Seems to depend on whether they were responsible and complicit in said leakage. If this is indeed "iphone background services", seems rather a stretch to blame AT&T for it.
Being wrong is being wrong. Your post clearly said "They have done this before" when no, they didnt; that was a completely separate category of maliciousness.
You seem to be assuming Im defending Sony, when in fact I am trying to correct an obvious distortion of reality. Just because Sony commits one type of malicious behavior, does not make it appropriate to go accusing them of another (like "they write computer viruses" or "they brought down the internet" or "they kill puppies").
You could also have the firewall monitor traffic for known exploits; this type of functionality is built into many firewalls, from opensource pfsense (snort, etc), to sonicwall to cisco asa.
Its not an all or nothing; if it were, people wouldnt pay big bucks for cisco or even smaller SoHo firewalls (sonicwall et all).
Im not sure why you blame Microsoft-- they dont tamper with PC hardware (couldn't, really), and you KNEW what you were getting with the XB360. FWIW I dont remember hearing of them going after anyone for modding their Xbox360 offline, and if you want to connect to live, you KNOW their policies.
Actually, they HAVENT done that before-- read the article you linked. That was a rootkit, not a backdoor; they are related but seperate. The BMG rootkit did not allow remote code execution; it instead took measures to hide its activity from visibility, causing havoc with some CD drives and assisting some viruses in the process.
Rootkit=/= backdoor. I know its fun to hate on Sony, and I fully support such positions, but lets not distort the truth here.
That most of the malware today use social engineering and are Trojan based, which means the user has to launch it first to cause an infection
Youll need to cite a source for that, anecdotal evidence (the several hundred infections i deal with per year) shows that the vast vast vast majority of infections do not require such crude interaction; they rely on browser and plugin exploits to launch no-click infections.
As for AV the last tests I saw with Comodo were 98.4% and MSE something like 96.something%
No AV that I have seen has detection rates quite that high. Last comprehensive study I saw (about a year ago) showed the top contenders hovering around 81% detection on unknown binaries. MSSE is certainly quite decent, but AGAIN, if you have something dropping stuff in SystemVolume Information, it already has a minimum of administrator priveleges, and most likely SYSTEM priveleges (given the permissions on that folder). It has already circumvented whatever AV you have, and probably already patched your bootloader. This very day I had to disinfect a computer running MSSE, since it had been rootkitted, and MSSE saw no issues (nor did I at first glance, till I launched combofix).
you saw 7 or 8 years ago is FUD
I deal with computers for a living; Im an IT consultant, and do a number of jobs for friends and family. I have seen these last two years cases of system restore either only partially working, or failing, or messing things up. Regardless, I do not want them messing with the "evidence"; my job is to figure out the issue and correct it, and people making changes post-problem do not make my job easier.
And can you please show me ANYWHERE where I said to use system restore for virus removal
I do not believe I implied that; certainly such a use would fail. However, the functionality itself can lend itself to hiding viruses as it leaves a section of the drive that most are unaware of, and many programs do not have priveleges to see. And again, if stuff is getting dropped in there, you are mistaken if you think your AV picking it up means "problem solved"; you are still rootkitted.
But for removal of buggy software or drivers, especially in XP where apps have a nasty habit of shotgunning system32 with DLL crap?
DLLs in system32 are not necessarily an issue. If they are not called, they dont really do anything. Using system restore to remove buggy drivers is retarded; www.sysinternals.com has autoruns which can with 1 click disable said driver. Preface that with a registry backup with ERUNT and youre golden. No need for crossing your fingers and hoping system restore doesnt fail.
And the fact that you refuse to say whether your experience is recent or not (hell you could be talking WinME)
I wouldnt be recommending ERUNT if i was talking WinME, as that is most certainly NOT NT, and ERUNT would not function on it. I have scant experience with ME, and extensive (and ongoing) experience with XP.
because while those statements were true over a decade ago time has marched on and they simply aren't true now.
Again, I dont see how system restore does a job that is not done far better by one of the methods I mentioned. Troubleshoot the problem rather than trying to do a ghetto pseudo rollback which may or may not fix an issue and may or may not hose certain programs. Want quick reversion of changes? Use ERUNT.
If you have a virus that is infecting system restore points, your antivirus isnt going to be detecting anything-- its already been subverted. If you dont understand this, then youve bought into the whole "AV will protect you from viruses, full stop" myth, and obviously havent had to deal with many infections (client or otherwise).
As for it not breaking things, it certainly is possible and Ive certainly seen it; whether that was recent is moot, as once I realized how much of a waste of time it was, I stopped using it. Every time Ive tried to use it, it has ended up not fixint the issue, where I would have been better off doing a repair installation, or manually fixing whatever the issue was (be it through MSI cleanup utility, or autorun inspection tools, or sfc scan, or chkdsk/p).
And heres the real kicker-- if i want the ability to quickly undo changes (like, im about to attempt some rather dangerous registry edits), ERUNT kicks the crap out of system restore-- it always (ALWAYS, baring fs corruption) works, can be restored offline, and doesnt use gigs and gigs of data.
You can argue that its a good alternative for home users who dont know how to do such things-- and I would concede that I have met a few people who mentioned "we had bug X, but fixed it with a system restore", but such stories typically end with "but now we have bug y, can you fix it?" At the end of the day, if i am going to be running systems repairs for friends and families, id much rather they not much around with system restores, given the potential issues that can happen if a restore fails, or breaks Norton's AV to such an extent that nothing works, or trashes something unexpected.
So maybe for someone who has noone to help them out on the technical side of things, it is a boon; but I cannot see a SINGLE scenario where I would not be better served with either A) fixing the issue by hand B) reinstalling the operating system C) just set up ERUNT on all of my computers and use that instead
Because its reliability is spotty at best, its a haven for viruses (super-duper-hidden System Volume Information ftw!), and you never know what it will and will not break.
My comment about babies and invalids was aimed very specifically at the implication that a person's value as a human is tied to their use to society. So lets have it in plain english-- is that your intention?
Should the members of Westboro Baptist church cause their own demise, it would be a positive result for society
All other points aside-- and very emphatically, I do not think they are minor points-- this raises another major flaw with the thrust of your arguments. You seem to think that we can look at a person or group and know the extent of their contributions; Here is an obvious example of where that falls short. I am myself no fan of the WBC, but was rather suprised to learn that for all the allegations of bigotry etc that its pastor Fred Phelps gets, he was, about 50 years ago, an attorney in kansas who (AFAICT) focused on, in his words, "tearing down Jim Crow laws" (source). He was disbarred about 20 years later for conduct in court, and his performance and vitriol at the pulpit has done no favors to the name christian; the man has a great many flaws. But not knowing the people he defended, or the times he grew up in, are you prepared to look at the mans life and declare it of no value? How can you be confident that you know the full worth of any man's life, to declare it worthy of no tears?
Trying to quantify a human's worth is tricky and dangerous business. Many very bright individuals have attempted to bring such ideas into policy, but society very fortunately tends to shy away from such things as eugenics, forced sterilization, and the like.
Talking about someone's right to live as a positive or negative value also implies that with enough good works, one might not be punished for certain infractions. Do you really want to go down THAT road?
There are several disturbing things about your post... For starters, you have no sympathy for others who die due to their own greed-- do you then say that you have no vices of your own? Do you think any death you might suffer deserves not a second thought because of them?
And I would shed no tears for a religious fundamentalist, of any flavor, who causes their own demise. These people put their own desires over society's and I see no reason to respect them when they are 'hoisted by their own petard'
Aside from the massive leap involved in lumping all "religious fundamentalists" into the category of "wants to destroy our civil liberties or our democratic system", I see no reason you could not just as easily substitute "opposition political parties" in place of "religious fundamentalists". Each political party tends to think the others are headed down a path to disaster; are they therefore unworthy of sympathy on event of their demise?
Their last act may be the only positive contribution to society, amusement.
....and the massive leap in stating that no "religious fundamentalist" has ever contributed to society, the idea that one is only worthy of sympathy if they contribute meaningfully to society? Would you therefore feel no sorrow if a newborn were murdered? What about the elderly, the invalids? Mankind has gone down that path many times before, we know what monster lies behind that door.
If someone could please define honor in clear terms that most reasonable parties could agree to (where reasonable means more than "I like or agree with the fellow"), I would be appreciative. But it does not mean moral so far as I can tell, and to use it to mean "I approve of his actions" is not terribly useful.
I am not entering into moral relativism in the least; I think that the bombing would have been tragic had it occurred properly, but I think that for at least some definitions of "honor" it is "dishonorable" to laugh at a mans death at all, especially given the intent behind it.
There are accidents, friendly fire casualties, bad apples, and a lot of other bad shit that happens, but it is war and it is chaotic. We try our best not to harm the innocents or our own.
I do not argue any of this. But to say that "their death is a laughing matter, for they are monsters".... this is likely the very same justification they themselves use as they attack civilian populations. I can understand opposition to them, even deadly, but to laugh about such matters is very disquieting.
No, Id say there is equally little humor in both situations.
For all those claiming that it is funny because of the atrocities he tried to commit, do you also chuckle at the "darwin awards"? Is human life of such little value to you, that you think people must earn the right to live? That the loss of a life perceived as unproductive or harmful is thus a joyous thing?
I am supposed to be upset that a sociopath that is trying to maim and kill other people dies by their own ineptitude?
To laugh as a sociopath is gunned down by the firing squad seems to place you squarely on the same path as he. Whos to say that with the right justification you might not find yourself in his place, in the name of eliminating others like him?
They would likely level similar accusations against us, and who's to say how much of the information they have is correct?
honorless
By honorless, do you mean "their concept of honor is not one I agree with, therefore they have none"? Im sure in their eyes it is quite honorable; it seems pointless do discuss honor from opposite sides of the battlefield. It seems just as "honorless" to sit from the comfort of your home laughing as someone straps a bomb to their chest and takes their own life.
Regardless of that, is it not sad that someone would come to that point, that they would view whatever enemy they envision worthy of such hatred that they are willing to inflict civilian casualties? I see nothing humorous about the situation whatsoever, from their intent to their outcome.
They should not insert commentary into the leaked material. It does immense damage to their credibility to claim "this is authentic war footage" and then have numerous cuts, tributes to the fallen, and drawn in lines etc inside the video.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to depend on whether they were responsible and complicit in said leakage. If this is indeed "iphone background services", seems rather a stretch to blame AT&T for it.
Being wrong is being wrong. Your post clearly said "They have done this before" when no, they didnt; that was a completely separate category of maliciousness.
You seem to be assuming Im defending Sony, when in fact I am trying to correct an obvious distortion of reality. Just because Sony commits one type of malicious behavior, does not make it appropriate to go accusing them of another (like "they write computer viruses" or "they brought down the internet" or "they kill puppies").
That means one must wonder what Microsoft's true motivation is.
Anyone who wonders that hasnt been paying very close attention; I thought the last 20 years demonstrated that rather clearly.
Well, at least until IE regains control of the market, and they stop updating / developing said chrome plugin. This isnt "at the expense" of anything.
You mean like how Google added chromeframe to IE? Turnabout is fair play...
2 words: Commerce clause
Then quit your job and become a lawyer; its obviously not that hard to make so much money, clearly all law firms rake in the cash.
Yes. AT&T has no control over the hardware or software of the iPhone; its job is to provide metered internet access.
For a better car analogy: If you buy a ford that has a hole in its gas tank, should you be able to sue Exxon for having to spend more money on gas?
You could also have the firewall monitor traffic for known exploits; this type of functionality is built into many firewalls, from opensource pfsense (snort, etc), to sonicwall to cisco asa.
Its not an all or nothing; if it were, people wouldnt pay big bucks for cisco or even smaller SoHo firewalls (sonicwall et all).
Im not sure why you blame Microsoft-- they dont tamper with PC hardware (couldn't, really), and you KNEW what you were getting with the XB360. FWIW I dont remember hearing of them going after anyone for modding their Xbox360 offline, and if you want to connect to live, you KNOW their policies.
Actually, they HAVENT done that before-- read the article you linked. That was a rootkit, not a backdoor; they are related but seperate. The BMG rootkit did not allow remote code execution; it instead took measures to hide its activity from visibility, causing havoc with some CD drives and assisting some viruses in the process.
Rootkit=/= backdoor. I know its fun to hate on Sony, and I fully support such positions, but lets not distort the truth here.
So... how much do you trust that flash plugin you got? How about silverlight?
And McAfee is really quite mediocre as AVs go. Avast | AVG | MSSE are all far better.
That most of the malware today use social engineering and are Trojan based, which means the user has to launch it first to cause an infection
Youll need to cite a source for that, anecdotal evidence (the several hundred infections i deal with per year) shows that the vast vast vast majority of infections do not require such crude interaction; they rely on browser and plugin exploits to launch no-click infections.
As for AV the last tests I saw with Comodo were 98.4% and MSE something like 96.something%
No AV that I have seen has detection rates quite that high. Last comprehensive study I saw (about a year ago) showed the top contenders hovering around 81% detection on unknown binaries. MSSE is certainly quite decent, but AGAIN, if you have something dropping stuff in SystemVolume Information, it already has a minimum of administrator priveleges, and most likely SYSTEM priveleges (given the permissions on that folder). It has already circumvented whatever AV you have, and probably already patched your bootloader. This very day I had to disinfect a computer running MSSE, since it had been rootkitted, and MSSE saw no issues (nor did I at first glance, till I launched combofix).
you saw 7 or 8 years ago is FUD
I deal with computers for a living; Im an IT consultant, and do a number of jobs for friends and family. I have seen these last two years cases of system restore either only partially working, or failing, or messing things up. Regardless, I do not want them messing with the "evidence"; my job is to figure out the issue and correct it, and people making changes post-problem do not make my job easier.
And can you please show me ANYWHERE where I said to use system restore for virus removal
I do not believe I implied that; certainly such a use would fail. However, the functionality itself can lend itself to hiding viruses as it leaves a section of the drive that most are unaware of, and many programs do not have priveleges to see. And again, if stuff is getting dropped in there, you are mistaken if you think your AV picking it up means "problem solved"; you are still rootkitted.
But for removal of buggy software or drivers, especially in XP where apps have a nasty habit of shotgunning system32 with DLL crap?
DLLs in system32 are not necessarily an issue. If they are not called, they dont really do anything. Using system restore to remove buggy drivers is retarded; www.sysinternals.com has autoruns which can with 1 click disable said driver. Preface that with a registry backup with ERUNT and youre golden. No need for crossing your fingers and hoping system restore doesnt fail.
And the fact that you refuse to say whether your experience is recent or not (hell you could be talking WinME)
I wouldnt be recommending ERUNT if i was talking WinME, as that is most certainly NOT NT, and ERUNT would not function on it. I have scant experience with ME, and extensive (and ongoing) experience with XP.
because while those statements were true over a decade ago time has marched on and they simply aren't true now.
Again, I dont see how system restore does a job that is not done far better by one of the methods I mentioned. Troubleshoot the problem rather than trying to do a ghetto pseudo rollback which may or may not fix an issue and may or may not hose certain programs. Want quick reversion of changes? Use ERUNT.
If you have a virus that is infecting system restore points, your antivirus isnt going to be detecting anything-- its already been subverted. If you dont understand this, then youve bought into the whole "AV will protect you from viruses, full stop" myth, and obviously havent had to deal with many infections (client or otherwise).
As for it not breaking things, it certainly is possible and Ive certainly seen it; whether that was recent is moot, as once I realized how much of a waste of time it was, I stopped using it. Every time Ive tried to use it, it has ended up not fixint the issue, where I would have been better off doing a repair installation, or manually fixing whatever the issue was (be it through MSI cleanup utility, or autorun inspection tools, or sfc scan, or chkdsk /p).
And heres the real kicker-- if i want the ability to quickly undo changes (like, im about to attempt some rather dangerous registry edits), ERUNT kicks the crap out of system restore-- it always (ALWAYS, baring fs corruption) works, can be restored offline, and doesnt use gigs and gigs of data.
You can argue that its a good alternative for home users who dont know how to do such things-- and I would concede that I have met a few people who mentioned "we had bug X, but fixed it with a system restore", but such stories typically end with "but now we have bug y, can you fix it?" At the end of the day, if i am going to be running systems repairs for friends and families, id much rather they not much around with system restores, given the potential issues that can happen if a restore fails, or breaks Norton's AV to such an extent that nothing works, or trashes something unexpected.
So maybe for someone who has noone to help them out on the technical side of things, it is a boon; but I cannot see a SINGLE scenario where I would not be better served with either
A) fixing the issue by hand
B) reinstalling the operating system
C) just set up ERUNT on all of my computers and use that instead
Because its reliability is spotty at best, its a haven for viruses (super-duper-hidden System Volume Information ftw!), and you never know what it will and will not break.
Wow, thanks. I might have nightmares tonight.
The new McAfee Consumer Product Removal tool, now with BIOS flashing utility included!
My comment about babies and invalids was aimed very specifically at the implication that a person's value as a human is tied to their use to society. So lets have it in plain english-- is that your intention?
Should the members of Westboro Baptist church cause their own demise, it would be a positive result for society
All other points aside-- and very emphatically, I do not think they are minor points-- this raises another major flaw with the thrust of your arguments. You seem to think that we can look at a person or group and know the extent of their contributions; Here is an obvious example of where that falls short. I am myself no fan of the WBC, but was rather suprised to learn that for all the allegations of bigotry etc that its pastor Fred Phelps gets, he was, about 50 years ago, an attorney in kansas who (AFAICT) focused on, in his words, "tearing down Jim Crow laws" (source). He was disbarred about 20 years later for conduct in court, and his performance and vitriol at the pulpit has done no favors to the name christian; the man has a great many flaws. But not knowing the people he defended, or the times he grew up in, are you prepared to look at the mans life and declare it of no value? How can you be confident that you know the full worth of any man's life, to declare it worthy of no tears?
Trying to quantify a human's worth is tricky and dangerous business. Many very bright individuals have attempted to bring such ideas into policy, but society very fortunately tends to shy away from such things as eugenics, forced sterilization, and the like.
Talking about someone's right to live as a positive or negative value also implies that with enough good works, one might not be punished for certain infractions. Do you really want to go down THAT road?
There are several disturbing things about your post...
For starters, you have no sympathy for others who die due to their own greed-- do you then say that you have no vices of your own? Do you think any death you might suffer deserves not a second thought because of them?
And I would shed no tears for a religious fundamentalist, of any flavor, who causes their own demise. These people put their own desires over society's and I see no reason to respect them when they are 'hoisted by their own petard'
Aside from the massive leap involved in lumping all "religious fundamentalists" into the category of "wants to destroy our civil liberties or our democratic system", I see no reason you could not just as easily substitute "opposition political parties" in place of "religious fundamentalists". Each political party tends to think the others are headed down a path to disaster; are they therefore unworthy of sympathy on event of their demise?
Their last act may be the only positive contribution to society, amusement.
....and the massive leap in stating that no "religious fundamentalist" has ever contributed to society, the idea that one is only worthy of sympathy if they contribute meaningfully to society? Would you therefore feel no sorrow if a newborn were murdered? What about the elderly, the invalids? Mankind has gone down that path many times before, we know what monster lies behind that door.
If someone could please define honor in clear terms that most reasonable parties could agree to (where reasonable means more than "I like or agree with the fellow"), I would be appreciative. But it does not mean moral so far as I can tell, and to use it to mean "I approve of his actions" is not terribly useful.
I am not entering into moral relativism in the least; I think that the bombing would have been tragic had it occurred properly, but I think that for at least some definitions of "honor" it is "dishonorable" to laugh at a mans death at all, especially given the intent behind it.
There are accidents, friendly fire casualties, bad apples, and a lot of other bad shit that happens, but it is war and it is chaotic. We try our best not to harm the innocents or our own.
I do not argue any of this. But to say that "their death is a laughing matter, for they are monsters".... this is likely the very same justification they themselves use as they attack civilian populations. I can understand opposition to them, even deadly, but to laugh about such matters is very disquieting.
No, Id say there is equally little humor in both situations.
For all those claiming that it is funny because of the atrocities he tried to commit, do you also chuckle at the "darwin awards"? Is human life of such little value to you, that you think people must earn the right to live? That the loss of a life perceived as unproductive or harmful is thus a joyous thing?
I am supposed to be upset that a sociopath that is trying to maim and kill other people dies by their own ineptitude?
To laugh as a sociopath is gunned down by the firing squad seems to place you squarely on the same path as he. Whos to say that with the right justification you might not find yourself in his place, in the name of eliminating others like him?
They would likely level similar accusations against us, and who's to say how much of the information they have is correct?
honorless
By honorless, do you mean "their concept of honor is not one I agree with, therefore they have none"? Im sure in their eyes it is quite honorable; it seems pointless do discuss honor from opposite sides of the battlefield. It seems just as "honorless" to sit from the comfort of your home laughing as someone straps a bomb to their chest and takes their own life.
Regardless of that, is it not sad that someone would come to that point, that they would view whatever enemy they envision worthy of such hatred that they are willing to inflict civilian casualties? I see nothing humorous about the situation whatsoever, from their intent to their outcome.
They should not insert commentary into the leaked material. It does immense damage to their credibility to claim "this is authentic war footage" and then have numerous cuts, tributes to the fallen, and drawn in lines etc inside the video.