Spyware becomes increasingly malicious

Thu Jul 15 05:52:07 UTC 2004

>
> So MS has undocumented 'features', so what? When you install their
software
> you agree to a licence, and that you are using their software bound by
their
O, noo. You click a button 'I agree' which means nothing for 99.99% of
people over the world. Here is a difference. Do not expect people to 'agree'
if you do not enforce them to follow this (and if your system do not violate
'common sense'). Do you saw any idiot who read this licenses (I never seen
any)? It became (many years ago) some kind of ritual, like indian dances
before going to the war.

> terms and conditions. Am I afraid big brother is watching, that MS is
spying
> on me? Not really, nothing to see. Do I think that some of these practices
> are unethical? Yes, they probably are, but when I agreed to that licence I
> gave up my right to complain.
> Arguably, the internet would not be where it is today without MS, and that
Of couse, you are correct here.

> this design principle of automating as many processes as possible is what
> has made the internet a universally accessable medium, and that this
And which makes it a good dinner table for the pests, viruses and so on...

May be, idea was that people read 'license', click button (I agree) and
follow it - never write a code which violates this license? But it is not
true - 99.99% people do not read it  and behave as a common sense is saying
not as !@#$ MS lawers fictioned... They see a wall wih a gates - and they go
thru this gates, no matter what is written on the posters around (except, as
I said, if they see an angry dog next to the gate). /On the other hand, they
knows that coffee is hot and waterfall is dangerous and dogs can bite -:)/.
You must design yous system for this behavior, not for people who _read a
license_. This licenses are good only for 2 goals - (1) use them as a toalet
tissue; (2) in case of serious violation allows to suite user if he is in
USA... -- they do not change people behavior even a bit. Unfortunately,
Internet is not in USA, so even if we will have 100 strict laws prohibiting
spyware, it will not help to fight this pests and pets...  System must
defend itself.

> automation creates security vulnerabilities is simply the trade off made
for
> that accessability.

I agree, in general. yes, it is trade off of _easy to use_, but not only.
Many of this things are trade off of _MS do not want competition so they
keep many undocumented backholes allowing them to have a benefits vs
competitors. IE which makes search instead of reporting 'Name not found' is
a good example.

Yes, I agree, I see a distinction too. I just want to show, that it is not
so simple to determine (distinction) and it is not very productive even to
try doing it - it is much more important to (1) protect the system, and (2)
increase competition having more different systems, and (3) use standards,
instead of proprietary extentions...

>
> MS has a monopoly, it's true, but the reason for that monopoly is not
> entirely because of unfair business practices, it also has a lot to do
with
> their original design mission. That was and still is, to make their OS as
> easy to use as possible. You and I may know how to use linux, but up until
a
Yes, and they did it 'too easy to use' so they have a drawbackl in form of
viruses, vorms, pests and pets - what a surprise... If it was 5 years ago,
they already went out of the  market because of competition (from others who
did not dop it so easy to use but kept systems without a pets and pests).
Unfortunately, thie years are over.

> couple of years ago, this was just too complex an operating system for the
> average home user. That much of the MS code is undocumented, is probably a
I am not talking about the code; I am talking about API's.

>
> This is spurious logic. You are suggesting that Mac is a more secure
I do not know - it was a question.

> of choice, there are innumerable flaws that beg exploitation. The only
> reason MS is consistantly the subject of attack, and not Mac, is not
because
I am not sure - new Mac OS is much more consistent inside than MS. How
script (which must run inside the sandbox) can install spyware, or change my
home page, or see my address book (except if I confirmed administrative
password after I was asked about)? Any small difference can play a dramatic
role here - when working in Unix, I always login as 'alex' with 'user'
permissions - because I can make myself admin temporary by running 'sudo -s'
or 'su -'; in Windoze, I must login as an administrator from the very
beginning, so I do it - as a result, script can install startup time
software in MS but can not in my Unix (just a simple example). And so on. I
am not trying to analyze MS vs Unix vs MAC here, but it is obvious that MS
have a very serious design caveats, and there is a chance (a chance only)
that other systems have not.

>
> Again I think it comes down to choice. I have navigated to a website
because
> I have made a choice to view its content and services, I did not however,
> choose to have spyware installed on my computer. By installing this

I could not imaging, in the nightmare, that Browser can allow any
installation (withiout asking me 10 times _do you want_ and _enter admin
password please_. So, MS browser is not trusted as a browser but is a very
big spyware by itself.

John, you are 90% right here. Unfortunately, yes, it (spyware adware pests
pets etc) is a trade  off of _easy to use_.
But unfortunately, MS killed competition so you have not any chance to do
anythin good until they have a monopoly. All you can do may provide
temporary reliefe, but can not solve a problem. Until we will be able to
choose between a few vendors and few systems, with a different levels of
_easy to use_ but with (in turn) different levels of trust. Mozilla is not
worst than MS IE, but due to IE monopoly people just  do not debug their
applications on mozilla - and it creates a monopoly. problem is here, not in
the 'trusted software'. The same with many other systems. (Example - in
Russia, people are not so tied to IE because they have not so many fancy
on-line services; as a result, Opera and Mozilla % of usage is much higher
than in USA - they voted for this browsers. In USA, it is impossible because
!@#$ web service vendors are not interested in testing their web services on
anything than IE. This shows, that pets/pests problem is 95% IE problem, not
overall Internet problem).

Good law can help - it will wash out spyware from part of Internet, but it
is not enough without good software and good OS. Fortunately, spyware
problem is much simle than SPAM problem.