dont make spyware illegal! thats how i make money!!

rdrag0n

n00b
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
15
believe it or not windows xp is designed to be able to create the exact same file system security format as linux. once the default admin has his account, he creates the sub accounts and can lock EVERYTHING except 'my documents'. just like linux 'home'. the problem is, average windows users have no idea how to implement this system, or even care. they just wanna get online and dl porn or wahtever.

but this shouldnt turn into a linux vs windows debate. nay. it should involve women and mud and bikinis. and spyware. yes.
 

oldpablo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
6,352
Enough with the MS crap, thats like saying Ford is responsible not only for defects in their cars, but also for stupid things people do in them. One is reasonable, the other is not. Now back to the topic. People are the problem here. If everyone locked their houses and car doors, less would be stolen. If people all wore their helmets on motorcycles, less would die from head wounds. No permanent fixes here folks, just "less." People are dumb, and there will always be people taking advantage of dumb people. Now that being said, sometimes a problem can reach such epic proportions that the actions of the dumb people affect the smart people. This calls for stricter rules (traffic laws, etc), but unfortuantly you can't really outlaw something that gives people a choice whether or not they want to do it. I know people that love weatherbug and every morning I wake up and look at myself in the mirror and say "God give me strength not to kill the weatherbug lovers." :p If someone pays me to fix their spyware, then thats a worthy service. If they pay me again next month after I've already showed them how its done, they are dumb and I have no problem taking their money. A lot of people pay for convenience, unfortunately its the American way. :)

P.S. How did I doo on mi grammer?
 

inimino

n00b
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
40
Enough with the MS crap, thats like saying Ford is responsible not only for defects in their cars, but also for stupid things people do in them.
No, it's not. The reason we have this problem is because of defects in MS products, not because of stupid people.

You may disagree with that statement, but no-one is saying MS is responsible for what people do with Windows.

Do you think it's possible to create a system which people can use without being exposed to all kinds of malware without their consent? If you say "yes" then you must agree that the problem can be solved.

The naive solution here is education. That is what will never work.
 

oldpablo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
6,352
inimino said:
No, it's not. The reason we have this problem is because of defects in MS products, not because of stupid people.

You may disagree with that statement, but no-one is saying MS is responsible for what people do with Windows.

Do you think it's possible to create a system which people can use without being exposed to all kinds of malware without their consent? If you say "yes" then you must agree that the problem can be solved.

The naive solution here is education. That is what will never work.

No. Not and have it interface with the Internet in all its glorious varying ways (streaming media, downloading files, active content, etc.). I don't want a computer that cant do crap, neither does anybody else. Thats why Windows is primarily chosen. If I wanted an OS that severly limited my options, I'd go with Linux. People want simplicity, so its been given to them. Making things harder is a good way to shoot yourself in the foot. Hey everyone look at my product. It takes months to learn all about how to use it, but when you do you will never be infected as well as not be able to do lots of stuff that my competitor can do! Just send your check to....what? You won't use it then? :( MS has to find the middle ground and unfortunately it keeps moving. Thats technology for ya!

Edit: Is it a defect if I can't drive my car outside the tolerance level that it was designed to do? Thats a bad analogy, but the point is the terms "bug" and "defect" are greatly misused today. If I program something today and somebody finds a new way of hacking tomorrow, I could not have programmed for that. I get sick of saying this because to me its common sense. Coders can not see the future. Quit expecting them to.
 

inimino

n00b
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
40
OldPueblo said:
No. Not and have it interface with the Internet in all its glorious varying ways (streaming media, downloading files, active content, etc.). I don't want a computer that cant do crap, neither does anybody else.
Wow. In a single post, you spectacularly exposed your deep ignorance of:

  • Windows (and it's security problems)
  • the Internet (and how it actually works)
  • Mac OS (because it didn't even occur to you in this context)
  • Linux (and what it's capable of)
  • Security

Good work! Now that I understand your level of competence, I won't waste any more of my time on you.
 

oldpablo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
6,352
inimino said:
Wow. In a single post, you spectacularly exposed your deep ignorance of:

  • Windows (and it's security problems)
  • the Internet (and how it actually works)
  • Mac OS (because it didn't even occur to you in this context)
  • Linux (and what it's capable of)
  • Security

Good work! Now that I understand your level of competence, I won't waste any more of my time on you.

Thanks for the personal attack and the boundless assumptions, [H]noob.

1. Windows (and it's security problems) - Its not that simple, unless you are a simpleton. This has been covered numerous times in this forum, use the search function. I'll break it down real short though. Windows can either be fully secure and useless or useable and safe if you are operating it correctly, or wide open if you are lazy/a fool. The ability is there, its the "people wild card" that tarnishes its reputation.

the Internet (and how it actually works) - Last I looked the Internet was a big network. Networks are about sharing. Security is about not sharing. Therefore we have an oxymoron. What level of sharing/interacting you do on the Internet is up to YOU.

Mac OS (because it didn't even occur to you in this context) - Why do I need to bring up Mac? Do I have to list all operating systems whenever I want to list one or two? Maybe I didn't lise MacOS because a point was being made that didn't apply to the Mac. Go back and try to figure it out. (hint: the word severely which I spelled wrong. DOH!)

Linux (and what it's capable of) - Its nowhere near capable of running the millions upon millions (possible exageration :p ) of apps/games/hardware that Windows can. Therefore when you take the ratio of what works on Windows to what works in Linux, I think its an accurate assumption. Maybe not in terms of what is generally used in the mainstream, but overall.

Security - Hmm...not much to reply to on this one. Maybe I'll just return the attack and call you a poopoo head... :D
 

inimino

n00b
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
40
Windows is insecure by default, and can be made somewhat secure with considerable difficulty. How many users will ever change any default setting in their lives? I don't think I need to do a search to understand the state of Windows security, but thanks anyway. Interesting choice of words you picked: "lazy/a fool." What about people who are too busy with their lives to spend years learning about security before they can use their computer? Do those people not count in your little world?

Networks are about sharing. Security is about not sharing. Therefore we have an oxymoron.
That's such a shallow and simplistic (and wrong) argument that it's hard to respond to. Networks are about enabling computers to share data. Security is about a lot of things, and one of them is ensuring that the correct people do and do not have access to data. There's no "oxymoron" (misuse of the word, by the way) and there's not even a conflict.

Hey everyone look at my product. It takes months to learn all about how to use it, but when you do you will never be infected as well as not be able to do lots of stuff that my competitor can do!
There's your answer as to why you should have brought up the Mac. Just thinking of the Mac while writing this sentence you would have realized how absurd it was (if you know anything about Macs and security).

As for Linux, it's capable of running many programs you can't run on Windows, and runs on lots of hardware Windows doesn't run on (from old stuff to rare stuff to stuff like the latest 64-bit processors). Of course there's lots of programs and hardware that only works on Windows. Both of these points are irrelevant. What matters is what you can accomplish on either platform. If playing video games is your priority, Linux is not your best bet. If you're a programmer, it might be. If you're a business looking for desktops for your employees, it's becoming an increasingly attractive option. But I'm not interested in starting a Linux vs. Windows pissing contest. I'm satisfied with pointing out that your point about the apps that are available on Windows is irrelevant in this context, and I'll leave it at that. Remember, the context is, I'm saying that it's possible to solve the spyware problem technically, and you're trying to disagree, but you haven't come up with a real argument yet.

Security - Hmm...not much to reply to on this one. Maybe I'll just return the attack and call you a poopoo head... :D
What are you, 15 years old?

As far as security, I'll just respond to your previous edit:

Edit: Is it a defect if I can't drive my car outside the tolerance level that it was designed to do? Thats a bad analogy, but the point is the terms "bug" and "defect" are greatly misused today. If I program something today and somebody finds a new way of hacking tomorrow, I could not have programmed for that. I get sick of saying this because to me its common sense. Coders can not see the future. Quit expecting them to.
Not only is it a bad analogy, but either you expressed yourself poorly or you display a lack of understanding about where security holes come from and what to do about them. Your whole view of how security should work is exactly backwards. You can hardly be blamed, however, as your view rather reflects current industry practice, especially from MS, for whom security has traditionally been a very low priority if at all (until recently, and I'm not yet convinced that there's any change outside of the marketing department.)

Here's a hint:

It's not finding "new ways of hacking".
It's finding bugs and exploiting them.
There are no "new ways of hacking" there are only previously undiscovered bugs.
It's not predicting the future, it's understanding your own code, and determining how it can be attacked.
You don't have to "program for" security threats, you have to program correctly, and you leave no holes.
 

oldpablo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
6,352
Windows is insecure by default, and can be made somewhat secure with considerable difficulty.

"Default" can be debated. Windows is designed by default to allow Grandma to get her webcam working across the Internet easily without having passed Networking 101. Its designed by default to allow Bob to share his family documents between his two home computers with ease. Now that security is a huge deal in regards to home users, SP2's default is to turn on a decent firewall, NX if its supported, report on your AV status, and harass about all three if you aren't in compliance. You are thinking with your geek hat on instead of your business hat. Windows is a product to be sold to consumers, not to be used "at default" by NASA or any other business that should know how to properly configure it.

How many users will ever change any default setting in their lives?

Blah blah blah, oh wait you pointed out what I did. It IS up to the user.

I don't think I need to do a search to understand the state of Windows security, but thanks anyway.

I think you do because your perception is wrong. The state of Windows security depends on the user (did I already say that?).

Interesting choice of words you picked: "lazy/a fool." What about people who are too busy with their lives to spend years learning about security before they can use their computer? Do those people not count in your little world?

Those people need to learn about security if they intend to BE secure. Exactly how hard is it to search on "free firewall" and "free antivirus" and "windows updates?" I don't think thats an endeavor to take years. Anyone with a firewall, updated antivirus, and updated windows patches is pretty safe. Oh wait! That is if they don't go and do stupid things like pull crap off of P2P or surf sites full of viruses and hacks. DANGIT! There's that people factor again...


That's such a shallow and simplistic (and wrong) argument that it's hard to respond to. Networks are about enabling computers to share data. Security is about a lot of things, and one of them is ensuring that the correct people do and do not have access to data. There's no "oxymoron" (misuse of the word, by the way) and there's not even a conflict.

So...

"enabling computers to share" = "Networks are about sharing".
"ensuring that the correct people do and do not have access to data" = "Security is about not sharing"

Did you just restate what I said, except with a bit more detail that I'm sure everyone else considers common sense? Shame on you! And "Network Security" sounds like a good oxymoron to me. I think its within the bounds of reason. :p

There's your answer as to why you should have brought up the Mac. Just thinking of the Mac while writing this sentence you would have realized how absurd it was (if you know anything about Macs and security).

That is a concept to which "MacOS" is not the only answer. Many companies have made products they think are "awesome" and "pure", but just didn't fit what customers wanted. I really don't know what you are trying to say about Macs, its like we are over clarifying a simple point, and its now completely out of context...

As for Linux, it's capable of running many programs you can't run on Windows, and runs on lots of hardware Windows doesn't run on (from old stuff to rare stuff to stuff like the latest 64-bit processors). Of course there's lots of programs and hardware that only works on Windows. Both of these points are irrelevant. What matters is what you can accomplish on either platform. If playing video games is your priority, Linux is not your best bet. If you're a programmer, it might be. If you're a business looking for desktops for your employees, it's becoming an increasingly attractive option. But I'm not interested in starting a Linux vs. Windows pissing contest. I'm satisfied with pointing out that your point about the apps that are available on Windows is irrelevant in this context, and I'll leave it at that.

I think you really just wanted to make another point to rack up your point totals. :p I'm fairly certain that you can compare the list of software/hardware available for the Linux/Windows platforms and see a large discrepancy. I never said Windows was better, I said Linux was more limited overall. I'm fairly certain thats common knowledge and you don't seem to be making/refuting a point there other then "stuff works on both."

Remember, the context is, I'm saying that it's possible to solve the spyware problem technically, and you're trying to disagree, but you haven't come up with a real argument yet.

I'm pretty sure I've been pretty clear. The problem is the users. And yes it is possible to solve spyware. Just like its possible to stop software piracy, child pornograhy, stealing, raping, murdering, etc. We just need to round up all those people involved and say "Stop it fools, we mean it!" Possible, but not probable. I'm guessing you are an idealist?


What are you, 15 years old?

Apparently you didn't get the joke... StinkBottom. :p

Not only is it a bad analogy, but either you expressed yourself poorly or you display a lack of understanding about where security holes come from and what to do about them. Your whole view of how security should work is exactly backwards. You can hardly be blamed, however, as your view rather reflects current industry practice, especially from MS, for whom security has traditionally been a very low priority if at all (until recently, and I'm not yet convinced that there's any change outside of the marketing department.)

Here's a hint:

It's not finding "new ways of hacking".
It's finding bugs and exploiting them.
There are no "new ways of hacking" there are only previously undiscovered bugs.
It's not predicting the future, it's understanding your own code, and determining how it can be attacked.
You don't have to "program for" security threats, you have to program correctly, and you leave no holes.

You obviously have a chip on your shoulder regarding MS and it appears your perspective is one of "elite purist technophile." That makes it a bit hard to be un-biased I'm sure. FYI, Grandma doesn't want your version of Windows. Neither do millions of others. And they pay money. Therefore they will get what they want, with guidance hopefully. Windows is designed to straddle all the markets, but it can only be configured by default for one. As for the hacking, unless you can put a stop to human creativity, there will be hacking regardless of OS. Its not even so much the "program correctly to leave no holes." Sometimes its people taking open holes and exploiting them in ways that are new and exciting. Any one else turned on now?
 

inimino

n00b
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
40
Windows is a product to be sold to consumers, not to be used "at default" by NASA or any other business that should know how to properly configure it.
Windows security policies are woefully inadequate for home users. We're not talking about NASA here, we're talking about Grandma.

You think it's unacceptable for Grandma to have to learn anything at all to make her webcam work, but you think it's acceptable for her to have to search the Web and learn about firewalls and antiviruses and figure out how to update Windows, just so she can check her email without becoming infected with 381 trojans? Give me a break!

Guess what, if she's motivated enough, she'll figure out how to set up that Web cam and talk to her grandkids. Maybe she'll just get them to set it up for her. But she's never going to have any interest in learning about security. So which makes more sense to you, putting some default security in place, and then allowing what needs to be allowed, or allowing everything and then trying to hold back the flood of malware?

Blah blah blah, oh wait you pointed out what I did. It IS up to the user.
Blah blah blah, oh wait, you cleverly avoided answering my question. I'll repeat it for your convenience:

How many users will ever change any default setting in their lives?

The state of Windows security depends on the user (did I already say that?).
And that's highly sub-optimal (did I already say that?).

Exactly how hard is it to search on "free firewall" and "free antivirus" and "windows updates?"
Look around. You tell me.

"enabling computers to share" = "Networks are about sharing".
"ensuring that the correct people do and do not have access to data" = "Security is about not sharing"

Did you just restate what I did?
Uh, no, I was trying to make my point in a subtle way. I guess I need to just hit you over the head with it, so here goes:

Your view of both networking and security is ridiculously shallow.

Both networking and security are much more complex than your trite summary.

I'm sure you know this, so don't trivialize the issue. And no, "Network Security" isn't an oxymoron, in fact it's a large part of how I make my living.

What I'm saying about the Mac is simple: you apparently suffer under the illusion that security and ease of use are at odds, and due to your experience (which seems to be primarily with Windows) I can see why. I would suggest you do some research into security on Mac OSX.

I never said Windows was better, I said Linux was more limited overall.
But Linux isn't more limited overall, that's an opinion. I'll grant that there is more software available for Windows, but 99% of that software is shit anyway. How many programs do you actually use during a day? Browser, email client, etc... add it up and you maybe have 20 applications you work with. For most business users it's actually more like 5 or less. So the fact that "Joe's shareware screensaver extravaganza" isn't available for Linux just doesn't strike me as relevant.

You could just as well say "DVD's are more limited because there are many more movies available on VHS."

Of course we can't stop murder, theft, or any of those things you mention. But spyware is a technically solveable problem. I think you don't see it because you're blinded by current limitations.

An idealist? I don't like labels.

FYI, Grandma doesn't want your version of Windows.
Who the hell said anything about a new version of Windows?
 

rdrag0n

n00b
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
15
let me restate. windows allowing stupid people to install spyware is not a security problem.

windows is designed to run the programs taht are installed on it. if someone installs a program, like weatherbug, then programs does what its supposed to do. windows does its job exactly.

now what people dont know is what whetherbug actually does! thats why education is not a 'naive solution' as someone stated. the people need to know what theyre putting on there.

so to recap.... by allowing people to knowingly install spyware on their pc (because theyre ignorant) windows does not exhibit any security issues. (of course its insecure in a million other areas, but this thread is about spyware)


ps - as for the mac vs windows vs linux debate, they are all useful for something. windows is good for stupid people, and gaming. mac is good for imaging, vid editing, 3d models etc, linux is good for networking. they can all do all 3 thigns, but they all have their ups and downs. just like gamecube vs xbox vs ps2. no one will win. unless bill gates just like.. kills everyone. i mean talk about terrorism....
 

Mauli

Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
667
There are things one can do to avoid getting spyware, as in dont use IE, and make sure during little installations dont just click next, next , next. Also little tools like spyware, i find, are so easy to use, that everyone can do it. So therefore i must agree with many comments in this thread, thats its great that some people make money of it.
Luckily we have people updating definitions so we can also get rid of it again, without being a total Pro.

Thank you S&D :p

PS.: Don't insult me, english isnt my first language...

inimino said:
What an attitude!

[...]

Second, if you want to be taken seriously, grow up, learn how to spell, and use proper grammar.
 

Mauli

Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
667
rdrag0n said:
let me restate. windows allowing stupid people to install spyware is not a security problem.

windows is designed to run the programs taht are installed on it. if someone installs a program, like weatherbug, then programs does what its supposed to do. windows does its job exactly.

now what people dont know is what whetherbug actually does! thats why education is not a 'naive solution' as someone stated. the people need to know what theyre putting on there.

so to recap.... by allowing people to knowingly install spyware on their pc (because theyre ignorant) windows does not exhibit any security issues. (of course its insecure in a million other areas, but this thread is about spyware)


ps - as for the mac vs windows vs linux debate, they are all useful for something. windows is good for stupid people, and gaming. mac is good for imaging, vid editing, 3d models etc, linux is good for networking. they can all do all 3 thigns, but they all have their ups and downs. just like gamecube vs xbox vs ps2. no one will win. unless bill gates just like.. kills everyone. i mean talk about terrorism....
:eek: :D :D :D
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
10,453
i make a lot of money off cleaning spyware also, but i get tired of repeat calls like "it's infected again, blah blah blah" (well then stop clicking on shit!). Not to mention trying to get like family and stuff to use computers just to have them get turned off after their computer gets infected.

One more thing to keep in mind though is that a lot of this stuff comes from asia or russia and I don't think they are going to particularly give a shit what U.S. Law says.
 

technofox

n00b
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
15
iceslice said:
Not at all. My point is not that "everyone should switch to linux becuase..." but to simply state what i feel the standard for security/dealing with spyware should beand that Microsoft can do better. Billion doller corperation vs a large group of intelligent users.. One thing another poster mentioned was the potential problems linux based systems would have if it were the #1 operating system. While i definatly agree that it would have a LOT more problems, i feel the linux community would do a better job cleaning up problems then the billion doller corperation that is microsoft.


Yawn. Ok this is from an network engineering student and a long time linux user for servers. Most linux distros are less secure than Windows boxs by default. Now I can look up a lot of credible sights to prove this information is correct. Windows is widely recognized for security issues because there are more windows users than any other os out there in the end user environment. Second linux requires technical know how, good luck training the average joe to use linux. Third you have to know what to install on a linux box to make it secure. Its easy to say windows security sucks, but without facts like SANS, Security Focus, etc... its meaningless. Linux has quite a few security issues that still need to be addressed on the user end market.

I use linux only for servers as I prefer its cheap lincensing and functionality, plus it has lower hardware requirements. However Windows is easier to setup and requires far less training than linux. If you examined the long term costs of linux vs windows you will crap your pants. Linux will cost $1000s of dollars in trainning costs for employees to learn how to use the OS, even if its already setup for them to use by trained professionals. You have to see the cost effectiveness of linux as a whole. For another example: trainning network admins who are not familiar with linux could be costly, some courses can cost between $4000 - $15,000 dollars. Thats quite expensive. If you are willing to pay for companies' and people's training needs for linux then please do so. Otherwise please accept the fact that linux will not be successful in the end user market until it is easy to use as windows.
 

agrikk

Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Messages
933
rdrag0n said:
point is, spyware is a stupid people tax. they shouldnt make it illegal because its a super easy way for me to make money (besides propogating sasser or blaster or wahtever.... not that i have or would do that....).

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Find a better way to make money, troll.
 

rdrag0n

n00b
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
15
haha!! troll....

what an absolutly wonderful retort! and your logic is impeccable. why, i find no possible way to rebuff your assault! im speechless! youve entirely changed my opinion and viewpoint! im going to join a monestary because ive become so overwhelemed with my newfound mercy and compassion!

*crying*

i apologize to those with dissenting opinions who are intelligent enough to understand SARCASM and who are also intelligent enough to refrain from cheap childish namecalling. i appreciate those who oppose my ideals in a precise logical manner. on the other hand, i despise morons who just type a cheap insult and something along the lines of 'your stupid'.


oh and lemme adress 2 things

1) i hadnt considered taht all the other countries arent gonna follow our spyware laws, like russia (yeah i know, obviously)

2) yes activex is a security issue, but even then when ie asks you 'do you want to accept this certificate' you have to click yes in many cases (i know, not all of them). plus you can always just turn it off.
 

Ion Silverbolt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
339
technofox said:
. Most linux distros are less secure than Windows boxs by default. Now I can look up a lot of credible sights to prove this information is correct. Windows is widely recognized for security issues because there are more windows users than any other os out there in the end user environment.

I disagree about the default settings. While there does tend to be more remote access services running, they are far from a security risk compared to something such as activeX. Hell just connecting to the net on a Windows box to get updates and you can get a worm. Unless some retard makes bob his password, it will still be more secure than a default windows setup. There's a good article up right now about Linux vs. Windows security if you're interested.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/


However Windows is easier to setup and requires far less training than linux.

Unless you have some off the wall hardware, you can have everything installed and have Internet access right after a fresh install of Mandrake. It's easier to install and setup than any version of Windows I have ever seen.

From rdrag0n:

2) yes activeX is a security issue, but even then when ie asks you 'do you want to accept this certificate' you have to click yes in many cases (i know, not all of them). plus you can always just turn it off.

That works, except for the fact Windows update requires it to be on to recieve security updates.

Anyway, one last note about spyware. I think it should be illegal unless it's specifically stated that the software contains it. Hell, if someone downloads an XP theme, that's what they should get. Not some install for Sahagent and mywebsearch unless it's stated in some EULA.
 

rdrag0n

n00b
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
15
im pretty sure that it is stated in the eula, or rather buried in the eula. its cryptically mentioned that other stuff may be installed and that it may communicate with servers. then again im sure there are even sleezier spyware companies taht dont even mention it.
 
Top