Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Claims 'No Known Ransomware' Runs on Windows 10 S. Researcher Says 'Hold My Beer' (zdnet.com)

Earlier this month, Microsoft said "no Windows 10 customers were known to be compromised by the recent WannaCry (WannaCrypt) global cyberattack," adding that "no known ransomware works against Windows 10 S." News outlet ZDNet asked a security researcher to see how good Microsoft's claims were. Turns out, not much. From the report: We asked Matthew Hickey, a security researcher and co-founder of cybersecurity firm Hacker House, a simple enough question: Will ransomware install on this operating system? It took him a little over three hours to bust the operating system's various layers of security, but he got there. "I'm honestly surprised it was this easy," he said in a call after his attack. "When I looked at the branding and the marketing for the new operating system, I thought they had further enhanced it. I would've wanted more restrictions on trying to run privileged processes instead of it being such a short process."

79 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Known to MS by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Funny

    i know nothing...Sgt Schultz

  2. HA HA by Higaran · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm usually a fan of MS, but that is some bull if I ever heard it. Maybe there is not a known ransomware because no one thought to make one yet, I didn't even really realize that OS was even out yet.

    1. Re:HA HA by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      In other words, Microsoft closes its eyes, puts hands over ears and repeats "LALALALALALALALALALA" to avoid hearing stuff.

  3. "Known" is the keyword by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    MS can't possibly know all the ransomware out there, however, I think MS does a terrible job at fixing anything. I had a friend who bought a MS product but in working with it he found a bug. He calls MS support. They research it but they say with his level of support, they can't go any further without premium support. So he pays for premium support. Premium support confirms that it is a bug. He asks when a fix is possible. They say they are not going to fix it. He asks why the heck did his premium support money do? For the privilege of telling him that it was a bug apparently.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:"Known" is the keyword by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1, Interesting

      MS can't possibly know all the ransomware out there, however, I think MS does a terrible job at fixing anything.

      Are you suggesting MS doesn't actively develop malware for their older systems to encourage people to upgrade? Because that would be a stupid suggestion.

    2. Re:"Known" is the keyword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Thank you for your valuable pro-Microsoft contribution to this tech site, Pajeet! The sum of 50 rupees has been deposited to your Bing Rewards account.

    3. Re:"Known" is the keyword by helsinki92 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft will refund all funds if they agree that there is a bug in their software.

    4. Re:"Known" is the keyword by captaindomon · · Score: 2

      You obviously don't work in software. Any major software project has hundreds to thousands of know bugs, including Apple products, Microsoft products, even Linux based products. All of those bugs have to be prioritized and weighed. Is this something that most customers need fixed? Will it cause more problems to fix it than to leave it? Is it better to put our efforts toward moving toward the next version, which automatically fixes this problem, instead of trying to fix it in this version, which will be obsolete in three months? Sucks to have bugs. But software systems are extremely complex, and often have entire teams of people dedicated to evaluating which bugs should/can be fixed and which should be just accepted as part of the system.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    5. Re:"Known" is the keyword by captaindomon · · Score: 1

      The same is true in every industry, from airplanes to credit card processing to medicine. Doctors always have to decide if there is greater harm done to a patient's overall life health chances by fixing a problem than to leave the problem and help the patient adjust to it.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    6. Re:"Known" is the keyword by swb · · Score: 1

      I've had Microsoft refund support charges for known bugs and in a couple of cases for situations that could have easily been called user error if they were being hard about it.

    7. Re:"Known" is the keyword by CodeArtisan · · Score: 1

      MS can't possibly know all the ransomware out there, however, I think MS does a terrible job at fixing anything. I had a friend who bought a MS product but in working with it he found a bug. He calls MS support. They research it but they say with his level of support, they can't go any further without premium support. So he pays for premium support. Premium support confirms that it is a bug. He asks when a fix is possible. They say they are not going to fix it. He asks why the heck did his premium support money do? For the privilege of telling him that it was a bug apparently.

      You and your friend clearly do not understand how Enterprise support works. It's not there to make code changes (even bug fixes) for individual users. It exists to make changes that improve the system for the largest number of users.

    8. Re:"Known" is the keyword by Jack9 · · Score: 2

      > Your friend is a liar or you are.

      You aren't helping, nor are you even trying to contribute. You might want to revisit your assumptions, because they are most certainly leading you into false conclusions. The correct answer is, "I doubt it, let's see if there's any history to corroborate."

      A cursory search result might lead you to http://www.schveiguy.com/blog/...

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    9. Re:"Known" is the keyword by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I still think windows home server was a disaster.
      Oh it just occasionally corrupts backups so you can't open them.

      It was never fixed!

      No way to repair or recover the data was ever provided.

      Then they took out Drive Extender and still didn't fix it.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    10. Re:"Known" is the keyword by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      1) MS wouldn't know about all the ransomware out there especially if the ransomware authors are trying to hide it. 2) MS in my experience is terrible at fixing things.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:"Known" is the keyword by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The problem wasn't "Oh you found a bug, let's put it in the list and it'll get on the list." The problem was "oh you're having problems. You'll need premium support to go on. That's extra. Premium Support: Oh that is a bug. We're not fixing it."

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    12. Re:"Known" is the keyword by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I didn't say Enterprise Support.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re: "Known" is the keyword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because they do. When you pay for an incident you only pay if you are the one that screwed up. When you encounter a bug they will either provide you with a workaround, a fix, or refund you. I've had all three happen to me at one time or another.

      This idea that you have to pay for support, then premium support is bunk.

    14. Re: "Known" is the keyword by Icyfire0573 · · Score: 2

      In my experience in IT having called Microsoft about a dozen times, if they say that they are at fault for the issue they will refund the cost of the case you opened to have an issue resolved.
      This includes bugs in their software and patches that were installed that broke something (like an exchange cluster for a hospital).
      I believe I have had to pay when they say the only way to fix it is to reformat and reinstall, and that was after 20 hours of troubleshooting.

    15. Re:"Known" is the keyword by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      I still think windows home server was a disaster.
      Oh it just occasionally corrupts backups so you can't open them.

      It was never fixed!

      No way to repair or recover the data was ever provided.

      Then they took out Drive Extender and still didn't fix it.

      Sadly, WHS was a great idea doomed from the get-go for a myriad of reasons. It needed a crowd sufficiently-enthusiast to want a product capable of handling home streaming and backups, but insufficiently enthusiast to set up a FreeNAS, Plex, and the free version of Macrium (or the inexpensive 5-user license of Acronis, which was still half-decent at the time). The hardware had its issues, not the least of which being manufactured by an HP that was trying to figure out how to do this 'mobile' thing by buying Palm, and their revolving door of CEOs. The affordable ones had a single internal drive and expected to be supplemented by a hodgepodge of externals, while the unit that supported multiple drives cost over $1,000 with three of those bays empty.

      The early versions integrated with Live OneCare, which would have been great if they didn't abandon it, and the Windows Media Center integration was hampered by the speeds of the then-dominant single-band 802.11n, as well as the fact that the server couldn't function as a DVR directly (allowing a client/server model like MythTV today), a problem compounded by the broadcast flags being used by some cable companies.

      The nail in the coffin came by way of issues like the ones you've specified - storage space issues, backup integrity issues, poor integration with non-Microsoft products, and no proactive means of addressing any of them. When not even those who were willing to give it a shot were able to achieve a reliable amount of success, there's no way it's hitting critical mass.

    16. Re:"Known" is the keyword by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I'm a freak. I read whole articles. You can find some interesting shit in there:

      3. Why do you have hundreds of spreadsheets? Why not just merge them into one maintainable spreadsheet where you could fix the problem in one place?

      Because shut up.

      Anyway, I do have Office365, I do use web query to pull tables in, and they pull in fine.
      The article didn't mention whether the web query method works or not after uninstalling Office 2010. I wonder if that was the issue :)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    17. Re: "Known" is the keyword by jd · · Score: 1

      What are the bugs in SEL4?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    18. Re:"Known" is the keyword by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I picked it because I assumed since they made windows it would be able to automatically do the fix up required when restoring to a diffrent system handle resizing the file system and it supported using of a bunch of discs as pooled storage for backup in hindsight using 5 drives setup as equivilent of raid 0 was a terrible idea. Although somehow I didn't loose any data from drive failure it was just mhs screwing up.

      It could do all of those things to a point the hardware support for restore was terrible.

      But for a company making a paid backup software to not have any real support what so ever when it screws up and you can't open your backups is just crazy.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    19. Re: "Known" is the keyword by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      They encouraged me way back when they were expecting us all to "upgrade" from XP to the piece of shit known as Vista. Windows, while getting better in stability thanks to NT, only got worse and worse with every version when it came to bloat and shittier defaults (XP required me to turn tons of useless shit off and tweak gazillions of settings to make it tolerable, but when I did it ran very fast and smooth). Vista, by comparison, was downright terrible.

      As far as security goes... come on, it's Windows. No matter what Microsoft says and would like us to believe, it's the same fucking operating system. Microsoft might patch things here and there, but usually *after* the vulnerability has already been exploited as a response to real malware that is already in the wild. They can't do much with the operating system, because it would hurt compatibility and user friendliness by breaking shit.

    20. Re: "Known" is the keyword by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      That's why they leave it to the third parties.

  4. Interesting by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    What's interesting is that Windows 10 S is supposed to only run apps from the store. So by finding a way for it to run ransomware, they have also found a way for it to run basically any other piece of software. Personally, I don't know why MS thinks it's a good idea to limit the software that runs on a machine. Windows RT failed for a reason. People want to be able to run whatever software they like.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People want to be able to run whatever software they like.

      Some people obviously do. But iOS is also highly successful.

    2. Re:Interesting by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People want to be able to run whatever software they like.

      Some people obviously do. But iOS is also highly successful.

      But, there's a difference. Actually two:

      1. the iOS App Store is likely VAST compared with the WIndows 10 App Store. That makes a VAST difference.

      2. People who own iPhones/iPads understand the reasoning behind, and are used to, the App Store Restriction (which really isn't a restriction anymore, since iOS 8).

    3. Re: Interesting by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Apple gear is expensive. MS is going for the people too cheap to buy Apple iCrap, and too stupid to realize how much smaller the MS software store is.

      Also, Android and iOS are for phones and tablets, not laptops. Of course, MS's crappy Win10S laptop really isn't *that* different from a tablet with a BT keyboard, but still, it is larger and has a real keyboard, and for people who buy into the MS ecosystem (namely Office) it might seem sensible to them.

    4. Re: Interesting by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      My honest guess is that Microsoft wants a similar environment with Windows, which will not end well.

      I don't think it takes a genius to see that's exactly what MS wants. They envy the success of iOS and Android that way, and it's been pretty obvious how sore they are that they never got far in the mobile space. They had WinCE smartphones for *years* before iPhone came out, remember, but they never got much adoption (esp. outside of corporate markets), and then suddenly iPhone popped onto the scene and everyone and his brother wanted a smartphone. Then they tried several iterations of the "Windows Phone", even buying a whole phone manufacturer (Nokia) and they were all massive flops.

      However, why do you think this won't end well for them? I think that under Satya, they've finally realized what strengths they do have, which is the Windows/Office cash cow which can be exploited to no end as there is literally *nothing* they can do which will cause their customers to leave them in those particular markets. They may not be able to push into new markets like mobile phones, but no matter how badly they treat customers using the Windows OS, they simply will not leave, no matter what.

      So I honestly don't see how this could go badly for them at all. I think going to Win10S and only allowing customers to use software from the Windows software store will be successful for them. They may lose a tiny number of malcontents, but most will stay and their profits will be much higher since they'll get a cut of every software purchase.

    5. Re:Interesting by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      I don't use my iPhone or my Android tablet as general-purpose computing devices. I use my laptop and desktop for those, and those had better run arbitrary software or they're of little use to me.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. how they know by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "We can tell because Windows 10 runs tons of snoopware."

  6. Echoes of Steve Job's boast by TheHawke · · Score: 2

    Back in the days of Mac OS8, he proclaimed that the MacOS was virus-proof.

    Big mistake.

    By the end of the week at least a dozen or so viriii were released into the wild and Jobs had to eat humble pie.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    1. Re:Echoes of Steve Job's boast by boley1 · · Score: 2

      Steve Jobs eating humble pie? You must be talking about another Steve Jobs.

    2. Re:Echoes of Steve Job's boast by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

      Have to call BS on this. I was actually working for Apple during this period.

      There was always the ubiquitous nVir and a number of other nasties floating around.

      The only implication in Apple's advertising is that the risk of data loss or loss of functionality was less. And it was.

      Of the 10 or 15 meaningful malwares that infected the old 68000 OS, there were only two or three which could do serious damage. And most infections were cleaned up quite nicely with no data loss.

      I love it when someone who never set foot on the Apple campus decides they know history better than people who were there,

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    3. Re:Echoes of Steve Job's boast by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Back in the days of Mac OS8, he proclaimed that the MacOS was virus-proof. [citation needed]

      Big mistake.

      By the end of the week at least a dozen or so viriii were released into the wild[citation needed] and Jobs had to eat humble pie.

    4. Re:Echoes of Steve Job's boast by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      For quite a few years, there were very few viruses available for the Mac. It was a much safer environment because of that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:Echoes of Steve Job's boast by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I thought the WDEF virus was ingenious. Unfortunately, it wasn't properly tested for the MacOS version that came out after it was released (go figure), and could do some serious harm there. Fortunately, by that time I carried around a Disinfectant disk as a matter of habit.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. does windows 10 S let intel / amd / nvidia / other by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    does windows 10 S let intel / amd / nvidia / others run there non app store drivers?

  8. Silliness by Thyamine · · Score: 2

    I think this is always silly when a company claims something like this, and I think everyone in the industry understands that. However, it gets headlines, and will be used for marketing. All the normal users though will never see this article explaining why it's bull, but they'll remember 'Hmm Windows S doesn't get ransomware'. Now maybe some of the marketing people really believe this statement, however I highly doubt any of the devs or engineering team truly thought 'ah ha! We've done it!'

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
  9. Then again... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    Even if it was impossible to get ransomware in there, is there any value to it? You know, it's also impossible to run ransomware on my cheap calculator, and that one at least has a following. :P

  10. contact censorship should not be part of an app st by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    contact censorship should not be part of an app store if any thing apple can have an adults only one and and an open politics ones

  11. Re:Meh by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You wish.

    I often run suspicious files through AV websites like TotalVirus.com

    You'd be AMAZED how much old stuff sitting in my inbox for 5 years won't be picked up by big-name anti-virus suites even with "heuristics".

    And if you tweak it by just one byte (e.g. javascript viruses and changing a code-path ever-so-slightly), it'll usually zoom through ALL of them.

    Sorry, but AV is just a constantly out-of-date database of things that MILLIONS of people have already caught, that is used as a lookup for every file access. In terms of protecting your computer, it's useless (or WannaCry wouldn't have happened, even on non-updated machines). In terms of doing so efficiently, it's absolutely atrocious.

  12. Too much security... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... would make it harder for state actors to compromise. State actors want a compromiseable OS.

    1. Re:Too much security... by Wintermute__ · · Score: 1

      Not to worry, there is no chance that any version of Windows will have too much security. No special effort is needed to ensure that.

  13. Real Security isn't Cheap by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Windows 10S is nothing more than a play to walled garden Windows, by appealing to consumers fears, all while the customer pays for the pleasure. Hopefully someone will file a class action for false advertising (since actually hacking the OS was a trivial 3 hours for someone who knew what they were doing).

    It is high time that companies take cyber security seriously, before someone hacks a windows computer running some critical system and causes a major accident (oh wait, that has happened multiple times already). For far too long companies have played fast and loose with the word secure.

    Is it possible for MS to make a hardened version of Windows? Probably, but it would require a fundamental re-thinking of how windows runs, and there would be a performance hit. MS would have to spend real resources on the security aspect, and that would take resources away from developing the shiny interface tweaks that no one gives a shit about but the MBAs think is critical...

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Real Security isn't Cheap by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Is it possible for MS to make a hardened version of Windows?

      First, you need to define "hardened", You're not going to get exploit-free on something as complex as a modern OS with changing applications that run scripts. Second, Microsoft has. Sometime in the mid 200?s they decided to make things more secure, and did a pretty decent job of it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Real Security isn't Cheap by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      I agree that they have made progress towards making Windows more secure, but there is still a lot more that can be done. Hardening is about all we can ever hope for, since hacking a system is by definition always possible given enough time and resources (which is why real security in combination with air-gap and Faraday cages is used for hardware that really has to be secure; think NSA/classified military designs/etc.) The goal of hardening is to make large scale attacks infeasible. You will never eliminate the targeted attack in the consumer or even business space, but you can take measures to prevent things like Wanacry.

      If MS were really serious about security on Windows, they would start offering $100K bounties on security flaws for Windows 10S and have an internal team that continuously rolls in patches to the flaws. In all reality, there are maybe a few thousand black hat hackers looking for security exploits to monetize who actually have the skill set to find flaws and craft attacks. If you can get 10x more white hats picking through your OS for cash, it is far more likely that the flaws (which always exist) will be found and patched before they get exploited. If the bounties are big enough, you will probably also flip some of the black hats, since there is a nice payout with the bonus of not risking getting thrown in jail.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  14. Re:How many actually run 10S? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The real reason is to get an extra $50 from poor students. Notice how it's marketed only to students but students often need to run custom software for their courses so they end up paying the $50 ransom or return it for a real laptop.

  15. uh.... by circularWaffle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Does MS realize that infection/breach through macros is NOT a new/unknown/zero day thing? That's why the "Protected View" is in place in the first place..........Yes, the protection is in place....But it doesn't mean that a user isn't going to deliberately ignore any warnings just because, "idk I just thought it was a document from my friend and didn't think about it". That shit happens all the time! This is now a known exploit. I mean, seriously, go fix the issue MS.

    1. Re:uh.... by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's the DLL injection in a closed OS that is the news here

    2. Re:uh.... by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      Apparently not that abnormal:

      Hickey created a malicious, macro-based Word document on his own computer that when opened would allow him to carry out a reflective DLL injection attack, allowing him to bypass the app store restrictions by injecting code into an existing, authorized process. In this case, Word was opened with administrative privileges through Windows' Task Manager, a straightforward process given the offline user account by default has administrative privileges.

      Though I am a little confused by that "Word was opened with administrative privileges through Windows' Task Manager"?

  16. XP Was pretty unnafected. by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    Are they suggesting that the less capable the operating system, the more virus proof it is?

    I think I can dig out a set of WfW floppies...

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  17. Where do you draw the line? by swb · · Score: 1

    5. User had shitty password
    6. User left device logged in for someone else to access
    7. etc

    There's a point where it's vulnerable just through software or it's not. I think you can say its more vulnerable than you'd want, at least because it was an actual software vulnerability and didn't require it to be hooked up to some forensic analysis hardware.

    1. Re:Where do you draw the line? by lgw · · Score: 1

      5. User had shitty password
      6. User left device logged in for someone else to access

      If I can log onto your system as you, I can destroy everything of value to you accessible from that system. "Vulnerable through software" doesn't enter into it. Every OS has a list of unpatched privilege escalation exploits, so I can also destroy everything else on that system.

      Talk about reaching ...

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Where do you draw the line? by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      I think what was meant is that you simply walking off while still logged in lets me do more to the system than send messages as you & post places as you about the astounding, phenomenal, and utterly impressive bagginess of 'my' pants--not that I have your password, but that it doesn't even ask if I have your password when I do something like tell it to reformat the hard drive the OS is on.

    3. Re:Where do you draw the line? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure, but you could also smash it with a hammer. How many machines have more than one user these days? 1%? 0.01%? Ransomware doesn't need to affect OS files to be effective - the user's files are what's valuable.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Where do you draw the line? by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      A computer left logged out, even if it's only got one user, will at best let you at a guest account. I typically leave mine set to only let you see the lock screen when I might be leaving it booted somewhere where it'll be easy for other people to access it--and it doesn't log itself in on boot.

      If you take a hammer to it, though, I will not have that much trouble getting the cops to do something, especially compared to ransomware.

  18. Statements by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    No known ransomware is running on my Windows 7 system either.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  19. Windows HLK by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    Drivers for Windows 10 S must meet these requirements. I imagine that participants in a public driver beta test would use Windows 10 Pro instead of Windows 10 S.

  20. Thank you slashdot by EnOne · · Score: 1

    I needed a good laugh today.

    "I'm pretty sure my last words are going to be 'Hold my beer and watch this'"

    --
    Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
  21. Re:The researcher is a LUDDITE. by tepples · · Score: 1

    ONLY apps can app apps!

    How so? Microsoft bans anything remotely similar to Visual Studio on Windows 10 S. "Prepare to package an app (Desktop Bridge)" lists the following as an issue that must be addressed before packaging an app:

    Your app generates code. Your app can generate code that it consumes in memory, but avoid writing generated code to disk because the Windows App Certification process can't validate that code prior to app submission. Also, apps that write code to disk won’t run properly on systems running Windows 10 S.

  22. Re:Meh by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    or WannaCry wouldn't have happened, even on non-updated machines

    That's a good point. A known vulnerability is surely one of the easiest heuristics to catch.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  23. Re:contact censorship should not be part of an app by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    contact censorship should not be part of an app store if any thing apple can have an adults only one and and an open politics ones

    In Your Not So Humble Opinion, of course.

    Which part of "People who own iPhones/iPads understand the reasoning behind, and are used to, the App Store Restriction" didn't you understand?

    Question: Doesn't "Freedom of Choice" INCLUDE the "right" to join a "Members Only" Club? Afterall, no one FORCES you to buy an iPhone/iPad.

  24. Re:Meh by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    I think you meant virustotal.com

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  25. Re:Tired of this Marketing gimmicks by ewhac · · Score: 1

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But this is already "Fool me thrice..."

    You're new to this whole Microsoft thing, aint'cha?

  26. "I'm honestly surprised it was this easy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He had to download Word via the app store, create a malicious macro to run it after starting it explicitly with admin privileges, mount a network drive to place the macro (because Word won't run downloaded ones), use the macro from there _and_ explicitly ignore a warning that said it was insecure.

    Who calls that easy? This would require a good amount of social engineering, which will always be capable of being used to install and run something arbitrary. Normal users, even with admin rights, don't start Word with administrative privileges. They also would not be able to install the macro in a convenient location just so that it could run. Finally, you would have to convince them to click "Enable" to avoid the security warning, which is probably the easiest part.

    How is that any different from running Linux and being tricked to run as root to execute an unknown shell script. Ordinarily the OS is not susceptible to it, but if you force it to be then you can always make it so. It would be just as "easy" to convince the user to let you takeover their desktop via remote desktop, with admin rights, and then you can proceed to pillage their computer.

  27. Re: viriii by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

    English is such a logical and regular language! No wonder it is the language of exchange between peoples.

    --
    Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
  28. Re:Bullshit by clovis · · Score: 1

    Based on the comments so far, perhaps four or five people actually read the article
    It appears that War4peace is one of these, and so far he is the only person to make a post directly addressing the problems with the linked article based on the technology.
    And he got marked down to -1.

    WTF Slashdot people.

  29. Re:Bullshit by war4peace · · Score: 1

    Two hours before your comment I was at +5... I guess the Microsoft-hating crowd woke up :)
    No matter though, I admit I read the article to figure out what the hell did Microsoft fuck up this time, but I couldn't find it. So I thought it would be good to call this specific hate as bullshit, because we all should aim at being objective at least when analyzing hard data.

    I pissed off the wrong people, it seems :)

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  30. Echoes of a slashdot liar by Texmaize · · Score: 1

    In typical modern slashdot fashion, a person is marked up because he made a "cool" sounding claim. This claim of course is unsupported, and is likely made up. But hey, don't let truth get in the way of a good story, right?

    This particular lie bothered me because I remembered reading something a long time ago that implied the opposite. I will admit it took me the better part of an hour to find this article. It is about how the U.S. Army had switched to Mac OS in 1999 for their web page, since they were sick of having it defaced. (this is pre OS X).

    https://tidbits.com/article/55...

    I am beginning to wonder if the difference between a lawyer and the typical shashdot poster is that a lawyer makes a fast based argument, sometimes.

    --
    "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
  31. Re:Meaningless criticism by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    3 Hours! 3 Whole Hours! WOW. I am sure nobody on the planet who would write ransomware is going to invest THAT much time! idiot.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  32. Admin Privileges!? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2

    Word was opened with administrative privileges through Windows' Task Manager

    Isn't this essentially cheating? If Word is opened by a user, it's only opened at standard user privileges, even if that user is a member of the admin group.

    The use of a macro is clever enough. But if it hinges on Word running as Admin, then I have to question whether this is anything more than a publicity stunt.

    1. Re:Admin Privileges!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Office macros essentially allow you to run arbitrary code, so I expect a privilege escalation exploit could be used from the macro instead. I think the researcher was just going for the easiest way to do it. Getting the user to bypass the setting preventing macros downloaded from the internet from running would be harder.

  33. Re:Windows 10 S is the ransomware by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    In fairness to Microsoft, if you want to run real programs, then you should get something that runs a real operating system.

    Windows 10S is not a general purpose OS, it is an appliance OS. Expecting it to be anything else is unrealistic.

  34. Of course by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

    Because it's hard to have ransomware running on a shit toy gimped OS that very few people want to use and thus not in any kind of widespread use.

  35. Read it by SuperDre · · Score: 2

    Read the whole story and think... Then you'll know this 'researcher' is just bullshitting. You already need to start word in admin-mode (first thing that makes ms their claim still stand), then you need to click on the activate macro's button, and in the end you still need to be able to install the malware which is not on the ms windows store and therefore cannot simply be installed, but that's something he doesn't even do claiming with some bullshit about not wanting his network to be infested.. no this is just a clickbait article by zdnet for triggering some extra ad revenue...

  36. So they were probably right. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Fact is, it didn't work out of the box. So none of the 10S machines were infected by Wannacry. Fair enough. However the whole big deal of 10S is that it's supposed to be fricking hard, like Linux/Unix hard to break it since they eliminated all of the buggy 32 bit API calls. Looks like it's the same old crap. They didn't fix the OS. It's like the 16-32 bit transition all over again.

  37. TBH... by Meski · · Score: 1

    The researcher should be able to do it whilst holding his beer. Consider it a fair handicap for Windows.

  38. Also, no known useful software runs on 10 s by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    So they aren't wrong!