at schools and homes.

You can't really win, because there are too many folks ready to jump on these mistakes and use them to beat the drum of self righteousness.

Re:Why is this news?

[petman]

fedora.org has a picture of a dog in hot dog buns.
The web site of the Linux distro is fedoraproject.org.

Re:Why is this news?

[petman]

Are you sure you got the right site for fedora? Did you type in fedora.org? In which case, tasteless is correct, unless you like the taste of puppies.
Try http://fedoraproject.org.

Re:It's a Win32/64 app's why most likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Humor is synonymous with stupidity on slashdot - I get it.

No, I asked what YOU have done (zero)

[Anonymous Coward]

ZERO is the resulting answer... lmao! Especially vs. this from you:

"Nobody cares what you've done." - by icebraining (1313345) on Sunday June 24, @08:04PM (#40433575) Homepage

You obviously do care, since you're responding again, & have zero to show for yourself!

Given a challenge put to you by myself, that's your result? Please: "Run, Forrest - RUN!?? It's not much of a result on your part...

---

"We just don't want to get hit by you constantly self-masturbating over your own stuff." - by icebraining (1313345) on Sunday June 24, @08:04PM (#40433575) Homepage

I merely state facts, and you provide us the FACT YOU ARE MERELY A "ne'er-do-well" (lol) - thanks for proving my point on that account... &, you're also now "projecting" what you yourself like to see (lol, "manual entertainment")? Please... lol!

---

"If you're a great programmer and you have nothing to prove, why do you insist on doing so?" - by icebraining (1313345) on Sunday June 24, @08:04PM (#40433575) Homepage

No - I merely stated facts that proved that you have zero, no "pot to piss in", & that you're an off-topic "ne'er-do-well" who runs from a challenge put to he here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2935243&cid=40430417 because YOU HAD TO RUN!

(Since you've managed to accomplish ZERO OF NOTE/WORTH in the art & science of computing).

---

"It's just sad." - by icebraining (1313345) on Sunday June 24, @08:04PM (#40433575) Homepage

What's saddest of all is the fact that YOU came in here "barking orders", & yet you have no authority, or even accomplishments in the computing field to even begin to lend you any authority, hence why nobody pays YOU any mind or lends you any credence... period.

(You know it, I KNOW IT - now, anyone reading, also knows it... lol!)

APK

P.S.=> After all - the results speak for themselves & yourself (big fat ZERO)...

(So all your "ne'er-do-well" tantrums, off-topic illogical failing ad hominem attack attempts etc.? Useless... just like you!)

... apk

Re:No, I asked what YOU have done (zero)

[icebraining]

No, I asked what YOU have done

Yes, I know, but I have nothing to prove to you, unlike you who apparently are in need of social validation.

And if you want to take this as an admission of my "worthlessness", be my guest, I literally couldn't care less. I know the programmers I admire and they ain't the authors of Shareware #4352 on some god-awful Windows 'zine. And they certainly don't have such a low self-esteem to be constantly showing how big their balls are.

But I see my case is hopeless, so I'll stop wasting my time with it. And you can stop wasting yours too, since your posts will be invisible to me from now on.

Take care.

Re:Ash-Fox's afraid to answer 3 simple questions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably got rich parents, who pay for the fancy nuthouse with fast internet connection and pizza delivery.

Re:Why is this news?

[Krojack]

And keep an eye on those assistant football coaches!

Re:Why is this news?

[marcosdumay]

They have a red icon with an "x", and a green icon with a check. I think that is calling things good or bad, altough somebody may disagree.

Stop. Stop. Stop.

[Benfea]

Look, I'm a liberal, and I found this to be funny. He was pretending to be from Microsoft and was pretending to be a FOX News zombie, and in that character he listed off a bunch of phrases that any conservolibertarian might want to block for fear that any site using such a phrase might also contain information contrary to the usual right wing propaganda. I do not believe the author's intent was to offer any actual commentary on any of the phrases nor was there any intent in trivializing any of the issues associated with those phrases. It was simply a list of phrases likely to make a right wingnut fearful and/or angry.

The target of this humor was Microsoft and to a lesser extent conservolibertarians. I do not think any slight to the severity of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was intended.

Hyperbole? Maybe.

[Benfea]

But the reason this has traction is that Microsoft has a long history of doing sleazy things to undermine those it considers competition. I do think Microsoft has improved in this regard and finally understands how it hurts their public perception when they do underhanded things to competitors, but the public still remembers how Microsoft used to be, and you can't really blame people for jumping to these particular conclusions. If Microsoft hasn't done so many things like this in the past, then stories like this wouldn't gain traction without firmer evidence to back it up.

What a shane!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the drop that may fill and overflow the latrine of M$ doings!

My actions speak louder than YOUR words

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know the programmers I admire and they ain't the authors of Shareware #4352 on some god-awful Windows 'zine. And they certainly don't have such a low self-esteem to be constantly showing how big their balls are.." - by icebraining (1313345) on Monday June 25, @03:40PM (#40442951) Homepage

First - You're NOT THEM, are you? No... lol!

I know 'em too, & AM ONE OF THEM (with over 32++ extremely large "enterprise-class"/"mission-critical" systems that run ENTIRE COMPANIES information systems to my credit professionally, since 1994... SO, again - HOW ABOUT YOU?)

"Not only am I the president of the 'hair club for men', but I'm also a member..." & you? Clearly, your not, based on your evasions & lack of accomplishments in the art & science of computing (& yet you saw fit to "bark orders" @ me like YOU OWN /.? Please... lol!).

SECONDLY - At least I have self-esteem & demonstratable proofs to my credit in the art & science of computing YOU CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO TOUCH on your part -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2935243&cid=40430417 ... lol, you're an "armchair QB" talker, nothing more!

---

"Yes, I know, but I have nothing to prove to you, unlike you who apparently are in need of social validation." - by icebraining (1313345) on Monday June 25, @03:40PM (#40442951) Homepage

No, rather YOU HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE IT WITH, & I proved that much with the challenge you RAN from Forrest -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2935243&cid=40430417

(I just "shot you down in flames" is all, using facts - Proof? Well, that's easy - See link here http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2935243&cid=40430417 (lol))...

Once more - "Run, Forrest - RUN!!!"...

---

"And if you want to take this as an admission of my "worthlessness", be my guest, I literally couldn't care less." - by icebraining (1313345) on Monday June 25, @03:40PM (#40442951) Homepage

LMAO - Oh, really? Is THAT why you're posting now?? B.S., you clearly DO care, but you can't salvage yourself @ this point, you've done ZERO - but, that's what you get when you troll me, see link above & my subject-line also...

(You're a LOT OF TALK, but no action!)

---

---

"But I see my case is hopeless, so I'll stop wasting my time with it. " - by icebraining (1313345) on Monday June 25, @03:40PM (#40442951) Homepage

Good move outta you, for once @ least, lol!

I mean, hey - You? Trying to "take me on" from YOU, armchair QB "ne'er-do-well"??

Impossible...

You FAIL, everytime, and on the grounds I noted above. Period.

---

"And you can stop wasting yours too, since your posts will be invisible to me from now on." - by icebraining (1313345) on Monday June 25, @03:40PM (#40442951) Homepage

Oh, that's IT: "Run, Forrest - RUN!!!"

---

* You FAIL, I win, as usual...

APK

P.S.=> Well, you just KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as-is-per-my-usual "inimitable style":

This? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'", & it always IS, because of "ne'er-do-well" trolls like icebraining - who "talk a good game" but when the chips are on the table? They have ZERO... lol! Everytime...

... apk

2 good reasons (MS uses them too)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Genuinely curious: why actually compress your .exe rather than use a regular SHA256 type hash?" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25, @11:10AM (#40439009)

2 GOOD SOLID REASONS:

1.) Compressed/Packed executables are HARDER to disassemble/reverse engineer (even Dr. Mark Russinovich uses the technique I noted & was modded up here for during "Coding for Defcon" -> CODING FOR DEFCON (my compressed/packed exe + sizecheck @ startup technique): 2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158231&cid=13257227 )

Why? It worked for him on ROOTKIT REVEALER is why - ask him yourself!

I.E./E.G.-> It makes it tougher on hacker/cracker types to mess up his work (for he, it dealt in hWnd intercepts & messaging which this works for also, via obfuscation exe packing yields... easily!).

---

2.) Compressed/Packed exes LOAD FASTER FROM DISK (over networks especially) - & today's extremely FAST cpu's make up for the decompression stage in memory...

---

* And, there you are... & yes, my sizecheck technique works for both reasons above, & makes "resource hacking" my apps harder to do also (bonus)...

What you're suggesting's another possible (I was going to do CRC checks also but just stuck with my simple technique's all).

APK

P.S.=> It's also "seamless" & EASY to implement - done AFTER the exe's built by the compressor itself... So, that "all said & aside"?

Any other questions?? Ask

... apk

Re:2 good reasons (MS uses them too)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I must admit I'm surprised. I guess I need to explain this so back up a moment!

I used to use compressed executables in the early nineties - look up "PowerPacker" but that was back in the days where "Virtual memory" was an unheard of luxury that only minicomputers had. Powerpacker had the advantage you talk about 99% of the time - not only did you save disk space, but it was faster to load a compressed executable because the CPU was faster than the disk.

Today... well, look at Linux and you'll find it actually mmap()s (well, not directly, but you get the idea) the executable into memory. That is, the lowest levels of the exec() call simply look at the binary, determine where everything is expected to load, and points the pages for the current process to those disk sectors.

Result - no loading time. Literally. Instead the app is loaded on the fly as necessary. And if it's already loaded (you have fifty copies of "sh" running, for example) then it's not even loaded a second time, it's already there and the kernel just shares the pages between different processes.

So... anyway, this is where I'm surprised, that Windows doesn't do this? It's a fairly easy optimization in these days of huge disks.

Wrong again (you're on a roll, lol)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I never HAD a registered account of "APK" (or any other other than 1 in AlecStaar I built to speak to John Carmack here ONCE, in 2002 that I don't even RECALL THE PASSWORD TO ANYMORE, lol)

So, I can't use APK (an Andrew K has it)...

* So much for THAT, from you...

---

Since I, unlike you, APK, am still allowed to log in and have plenty of karma to burn" - by BronsCon (927697) on Tuesday June 26, @02:37AM (#40449443)

See above, "Rinse, Lather, & REPEAT"... so it sinks in, & you can "drink it in & digest it" washing it down with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" & your foot in your mouth (for FLAVOR, lol - how's it taste?).

(To the next troll - "NEXT"... lol, I'll just blow them down too, with facts & logic!)

APK

P.S.=> I honestly could care LESS about "karma points", especially when I can demonstrate with proofs that I still get highly rated here usually when I post, ala:

Roughly 200++ of them & I post as AC (hard to get even +1, as /. hides our posts & we "AC"'s start @ ZERO/0 points, unlike registered "lusers", lol!):

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (6):

HOSTS & BGP:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450
FIREFOX IN DANGER: 2011 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2559120&cid=38268580
TESLA:2010 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1872982&cid=34264190
TESLA:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1806946&cid=33777976
NVIDIA 2d:2006 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175774&cid=14610147
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES BUSTED FOR ACCOUNTING FRAUD:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1884922&cid=34350102

----

+4 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (4):

APK SECURITY GUIDE:2005 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167071&cid=13931198
INFO. SYSTEMS WORK:2005 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161862&cid=13531817
WINDOWS @ NASDAQ 7++ YRS. NOW:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28571315
CARMACK'S ARMADILLO AEROSPACE:2005 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158310&cid=13263898

----

+3 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (6):

APK MICROSOFT INTERVIEW:2005 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155172&cid=13007974
APK MS SYMBOLIC DIRECTORY LINKS:2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166850&cid=13914137
APK FOOLS IE7 INSTALL IN BETA HOW TO:2006 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175857&cid=14615222
PROOFS ON OPERA SPEED & SECURITY:2007 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273931&cid=20291847
HBGary POST in Fake Names On Social Networks, a Fake Problem:2011 ->

Re:Wrong again (you're on a roll, lol)... apk

[BronsCon]

Hahahaha you're so full of yourself. It's funny that you state that you can't trust someone else's word because they posted AC, but you insist on posting AC and think anyone really cares that you were able to spend hours compiling a list of every post you've ever made that was modded up. Some of us have better things to do; that's why I'm only dropping by to point this out, rather than spending way too much time to tear down every aspect of your flawed logic. Yes, it would be easy, but it would be too time consuming to cover all the bases and, as I've already stated, I have better things to do.

More to the point, you can state that you've only had one account and that you no longer log in to it because you don't know the password, but you can't prove either of thise things. Perhaps you have multiple accounts, you can't prove you don't, just like I can't prove that you do. Perhaps you simply don't use the one you admit to having anymore because of, well, any number of reasons not relating to forgetting a password. Nobody can prove either way, and there's no sense bickering about it when there's code to be written and a wife to fuck.

Good - thanks for proving my point! apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, they are wrong" - by marcosdumay (620877) on Monday June 25, @01:47PM (#40441171) Homepage

Absolutely! The 5/70++ antivirus vendors were WRONG on my app... no questions asked, & hence, their removal of false positives!

A Mr. Steven Burn of hpHosts/malwarebytes ( services@it-mate.co.uk ) & Mr. Henry Hertz Hobbit of securemecca ( hhhobbit.airelle@spamgourmet.com or hhhobbit@securemecca.com ) are others that can verify that, as they worked on it with me, & doubted myself @ first (I don't blame 'em - they get ATTACKED regularly) - So, BOTH gents can TRIPLE VERIFY my words here...

(So, write them IF you wish, or just see my next paragraph below in reply to you now):

(I had to prove it to them too, first... &, like usual? I did!)

---

"I didn't say your program was malicius, and the anti-virus was right tagging it." - by marcosdumay (620877) on Monday June 25, @01:47PM (#40441171) Homepage

It's ANYTHING BUT malicious & does end users of custom hosts files good, in these items:

---

1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content
6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)
7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)
9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
10.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!)
11.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
12.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)
13.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
14.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.

---

* & FAR more... Heck - it's "Anti-Malicious", if anything!

---

"All I said is that it does some things that normaly raise the suspicion of anti-virus (because lots of virus do them), and one should expect some of them to tag you because of that." - by marcosdumay (620877) on Monday June 25, @01:47PM (#40441171) Homepage

Which they are WRONG on, & you even state it also!

(Trust me - when I point out "false positives" to them? I don't just say they are - I prove HOW & WHY they are, which of course, helps "better" their antivirus wares too - "bonus").

---

"but one could easily immagine that they'd be wrong and protect oneself beforehand, avoiding all the trouble." - by marcosdumay (620877) on Monday June 25, @01:47PM (#40441171) Homepage

I do what I do, & knock down "big names" in this field/art & science of computing ALL THE TIME (for their own good sometimes) - ask Dr. Mark Russinovich even, especially about memmgt & my correcting his work in the past too (telling him EXACTLY how/what/when/where/why he was "off'wrong" too, & he thanked me via email for it no less)...

APK

P.S.=> Not a first, I've helped a LOT of known coders over time (you'd be surprised were I to put the ENTIRE list out with proofs & who as well)... It's just "what I do" & "how I roll"... apk

Many others disagree w/ you troll (see inside)

[Anonymous Coward]

"You get downmodded constantly by me and others because you are the most boring, smug and irritating person in the world." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25, @09:13AM (#40437725)

LOL, no, I just "blow away" trolls like you, with facts, everytime & you can't HANDLE it! Thus, vs. your b.s. quoted above? Well... here's some FACTS!

An approximate 200++:1 ratio exists next vs. your "opinion" troll:

Roughly 200++ of them & I post as AC (hard to get even +1, as /. hides our posts & we "AC"'s start @ ZERO/0 points, unlike registered "lusers", lol!):

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (6):

HOSTS & BGP:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450
FIREFOX IN DANGER: 2011 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2559120&cid=38268580
TESLA:2010 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1872982&cid=34264190
TESLA:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1806946&cid=33777976
NVIDIA 2d:2006 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175774&cid=14610147
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES BUSTED FOR ACCOUNTING FRAUD:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1884922&cid=34350102

----

+4 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (4):

APK SECURITY GUIDE:2005 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167071&cid=13931198
INFO. SYSTEMS WORK:2005 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161862&cid=13531817
WINDOWS @ NASDAQ 7++ YRS. NOW:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28571315
CARMACK'S ARMADILLO AEROSPACE:2005 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158310&cid=13263898

----

+3 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (6):

APK MICROSOFT INTERVIEW:2005 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155172&cid=13007974
APK MS SYMBOLIC DIRECTORY LINKS:2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166850&cid=13914137
APK FOOLS IE7 INSTALL IN BETA HOW TO:2006 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175857&cid=14615222
PROOFS ON OPERA SPEED & SECURITY:2007 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273931&cid=20291847
HBGary POST in Fake Names On Social Networks, a Fake Problem:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2375110&cid=37056304
APK RC STOP ROOKIT TECHNIQUES:2008 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1021873&cid=25681261

----

+2 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (18):

CODING FOR DEFCON (my compressed/packed exe + sizecheck @ startup technique): 2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments

Re:Antivirus vendors & false positives... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post. Why the downmoderation?

Re:Well, here's what happens in those cases...

[Anonymous Coward]

Downmods of a post that's telling the truth is why slashdot's dying. See the post parent to mine here, and the post parent to it. Says all that needs to be said validating what I just stated.

Re:Well, here's what happens in those cases...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're either stupid or a troll. The program's for Windows.

Re:Why is this news?

[shentino]

These are the same guys that made Windows Vista after all.

Don't be surprised (just physics)

[Anonymous Coward]

"I must admit I'm surprised." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26, @03:10PM (#40456385)

Why? Smaller files load FASTER than larger ones, less to initially "pickup" from disk!

I also note you don't question the fact that compressed/packed exe's are also harder to disassemble/reverse-engineer &/or resource hack... then again, WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?

(I.E./E.G.-> I do it? It's "questionable" - Dr. Mark Russinovich does it (whom I have literally "schooled" before on numerous occasions & he even thanked me for it by email once)?? Oh, THEN IT'S "OK"... right?)

Then again also, to "top that off" once more?

Back circa 2005 here on /.??

Yes, I got MODDED UP for this very technique in CODING FOR DEFCON (using my compressed/packed exe + sizecheck @ startup technique): 2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158231&cid=13257227 as well, so even your "/. peers" saw the value of it!

---
 

* The rest of what you stated? Non-Sequitur, immaterial ON INITIAL READS/LOADS, since it has to come up off disk, first!

(Especially since the stage I spoke of is OFF THE DISK ITSELF, & there's NO QUESTION a smaller file will load faster than a larger one on init. reads (& that today's MASSIVELY FAST CPU's offset the decompression stage in memory)).

APK

P.S.=> On later loads, PROVIDED THE KERNELMODE DISKCACHING SUBSYSTEM DOESN'T GET "FLUSHED" BY "MEMORY PRESSURE"? Which I don't *think* you've covered adequately pointing that out??

Caching does the rest!

(IF THAT is what you meant? Then, yes - subsequent loads will be loaded by cached memory rather than disk, but my point STILL HOLDS TRUE off the disk on initial reads)... period! apk

Re:Don't be surprised (just physics)

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understood what I was surprised about.

I'm not surprised you're compressing your executables. That makes sense if Windows works the way you suggest. Like I said, I used PowerPacker a couple of decades ago and was very pleased with the results.

What I'm surprised is that Windows doesn't map executables directly into memory, as Linux does, that it's still doing things the way operating systems did in the 1980s.

It MIGHT do things the same (for that)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not surprised you're compressing your executables. That makes sense if Windows works the way you suggest." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26, @03:47PM (#40456861)

ANY OS REALLY DOES! Think about it man:

1.) You read up from disk, into RAM to execute

2.) Then caching takes over from there (for data AND executables)

Difference being, exe's page "back to themselves" when paging (which is WHY folks see paging operations occurring even IF THEY RUN WITH NO PAGEFILE.SYS PRESENT - it's exe's loading portions of themselves 4k @ a shot when needed, otherwise, dormant portions remain on disk).

---

"What I'm surprised is that Windows doesn't map executables directly into memory, as Linux does, that it's still doing things the way operating systems did in the 1980s." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26, @03:47PM (#40456861)

Don't quote me as saying it's NOT how Linux is doing it (loading executables) - because I am honestly NOT THAT SURE I UNDERSTOOD what you said to be honest!

(I only specifically noted that once cached by the local kernelmode subsystem, it's much the same as what you describe (IF I understood you correctly)).

For all I know from what you wrote? It's probably much the same... it wouldn't surprise me 1 BIT if it were, why? See below (everyone's STEALING everyone's ideas, but who really cares since we, the end users, get the bennies, right??)

APK

P.S.=> I'll tell you what Linux took from Windows:

1.) SMP, & thus, ENTERPRISE READY SERVERS for Linux couldn't happen until things very like:

      a.) Windows NT-based OS' had in completion ports in process scheduling
      b.) Re-entrant kernelmode code.

2.) True usermode threads (instead of a single 'round robin' to a single kernelmode thread as Linux had due to process fork type structuring in process mgt.)

3.) DFS (Distributed File System) was around way, Way, WAY before Linux had things like ZFS available/ported to it.

4.) Lastly but FAR FROM LEAST? What the NSA "bolted on" to Linux via SeLinux, in MAC (mandatory access control) which IS a copy of what Windows NT-based OS had LONG before Linux ever did, in ACL (access control lists) @ the filesystem, & registry levels...

I AM FAIR THOUGH - here's ideas/techniques I KNOW Windows took from Linux:

A.) http.sys being moved to kernelmode for faster processing of webrequests for servers

B.) Plug & Play IP stack initialization (which MacOS X had before Windows did)...

... apk

Re:It MIGHT do things the same (for that)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

ANY OS REALLY DOES! Think about it man:

Again, I think there's a misunderstanding here. And please don't take anything I said as criticism (it sounds like you are) because I was actually praising what you were saying you did given Window's way of working. I'm criticizing Windows (assuming it works as described), not you. You're doing the best you can.

Before I go into details about the differences, a quick and hopefully obvious to you comment about how virtual memory works in a modern OS. OS's maintain lists of processes, each of which has its own memory. The way the OS tracks memory owned by a process is to maintain a list of "pages". Bytes 0-4095 (assuming 4k pages) for a particular process would be in one page, 4096-8191 in the next, etc. Each page, in turn, is either mapped to a real physical block of memory, or a block - a collection of sectors - on disk if that part of the process has been swapped out. If a process attempts to access memory in a page that's swapped out, the CPU generates an interrupt, the operating system captures the interrupt, determines what page needs to be loaded in from disk, and so on.

I'm sure you know the above, I just want to make sure we're on the same... page (groan.)

There are two ways to load an executable. One is to simply copy the executable into memory. You create a process, assign memory to that process, and copy, byte by byte, the executable, into that memory, until you've finished loading. You then jump to the beginning and start running the program.

This is, I believe, what you're saying Windows does. It's what CP/M did. It's what the Sinclair QL'S QDOS did. It's what AmigaOS did. It's... well, it works I guess.

The other way is the way Linux does it. Linux says "OK, RAM is a cache for virtual memory, which is stuff I store on a disc. In fact, RAM is just a great big disk cache - all of it! I can store my processes and regular files on a disc and load the parts I need into RAM only when I need them! Given this, it would be more efficient for me, when I set up a processes' memory, to simply point at the sectors on the disc that already contain the program - ie the sectors in the ELF executable file - than to manually copy it byte by byte."

Now yes, both methods eventually result in executable code being copied to RAM. However, the first method, in a VM system, results in that executable code being then copied to disc again (when the process is swapped out of memory.) In the Linux system, the executable code isn't copied to disc, because it's already on a disc. In the first method, the entire program is loaded before being executed. In the Linux method, only those parts of the program that get executed are ever loaded into memory, and the program can start running long before any of the rest of it is loaded into RAM.

It seems back-assward when you first hear about it, because you don't generally think of RAM as a big cache for anything. Instead you generally learn about virtual memory as being something you use to get over the fact you don't have enough RAM. But once you get over that difference in point of view, the way Linux works is actually very simple in that respect, so simple that it surprises me that Microsoft wouldn't have copied that aspect. In fact, given the caliber of the people who originally wrote the NT Kernel, I'm even more surprised that isn't how Windows NT worked to begin with, and that it wasn't Linux that copied Microsoft.

FFS Microsoft !

[Anonymous Coward]

Either I'm dyslexic or the subject line says it all.

The 1st sentence I quote from you

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the Linux method, only those parts of the program that get executed are ever loaded into memory, and the program can start running long before any of the rest of it is loaded into RAM." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27, @09:53AM (#40466707)

"It's important to note that PE files are not just mapped into memory as a single memory-mapped file"

FROM -> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc301805.aspx

Right - AND, even try the test below... you'll see that. It's sort of like how DLL's load (which I KNOW do not load the ENTIRE BODY of the DLL - only the portions you need, right into the calling process' memory space).

---

"Now yes, both methods eventually result in executable code being copied to RAM." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27, @09:53AM (#40466707)

Exactly - that's exactly my point in a nutshell... but, I'm not sure if you have the paging part right in Windows, next:

---

"However, the first method, in a VM system, results in that executable code being then copied to disc again (when the process is swapped out of memory.)" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27, @09:53AM (#40466707)

Afaik - It's not literally COPIED BACK & REWRITTEN TO DISK - because there's no NEED for that (code's the same & there - it'd load up ONLY PARTS IT HASN'T LOADED YET, or that got "paged out of memory" if not in immediate usage)...

E.G. - When it "grabs" things off disk, that's for portions that have been "paged back" BUT DON'T ACTUALLY GET WRITTEN - that has the potential to modify the executable too, by the by (it is merely just referenced/re-referenced), but read in again as needed/when needed, if paged 4kb @ a time...

---

"In the Linux system, the executable code isn't copied to disc, because it's already on a disc." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27, @09:53AM (#40466707)

That's what I've said above... same, same, same - afaik! It makes TOTAL sense is why... & afaik? That's HOW Windows manages it with executables, because again - DLL's are similar in nature & ONLY LOAD WHAT IS NEEDED FROM SAID LIBRARY (not its ENTIRE body) into the calling process' memory space...

---

"In the first method, the entire program is loaded before being executed." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27, @09:53AM (#40466707)

Ok, a test for you (because this I've done before) - check the running Working Set size (& other memory columns in taskmgr.exe once you select them to be visible) - open a multi-form program, if you have one - not MDI or TABBED, but one with multiple windows (not about boxes either).

Then, start flipping thru the screens it doesn't have loaded on startup - you'll see the process size change as you do it - it's doing what you state Linux does, albeit, in Windows too...

Here - this'll prove my point on it better than I can say it:

"It's important to note that PE files are not just mapped into memory as a single memory-mapped file"

FROM -> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc301805.aspx

(Just like what I described DLL's do - portions load ONLY THAT YOU NEED, not the ENTIRE BODY).

* Now, you know that Windows does it the exact same!

APK

P.S.=> Interesting discussion, but I *think* you'll find that Windows does the SAME THING (& mainly because it makes sense) - & if you find it doesn't? I'd be VERY surprised... apk

Quit projecting & where's YOUR list (show us)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some of us have better things to do;" - by BronsCon (927697) on Tuesday June 26, @02:14PM (#40455473)

Oh, really - is that why not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU TROLLS have managed to show me you've done MORE, EARLIER & BETTER than I have from a small partial list of mine only over time?

(Again - I have a list of verifiable facts... you do not!)

---

"but you insist on posting AC and think anyone really cares that you were able to spend hours compiling a list of every post you've ever made that was modded up." - by BronsCon (927697) on Tuesday June 26, @02:14PM (#40455473)

No, I just had them placed in a file for trolls that tried to say what they did here, & it's merely FACTS that disprove their b.s., easily (because they're verifiable facts). Which, mind you? You don't have any of here... lol, I do.

If you have a problem with my posting as ac? Tough... it's what I do. Don't like it?? Too bad!

---

"It's funny that you state that you can't trust someone else's word because they posted AC" - by BronsCon (927697) on Tuesday June 26, @02:14PM (#40455473)

There's a difference between posting AC, & doing what I do - which IS identify myself as I post by signing off as "APK" (even though some trolls have tried to impersonate me that way, I've caught many in it & bookmarked them too (in case I ever need it)).

---

"Hahahaha you're so full of yourself." - by BronsCon (927697) on Tuesday June 26, @02:14PM (#40455473)

You, by contrast & by way of comparison, are just FULL OF IT... lol!

---

"that's why I'm only dropping by to point this out, rather than spending way too much time to tear down every aspect of your flawed logic." - by BronsCon (927697) on Tuesday June 26, @02:14PM (#40455473)

Funny - Most folks'd say the person with actual verifiable FACTS has more logical ammo for debate (that'd be me & said list you bitch about, that I use vs. trolls like yourself & others here)... whereas/again by way of comparison? You don't & I just put up facts that disprove your b.s. (while you troll me by ac posts & downmod my posts too, logging out of your reg'd "luser" account after doing so, & trolling by ac... I know THAT "little trick", lol, because I caught tomhudson & the trolltalk.com people doing it here... want proof? Ask!)

---

"Yes, it would be easy, but it would be too time consuming to cover all the bases and, as I've already stated, I have better things to do.." - by BronsCon (927697) on Tuesday June 26, @02:14PM (#40455473)

You'd better have more contradictory information vs. that list of mine you bitch about of my upmods (partial only) then, because as it stands now? YOU DON'T (lol)...

(Yes, that's ANOTHER FACT!)

---

"More to the point, you can state that you've only had one account and that you no longer log in to it because you don't know the password, but you can't prove either of thise things.." - by BronsCon (927697) on Tuesday June 26, @02:14PM (#40455473)

Heh, ok - See the last time I used a registered account on /. (just once, in 2002, to talk to John Carmack):

http://slashdot.org/~AlecStaar

&

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33453&cid=3623241

(I wasn't very interested in /. back then's all, & wanted to inquire with Mr. Carmack directly if possible on game specs for machines required to run it - that's all & then I left here for a couple years iirc).

---

"Perhaps you have multiple accounts, you can't prove you don't, just like I can't prove that you do."

1 word answer = TROLLS

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolls I've utterly BLOWN AWAY with facts vs. their off-topic illogical failing ad hominem attack attempts, like this one I blew them away on using upward moderations I've gotten (which is hard on AC posters since /. hides our posts to begin with by default) -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2935623&cid=40436899

APK

P.S.=> I've dusted trolls here SO MANY TIMES & with facts (just like in that link above vs. his trolling b.s.), all they have is bogus unjustifiable downmods vs. facts I use, in "effete retaliation" (which is worse than even WOMEN do)... apk