Slashdot Mirror


Massive Amount of Malware Targets Older Java Flaws

Trailrunner7 writes "It's no secret that Java has moved to the top of the target list for many attackers. It has all the ingredients they love: ubiquity, cross-platform support and, best of all, lots of vulnerabilities. Malware targeting Java flaws has become a major problem, and new statistics show that this epidemic is following much the same pattern as malware exploiting Microsoft vulnerabilities has for years. Research from Microsoft shows that there has been a huge spike in malware targeting Java vulnerabilities since the third quarter of 2011, and much of the activity has centered on patched vulnerabilities in Java. Part of the reason for this phenomenon may be that attackers like vulnerabilities that are in multiple versions of Java, rather than just one specific version."

67 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Oracle Java: Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem we (as systems admins) have with Oracle Java is that they don't patch: they give you new versions. Each new version deprecates some things, adds new things, and breaks some things that worked before. So you end up with banking entities (looking at you Citigroup and others) that require you to use old, vulnerable versions in order to perform enterprise money transactions. You end up with the good vendors scrambling to get their code working, while the bad vendors just tell you that you have to run the old version of Java. It is so bad that we are working on a policy to keep new Java based (client) applications out and not allow the business units to bring them it. The damn thing is impossible to manage seeing as how you need the latest version but can't run it if you want your apps to work. Terrible software.

    1. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by tepples · · Score: 1

      The alternative is not using a Java or Silverlight applet at all but instead using JavaScript and the HTML DOM.

    2. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      >Yeah but what would the alternative be? .NET?

      No. Programs.
      Programs work. You write them and they run on computers.

      If you're writing a thing within a thing that runs on a thing within another thing, then you're writing Java, not a program.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're writing a thing within a thing that runs on a thing within another thing, then you're writing Java, not a program.

      This definition of "program" excludes everything except for operating systems and programs that run on microcontrollers.

    4. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      In that case I guess we'd best all go back to punching binary machine code into cards.

    5. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, the one practically undisputed big selling point of Java is backwards compatibility. In fact, most experienced developers I know would cite that Java's stringent backwards compatibility policy is one of the things that has been holding the platform back, impeding progress. As an experienced Java developer myself, I would claim that 95% of Java applications should be upgradable to the most recent version without any issues at all.

    6. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Those have performance issues. Look at Jmol vs. JSmol. JSmol is great, buy how many years will it be before it's as fast as Jmol? The demos on the test pages are using small molecules. The performance issues are magnified greatly when used to study molecules on the order of hundreds of thousands of atoms. Plus there are security issues. JS and HTML can't write files to the clients computer. What if your client wants files? You have to send the content to the server, and then back again to the client. So then the client has to trust you with their data. Java can write to their computer and doesn't have to send the data to the server first.

    7. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which changes nothing other than the application your updating.

      You realize that MS is the only company that gets the word 'patched'.

      Firefox, chrome and opera all do the same as Oracle.

      Not that MS hasn't introduced breaking changes and called them patches or anything.

      If you think the browser is a stable platform you've clearly never done web development.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      "upgradable" was the wrong word. Most Java applications should run on the newest version of the VM without problems, right out of the box.

    9. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by JazzXP · · Score: 1

      Actually most experienced developers will tell you that while backwards compatibility is holding it back, even minor upgrades tend to break things (in particular since Oracle took over).

    10. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good luck with that... having code that works in more than one VM is a big task. For example, am I stuck with a VM that has JCE, or do I have access to JSSE? Even then, a JVM on a Mac may not run code written by a JVM on Windows.

      Oracle needs to do a complete library enema of Java and really get write once, run everywhere going properly, just like how MS cleaned up house going from .NET 1.x to 2.0.

      If I want something that works across platforms, it would be JavaScript, or HTML5. No flash, no Java, no stupid-ass extensions that some malware writer will cornhole.

    11. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As someone who no longer has to deal with corporate (thank God, Allah, Zeus and the FSM) what pisses me off is after YEARS of decline, to the point that finding Java installed on a home user or SMB was as rare as hen's teeth that god damned game came out and fucking obliterated 10 years of declining java overnight. I am of course talking about Minecraft, or as i call it "the STD of casual gaming"

      The problem is...and i'm gonna get the Jfanboys screaming bloody fucking murder for daring to point this out, but Java just sucks ass when it comes to security, it really does. You can't even compare it to Windows or flash because with both of those you can turn on automatic update and you'll be fine, with java as you pointed out they do NOT patch, they REPLACE and that ends up breaking shit as often as it fixes it so naturally all it takes is java shitting all over an app after update for most folks to learn "Don't update java EVAR" which is how we are in this mess.

      If we can't get the damned programmers to use something, ANYTHING other than java then we need an open source replacement, something that will just patch the bugs instead of screwing everything up by replacing. Hell maybe somebody could port the Google version android uses but make it compatible with standard Java apps, I don't know, all I do know is we need something better than fricking Java because down here in the trenches it makes Flash look like Fort Knox by comparison. You can't even get mad at people for turning off updates because their replacing instead of patching just leaves you with broken apps so its either leave their asses hanging in the breeze or give up on running anything that uses java. While that would be fine by me I have a feeling all the casual gamers won't let that happen.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Sarten-X · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not the programmers that matter. Programmers can write Java and compile it with any JDK they please, and it should run on any JRE, including OpenJDK and its companion JRE project. I don't know how well they patch compared to Oracle, but it's an open-source replacement, which works pretty well in my experience.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    13. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Hardly any one actually programs against the native operating system for business apps these days. They write code against the Java and .NET run time and call it a day. That's not necessarily a bad thing because the run times do take handle of a lot of issues behind the scenes such as memory management. Both Java and .NET were touted as RAD and it does cut development time. And if needed you can always invoke system level functionality from both run times.

    14. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hardly true. I'm using a whole system (Gentoo Linux) with no .NET (thank you, junk belongs to..) and no Java (disabled on the system level). Here we go: a bunch of programs NOT using Java or .Net AND actually working. That is what people use when they want the job done. Or, you can look at a bunch of Java programmers writing tons of code in pity attempt to create some useful.
      If they are trying to create desktop applications, that's in most cases laughable, with very few exceptions. The created monstrous dinosaurs work slow, consume a lot of resources, and are usually not any better than anything else from the point of functionality.
      If they are creating 'Enterprise' software, than we usually see an enterprise-scale f-up, with HUGE hardware and human resources pulled in to perform even simplest tasks. I'm watching a comedy in progress, when a system performing about ten TPS requires six (6) application servers to work stably. But, of course, it's all latest Java technology, JBoss/Hibernate/etc. OTOH, JS+PHP based system does 300+TPS on a freaking laptop running same database.
      Frankly speaking, I see both Java and .NET as deceases. Once your company catches them, it's very difficult to get cured.

    15. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Ugh, no.

      My last two forays with OpenJDK have led me to never ever use it again. It is not compatible.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    16. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting that the systems I've worked on for more than 10 years, some still running, don't seem to have these security issues you're whining about. Is that, perhaps, because they're almost all wholly related to the browser plugins? Disable that and woah... you don't have security problems.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    17. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the interest of being pedantic, OpenJDK is the reference implementation. Oracle's JRE is the one that isn't compatible.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    18. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      Mono?

    19. Re: Oracle Java: Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      C or C++. use less frameworks, use less applicationservers. Use less layers between you and the OS, start shipping your own security patches when you introduce one. This trust in others middleware has always suppriced me. And Im a proffessional Java developer too.

    20. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      URL: is another one that forces us to have insecure crap on our system. We run a thin client which runs firefox which runs their crap.

      This of course removes all the sales drone drooling about fixing the lost work time problem of everyone standing in line doing nothing.

      The genius that chose these tards has departed the building for more pay or that's what we were told.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    21. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by juventasone · · Score: 1

      they don't patch: they give you new versions...require you to use old, vulnerable versions

      Exactly. And as such, we will be running Java 6 Update 16 (released in 2009) until at least 2014 on 5,000+ machines.

    22. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Actually, the one practically undisputed big selling point of Java is backwards compatibility.

      Was backwards compatibility.

      Before Oracle took over.

      Nowadays all you're backwards compatible with is the old exploits.

      --
      No sig today...
    23. Re: Oracle Java: Bad by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Yes, but C & C++ have buffer overruns and all sorts of nasties. C & C++ are for desktop apps and rarely used for web apps. Java dominates the enterprise web space. The problem here is not Java (desktop) application nor web application (the server-side stuff of what you see in your browser), but in the Java applet plug-in (which is something else entirely). C & C++ simply aren't used by the majority of enterprises for web apps because they would be *even worse* than Java for security vulnerabilities (plus productivity is lower, which costs money).

    24. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by cgomezr · · Score: 2

      If a Java application requires an older version of the platform, it's probably due to crappy coding (violating a precondition of some method, trusting undefined behaviour, using undocumented libraries that are not part of the standard API, etc.)

      I have been developing in Java for like 12 years and I have never had any issues with backward compatibility. The closest I have had to an issue was a change to how word wrapping works in Swing text components in 1.7, which made an application look a bit uglier in that version (but fully functional).

      In fact, one of the big advantages of Java IMHO is its great backwards compatibility... they take care not to break anything, stuff that was deprecated back in version 1.1 (1997) is still there and working.

      As for compatibility between OSes (mentioned in some child threads), the only problems I've had in all these years were always my fault when I was a novice, on things like developing for Windows, expecting "blah.properties", creating "Blah.properties" and expecting it to work on Linux. Obviously Java can't deal with wrong assumptions by the developer, but if you don't do that kind of things, programs just work out of the box across OSes.

      That said, I agree the Java update mechanism is horrendous. And that's when it works. It's pretty common for the update-system under Windows to leave you with redundant versions, and I have a win 7 machine where it just fails with an uninformative error message.

    25. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Exit_On_Right · · Score: 1

      We've had that policy for years now and it's working quite well. Using .net for everything may be a bit of a pain at times, but it beats having to test every app twice a month when a new version of Java comes out.

    26. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by cavreader · · Score: 1

      You have led a very sheltered life if you have not encountered any well written Enterprise applications. Lets all write everything in C/C++/Objective-C because it is easier and faster than Java or .NET. and it's really cool.

    27. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The mods must find it interesting that you're wrong, or that you find Oracle wrong? I don't know. But even basic code had challenges running on OpenJDK. Do a few multithreaded pools with some DB access and synchronization and whoopsie....

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    28. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by NotBorg · · Score: 1

      Then why do so many Java programs require specific JVM versions? They literally won't run on newer Javas.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
    29. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Nope, sorry, WRONG. Sure you'd THINK it would be browser plugins but try loading up a VM and hitting some malware laden sites and you'll see they'll scan for old versions and if you aren't on a browser that runs in low rights mode, like say Firefox or any browser on XP, then they will do everything they can to trick the user into running a java app and fucking themselves. hell i saw one which downloaded a small 2Mb .jar and then had a webpage yes/no dialog box pop up which was actually how they were getting the java app to run as no matter which you picked you were in reality picking "yes please run this jar file".

      At the end of the day there is no getting around the fact that unless Java is kept locked down so that it can only run the one or two programs you need it for? Then its gonna be a risk, no other way to put it. The fact that first Sun and now Oracle are responsible for this mess because of their replace instead of patch just makes it that much worse because as i say with other risky software you can set it for auto-update and be reasonably safe whereas with Java if you leave on auto-update you'll end up with broken apps.

      Any way you slice it the situation with Java is fucked up and it really needs to be left in the corporate space where it can be isolated by group policy, not on Joe and Sally's desktop running video games.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    30. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Python is compiled. It's a more effective cross platform language than Java. As TFA points out, Java brings much version baggage. A compiled python program tends to work.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    31. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That is why I mentioned Android and not OpenJDK, because I heard that like Gnash its pretty terrible. I don't know if it has gotten better but i tried both 2 years ago and even a basic java chat client fell down and went boom on OpenJDK, and I couldn't get Gnash to pay a 4 year old VP6 flash video I found.

      But the fact he got modded up just shows how much groupthink and reality don't go together because that is like saying its MSFT's fault that LO makes word salad out of even slightly complex docs. At the end of the day the user is not gonna give a shit WHY it doesn't work, just that it doesn't work, so trying to play the blame game is pointless.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    32. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You noted that I didn't talk to Android, because that one works, whether Oracle likes it or not. OpenJDK just wasn't there, and probably won't be there for a while, especially in the areas of truly interesting functionality, such as NIO. (To me anyways, I write mostly server type code, for non mobile clients anyways).

      I do take exception to your claim of Java being a massive security breach, because it's not. What is a screaming pile of cracker opium are the browser plugins. Yes, the security manager / sandbox implementation appears to have a flaw or two. But the real issue is when you run unknown code on a system that has full access capabilities, do you expect full security especially when it's layered through at least 2 other levels of applications? If you do I have some prime ocean front property south of New Orleans to sell you too. (Note that just about every security flaw reported mentions in the description "when run in the browser")

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    33. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      What's interesting is the pedantic point that right or wrong, OpenJDK's right. Sure, it's horribly broken, but by being the reference implementation, it's right by definition. This is indeed similar to Microsoft's mistreatment of the Office Open XML format. Upon release, the official spec was demonstrably not the format Office actually used. For making a program compatible with Microsoft Office, Microsoft's spec was nearly useless. For making a JRE compatible with Oracle's Java, Oracle's spec is nearly useless. In both cases, it's an anticompetitive maneuver to force the open-source competitors to do more work, not only implementing the spec faithfully for the correctly-written programs, but also reverse-engineering the closed-source offerings to figure out the expected incorrect behavior.

      Hairyfeet called for an open-source Java implementation:

      ...we need an open source replacement, something that will just patch the bugs instead of screwing everything up by replacing. Hell maybe somebody could port the Google version android uses but make it compatible with standard Java apps...

      My point is that there already is an open-source replacement. It's plagued with constant FUD from the ever-present threat of Oracle's legal team, so it's not nearly as popular as it should be for a reference implementation. In a vicious cycle, that means the bugs and not-as-expected parts (the aforementioned incompatibilities, but again that's the wrong term for a pedant like me) don't get enough attention to be fixed.

      Android's Dalvik VM is not a feasible solution. It's even more wildly different than OpenJDK. While the Java specification declares that Java VMs are stack-based machines, Dalvik is register-based. Some classes can be converted automatically, but the majority of existing Java code will require extensive manual conversion, and that means fully retesting every part of everything.

      In my opinion, the right solution is to forcibly free Java from the tyranny of Oracle's stewardship, and put it in the hands of a benevolent company or foundation that can be expected to care most about having a stable and secure platform rather than making a big profit. From there, the OpenJDK project can get programming assistance with legal indemnity while focusing on cross-platform perfection, and the official JVM can continue to support the full integration features that OpenJDK lacks (because they're not finalized enough to be in the spec).

      Maybe that benevolent company, the source of all Java's warm fuzzy goodness, could even be named after the benevolent energy source that powers this planet...

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    34. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      IF they have a browser that runs in low rights mode and IF they have a good AV? Then sure java is fine, but you are dead wrong about it JUST being the plug in that is a threat.

      At the end of the day you just can't change the fact that java has one of the most piss poor security records out there, it competes with flash and reader for most security risks per version. When you are looking at something with that poor a record frankly excuses are pointless, nothing will change the fact that bugs jumping out of their sandbox is common and dozens of bugs come out for each version, its really bad.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    35. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      OpenJDK's ... horribly broken, but by being the reference implementation, it's right by definition.

      Seriously, do you even read what you write? it's broken, it's not the reference implementation, that would be Sun's, and now Oracle. There are other implementations that work - namely Apple, IBM, and BEA's renditions (also now acquired by Oracle). So there's no excuse for the horror that is OpenJDK, so the "spec is nearly useless" is provably false. You may not like it, it may not be the idealist's preferred outcome, but Java does work.

      Google's Dalvik VM was never mentioned as a replacement, just as an implementation. You appear to want something ideal, prepare yourself for disappointment.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    36. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I am not worried. At the end of the day, MS has the absolute worst security record out there, by any definition you care to make. Remove the browser and run Java with known code, amazingly, it's quite secure and powers all sorts of web sites that deal with PCI, PPI, and more. Anything MS has to get an exception.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    37. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You are so hellbent on a crusade you're sad.

      Read your post - Browser site browser browser download webpage......

      You do realize that the "jar" could also be an EXE, or some sort of script, or any numerous other entry points. It could even be a jar that contains an EXE that it then copies and executes. In any case, it's either a trojan (read that as you're a moron for running untrusted code) or a plugin. So, you're still wrong. Enjoy.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    38. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      And you are still wrong. I didn't say squat about low right mode and good AV. Under windows, even windows 7, this means absolutely nothing thanks to a common and easily abused DLL injection mechanism and a completely retarded security model.

      Considering that it's not really meant to be used in a browser (yeah, surprise, it's not), it's amazing that people still try to use it this way.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    39. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Keep digging that hole deeper.

      Historically, Sun always used the Sun JDK as the RI and made it available under the Binary Code License (BCL). This was very convenient for Sun since it meant that its product implementation was compatible by definition. However, it was also confusing since the Sun JDK contained quite a few features that were not part of the standard, such as the Java Plugin.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    40. Re:Oracle Java: Bad by Trogre · · Score: 1

      You have got to be joking.

      Please tell us how you got on building and running something even as basic as MIDlets with OpenJDK.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  2. research by microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    shows that microsoft is no longer the target of attacks, nor the target of use.

  3. It's the Forrest Gump principle by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

    People who still use older versions of Java probably aren't up to date on other patches or updates either, making them even easier to exploit or infect. Stupid is as stupid does, and that includes IT policies that don't allow machines to be kept current when it comes to security.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:It's the Forrest Gump principle by klystianek · · Score: 1

      too true, You should be always up to date with ur applications not only because exploits but also performance in general

    2. Re:It's the Forrest Gump principle by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 'cause I wanna spend my whole damn day installing patches!

      With Microsoft, all you have to do is turn on Windows Update and the patches will be installed once a month, like clockwork. Or, with Linux, you can check for updates any time you please and pick up whatever's come in since the last time you checked. Either way, the process is (mostly) automated.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:It's the Forrest Gump principle by Nimey · · Score: 1

      By the Great Old Ones, have you the misfortune of trying to push out Flash Player using AD group policy? Have you seen the contortions you have to do to make it /work/? Ugh.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  4. just wait for the caps to blow on the old p4 syste by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    just wait for the caps to blow on the old p4 systems to force a upgrade.

  5. No shit Sherlock by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't you be pretty stupid to target the current mostly patched version and ignore the FAR larger pool of older installs.

    This is only news if you don't have a clue

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  6. zombie journalism by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Read these words:

    Java.
    Malware.
    Security.
    Flaw.

    Now watch this interview (and maybe the blooper reel as well)

    and then read these words once again:

    Java.
    Malware.
    Security.
    Flaw.

    I bet you are reading these in that zombie voice now.

  7. Oracle Java UPDATER is the reason for this by tstrunk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some posts above mine, people blame Oracle Java. I blame the updater.

    My dad was hit by malware lately, which he got, because of an outdated Java on his system. He told me he always updated everything and blocked the install of everything else like toolbars. The last thing before he got the virus he remembered, was not allowing jusched.exe admin priviledges.

    I get it: jusched mean java update scheduler and everytime it's run it asks for admin priviledges. First of all:
    1.) This should be updated automatically by a package manager, hence I blame Microsoft
    2.) If 1.) is not the case, it should at least be called JAVA UPDATE PROCESS
    3.) It should display some kind of information before requesting Admin rights.

    Not many people outside of Slashdot know what jusched.exe is. Updating needs to be automated. Actually: We should somehow take this into our own hands and provide OpenJDK for Windows also ourselves and get people to switch. Maybe even without the ASK Toolbar

    1. Re:Oracle Java UPDATER is the reason for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your 2 and 3 are pointless. Any virus could easily duplicate and display the same information

    2. Re:Oracle Java UPDATER is the reason for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, updating should not be automated. The INSTALLER should ask whether or not you want it automatically updated, and if so, how/when, etc. Instead, we get the situation where (for example) I have to put up with jusched.exe's constant complaining that it has an update, but I don't have the privileges to install it, so I get nagged about it EVERY FRICKING TIME I login to a machine I have no control over (and therefore it isn't getting updated ever); or I get the situation where I do have admin rights, but I don't want silent updates, because updates can break things and I need to assess whether to allow it.

      The whole auto-update thing needs to be worked out more sanely, because right now you can't win. Either you get broken updates pushed out silently to everyone that breaks everybody's software, you get pop-ups in the middle of key presentations or other work, or you get updates that don't deploy (privileges issues). In either instance you usually have to put up with bloated background processes for each and every program installed and you have to trust they aren't full of security holes (e.g., Nvidia's auto-update program a while ago). For multiple god's sake, at least ask me what my preference is before enabling it, and make it easy to configure, including making the whole hellish thing go away utterly and completely (i.e. no auto-starting background processes) if that's what I want. That way you could set up java to automatically update for your dad and never even ask about it, and I could turn the endless nagging off and block anything java-related in the browser to just play Minecraft in peace.

      As you say, having a standard package manager where you could set an update policy system-wide and/or application-by-application would sure help.

    3. Re:Oracle Java UPDATER is the reason for this by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Why does a system tray notification require admin rights? Every other software installer I've ever downloaded tells you what it's going to install and only asks for admin rights when the installation process itself starts.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    4. Re:Oracle Java UPDATER is the reason for this by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      Now you've solved two problems.

    5. Re:Oracle Java UPDATER is the reason for this by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Why does a system tray notification require admin rights? Every other software installer I've ever downloaded tells you what it's going to install and only asks for admin rights when the installation process itself starts.

      Better yet, why isn't it downloading on behalf of the installer and letting the INSTALLER ask for admin rights?

      Half the time, it claims there's an update, and then it promptly fails to download it. After giving it admin. Why not attempt to download it ahead of time?

      Yes, ask for admin if it would save needless popups (e.g., Windows Update - where installing multiple patches may require admin priviledges - so ask it up front then use that to run the patch installers as admin to avoid bugging the user).

    6. Re:Oracle Java UPDATER is the reason for this by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Hehehehe

    7. Re:Oracle Java UPDATER is the reason for this by gravyface · · Score: 1

      Take your pops to good ol' Ninite.com. Have him create an installer of all the apps he wishes to use and keep up-to-date, and either run it as a scheduled task (there's some command line switches to make this doable) or if he's like my Dad, he'll write it in the kitchen calendar and never miss running it himself manually. Once you build the installer, it's a run-and-wait thing; doesn't require any other steps, he can just keep running the same Ninite installer every week/month.

      --
      body massage!
    8. Re:Oracle Java UPDATER is the reason for this by lazarusdishwasher · · Score: 1

      If you start the offline installer and don't respond to any of the prompts you should be able to find a directory containg an installer in msi format in c:\users\$username\AppData\LocalLow\Sun\Java.

      After you copy the referenced directory somewhere you can cancel the installer. Now that you have a msi file you can use Group Policy, or psexec, or something else to deliver your java update.

      An added bonus is that I also do not seem to have the Java updater installed.

  8. I'll say it again people by caspy7 · · Score: 1

    ...if you don't have a need for it or don't remember when you last used it, uninstall it.

  9. Microsoft ? by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    Microsoft deflecting their own security flaws,

  10. Re:just wait for the caps to blow on the old p4 sy by SkimTony · · Score: 1

    Instead of VMs, could you use more physical boxes and a KVM? As an ancillary benefit, when management complains that you have six PCs under your desk you can say "Well, I could toss all of these if you buy me one new PC." Alternately, wait until another department tosses a better machine than you're using: four and five year old Dells were running Core 2 Duos and Core 2 Quads, so any day now you should be able to pick up a decent system off the discard pile.

  11. Enable Click to Play by intangible · · Score: 1

    In Chrome, Firefox, and all Android browsers, just enable "click to play" for all plugins, instantly 99.9% of your vulnerabilities are gone.
    Bonuses: no flashing ads, fewer CPU or RAM chugging browser tabs, no random audio ads, better battery life.

    On the few sites where you want it on by default (youtube for example) it's just a two click "enable permanently" whitelist.

    WHY isn't this the default on all browsers by now?

  12. It's Java Browser Plugin! by coder111 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many times do I have to repeat this. ALMOST ALL THE VULNERABILITIES TARGET JAVA APPLETS THAT RUN WITH JAVA PLUGIN INSIDE BROWER. This is not java the language in general, this is not even the JVM, this is the stupid applet sandbox. And nobody uses applets for anything anymore, this is obsolete technology maintained for backwards compatibility.

    95% of Java today is running on the server-side. And there are very few security problems there.

    Given the amount of articles and FUD targeted at Java on Slashdot in recent months, they could have gotten this right by now. Editors, please be explicit about this being java APPLET/BROWSER PLUGIN vulnerability every time this comes up. This is not Java language vulnerability.

    --Codera

  13. Saving with the File API by tepples · · Score: 1

    JS and HTML can't write files to the clients computer.

    This may be true of JavaScript and HTML in IE pre-10, but the draft File API allows JavaScript programs to ask the browser to present a "Save As" file chooser and write to the file that the user chose. And because JavaScript's File API does access control through the file chooser, it doesn't require a code signing certificate from a commercial CA in order to be able to write such a file

  14. JAVA is safe - Applets are not. by heatseeker_around · · Score: 1

    I had to deal with a client who wanted a .Net application because "JAVA had major vulnerabilities". Who told him this stupidity ? A "specialist" in .Net applications ! WOW ! I had to spend 3 full days to explain to him what is Java, what is an applet, why nobody uses applet anymore except the old dinosaurs who don't want to die and why it is safer and cheaper and better for him to use Java servers and applications.

    Stop the bullshit ! Java is as safe as or even safer than any other technologies.

    And for the so-called "systems admins" who don't understand the differences between a Java server and a Java-applet, RESEARCH, LEARN OR GO TO HELL !

  15. Problem with Java is Management (as usual) by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    The reason Java is used so extensively in the enterprise is because managers want bells and whistles.
    We built a basic html app and one yahoo wanted rounded corners because they looked nice.
    We said "No" due to performance issues. Then he tried to get it in thru the standard backdoor of 'standardization' and we used our strategy of defensive paperwork--the first criteria for standardization was performance, not looks. We couldn't get the other departments to stop using Java to develop apps with rounded corners but eventually, they realized their employees were avoiding the apps at every opportunity. And it broke every time Windoze was updated or we bought new laptops. That sort of canceled out the whole 'enterprise java makes updates and changes easier' idea.
    Prove it now that you've got 5 years of data.

    Meanwhile, our section has years of useful data and users who defend 'their app' against bureaucratic interference.

    1. Re:Problem with Java is Management (as usual) by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      And you should use this same argument against .Net and any other enterprise-level, we-can-do-it-all, kind of snake oil system presented by salesmen writing articles for airline magazines. If .NET was supposed to make things easier, then the ease ought to be measurable by now. Same with SAP or any other ERP system.

      One ring to rule them all is fiction, not fact.