Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft's Security Products Will Block Adware By Default Starting On July 1

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the why-not-sooner dept.

Windows 177

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft [Thursday] announced a change to how it handles adware, a form of malware that pushes unwanted advertisements to the user. As of July 1, the company's security products will immediately stop any adware they detect and notify the user, who can then restore the program if they wish. Currently, when any of Microsoft's security products (including Microsoft Security Essentials and Microsoft Forefront) detects a program as adware, it will alert the user and offer them a recommended action. If the user doesn't do anything, the security product will let the program continue to run until the user makes a decision." If adware is malware, why wait until July?

cancel ×

177 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

adware is malware (5, Insightful)

ClaraBow (212734) | about 4 months ago | (#46669761)

when it deceives the user into buying shady and often worthless products.

Re:adware is malware (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669909)

Such as Microsoft products.

Re:adware is malware (2)

The123king (2395060) | about 4 months ago | (#46670025)

I'd define certain MS products as crapware, not malware. When they charge you $100 extra with the Ultimate editions of windows for a glitzy interface and a few features you could get for free from other vendors, that's crapware, but the underlying core of Windows (and the win32/RT API) certainly isn't.

Re:adware is malware (1)

cffrost (885375) | about 4 months ago | (#46671449)

I'd define certain MS products as crapware, not malware. When they charge you $100 extra with the Ultimate editions of windows for a glitzy interface and a few features you could get for free from other vendors, that's crapware, but the underlying core of Windows (and the win32/RT API) certainly isn't.

I've never heard of "crapware" before, but charging money for something that has no monetary value (as it's offered for free by another entity) sounds to me like fraud.

I think it's certainly malicious when MS informs NSA about various security holes in their products prior to patching them — it's difficult for me to conceive a better way to undermine customers' trust.

Re:adware is malware (2, Insightful)

Babbster (107076) | about 4 months ago | (#46671553)

I've never heard of "crapware" before, but charging money for something that has no monetary value (as it's offered for free by another entity) sounds to me like fraud.

That's complete nonsense; if true, it would mean nearly every piece of commercial software was fraud, from office software to image editing software to antivirus software.

Re:adware is malware (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670565)

My favorite way of purchasing Microsoft products is through the helpful Amazon adware included in the Ubuntu Unity interface. Once I realized that LibreOffice was useless for opening any sort of commonly used file format, it was very helpful that I could just type Microsoft and purchase working software directly from my Linux distribution.

Re:adware is malware (1)

lgw (121541) | about 4 months ago | (#46671133)

I know you! You're the guy who bought an adapter to charge his cell phone from the power available from a landline connector, just to rub it in, aren't you?

Re:adware is malware (3, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 months ago | (#46670107)

No.... when they don't pay the fee to Microsoft. Microsoft wants to control all the advertising on the Start Screen and the Desktop alike.

Of course if you use Microsoft approved advertising methods, and pay Microsoft the relevant fees, you'll get a pass.

Re:adware is malware (2)

Smauler (915644) | about 4 months ago | (#46670443)

I wonder when microsoft will get around to getting their vendors to stop accepting kickbacks for shitty adware on new systems.

This practice is one of the reasons why I still build my own desktop systems. Getting rid of the junk is a massive hassle, and restoration of the system from partition brings it all back.

Re:adware is malware (4, Insightful)

Cyberdyne (104305) | about 4 months ago | (#46671107)

I wonder when microsoft will get around to getting their vendors to stop accepting kickbacks for shitty adware on new systems.
This practice is one of the reasons why I still build my own desktop systems. Getting rid of the junk is a massive hassle, and restoration of the system from partition brings it all back.

I hate the usual crap that gets shovelled on too, but to be fair Microsoft have apparently been pushing against that for a few years now for exactly that reason. Of course, they need to tread carefully there for legal reasons: if they block, say, Dell bundling a limited-time version of Norton Anti-virus, Dell won't be happy (they lose the $5 or whatever kickback) and Symantec will probably lawyer up and come knocking, particularly with Microsoft offering their own AV product now. Remember all the fallout when they killed off Netscape, when they stopped IBM from bundling OS/2 as a dual-boot setup with Windows? We both know this is different, but Microsoft's lawyers are apparently paranoid about crossing that line again.
I'm told they also offer crapware-free machines in their own stores, which makes sense. I just wish they'd make OEMs ship a plain vanilla Windows install disk like they used to, no more "restore" BS - so anyone wanting a clean machine can just re-install.

Re:adware is malware (1)

lgw (121541) | about 4 months ago | (#46671151)

I wonder when microsoft will get around to getting their vendors to stop accepting kickbacks for shitty adware on new systems.

Arguably, the Nokia acquisition is partly their way of addressing that. Now that MS will also sell hardware, you'll at least have one vendor who doesn't lard up the system with junk.

Re:adware is malware (1)

Hypotensive (2836435) | about 4 months ago | (#46670471)

adware is malware when the user didn't explicitly want to install it.

Re:adware is malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46672229)

So...are slashvertisements malware too then?

Why? (5, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | about 4 months ago | (#46669763)

Presumably because of a deal struck with one of those weasel-word named "industry associations" like the "Really Helpful Consumer Notification Group" that represent shitty companies that do shitty things and who probably went to Microsoft and said "we need X amount of time to make sure our products meet your new standards so they don't get blocked" for which you can read "we need some time to find a way around your blocking so we can continue being shitty".

Re:Why? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46669897)

Damn you for reading my mind! That's exactly what's happening. They have to build a list of exceptions, and I'm sure one can get on that list for a "small fee".

Re:Why? (2)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 4 months ago | (#46670819)

Or they tried to minimize impact to their business by only inviting lawsuits from antivirus vendors on charges of anticompetitive behavior for bundling MSE. And did not want to take on additional enemies, since virus creators are unlikely to raise a fuss. But now they are taking that extra step, again with minimal business risk.

And, if they announce mse will block adware, it has to be pretty good day one because it will be immediately tested. Announcing plans gives consumers a good feeling, and legit businesses time to turn into an opt in model that gives users something. And time to develop and test the process that gets software blacklisted.

So if your explanation is correct, there was already a private announcement, and a deal. Microsoft made a public announcement that it did not have to make for another several months anyway, and businesses have 6 months to modify their software.

My version gives them the same time period, with no shady deals needed. And it matches normal business practice of announce then deliver. And it shows familiarity with the legally hostile world they have created for themselves, as well as their past behavior in that regard.

But you're right, "conspiracy" makes much more sense, and of course "paid off" makes even more, to address the other reply.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 4 months ago | (#46671167)

"we need some time to find a way around your blocking so we can continue being shitty".

Well, sure, but not much time, and consider that products like the Java installer bundle this crap. This change is very broad, and doesn't just affect fly-by-night malware bundlers like Sourceforge.

But that's the deal, surely? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669771)

Is that not the deal? You get the program for sort-of-free, the price being that you get adverts displayed.

Or is this not talking about actual adware? The picture on the article shows one of those 'enhance your PC' adverts which are something else entirely.

When I say 'article' I of course mean 'blog entry' with a link to another blog entry which then links to the actual announcement with the information.

Here => http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/mmpc/shared/objectivecriteria.aspx

Re:But that's the deal, surely? (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 months ago | (#46669953)

Is that not the deal? You get the program for sort-of-free, the price being that you get adverts displayed.

Spoken like somebody who hasn't had to remove "Babel toolbar" from anybody's machine and try to get the machine working normally again...

Re:But that's the deal, surely? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669989)

Is that not the deal? You get the program for sort-of-free, the price being that you get adverts displayed.

Spoken like somebody who hasn't had to remove "Babel toolbar" from anybody's machine and try to get the machine working normally again...

Correct. Win98 was just starting to be available when I switched entirely to Linux. Which works fine for me BTW.

It feels good not to have such Windows Problems.

Re:But that's the deal, surely? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671025)

Indeed I have not. But "Babel Toolbar" sounds like malware with adverts, not adware.

Re:But that's the deal, surely? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669983)

The adware they are talking about is the crap that gets installed without consent and then proceeds to replace ads on web pages with other ads. So that the people who actually paid for an ad on a page get ripped off since the user doesn't ever see that ad. These types of programs also tend to create extra ads on pages as well. In other words - these are bad for legit advertisers, not always for end consumers. (They are probably bad for both, but the reason MS will make this change is to protect legit advertisers).

Re:But that's the deal, surely? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671161)

Nothing should have ads in it. Either you charge a price for the software, or you make it free without any catches. I'm happy to pay for software I use, now I use an opensource OS.... but I pay for the install disks every release to support them.

Re:But that's the deal, surely? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 months ago | (#46671539)

The adware they are talking about is the crap that gets installed without consent and then proceeds to replace ads on web pages with other ads.

...until their adware server goes down. Then they call me and say "Internet isn't working!!!"

Kill them all. With fire.

baby steps (5, Insightful)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 4 months ago | (#46669775)

MS is walking a fine line as it tries to transition from a company that sees users as the target to be exploited and a company that sees users as the customers. Remember all the crapware like Norton installed on every new PC. MS was cool with this because it enabled the OEMs to them more $$. If they were user focused they would have never allowed it.

Now they're trying to move to an apple model where the user is first. blocking adware is part of this. but turning a big ship takes time, and there are a lot of long-time corporate relationships that need to change, so they are phasing in this new policy to block adware by default.

Now that MS has gotten the "customer is king" memo, there are only two companies that see users as a resource to be exploited for gain, and customers as partners to assist in this exploitation: goog and fb.

Re:baby steps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669819)

If they were user focused they would have never allowed it.

Microsoft would never have been allowed to deny OEMs to pre-install whatever they want, any attempts to do this would have been hit so hard with an anti-trust suit.

Re:baby steps (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669933)

Yeah; they should learn from Apple, who for some reason is allowed (and encouraged!) to do shitty things that we chastised Microsoft for.

Re:baby steps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670239)

Apple only licenses its software on its own hardware...

Microsoft COULD do that... but then all the vendors would switch to Linux, BSD, or ReactOS.

And Microsoft would implode.

Re:baby steps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670439)

Linux, BSD, or ReactOS.

Linux is nothing outside of servers and a bastardized version you wouldn't even recognize on a phone.

BSD is dying, Netcraft confirms it.

ReactOS isn't worth the letters it takes to type.

Which vendors would switch?

No vendors would switch. That's which vendors would switch.

Re:baby steps (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 4 months ago | (#46670541)

You haven't read the previous posts all the way through. The scenario under discussion is that Microsoft restricts their OS to their own hardware, the way Apple. Which vendors which switch? All of them. Under this scenario, they wouldn't have a choice--MS would no longer be selling to them.

Re:baby steps (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670697)

Which is exactly my point, yet I got downvoted for some reason. When Apple does it, it's great! When Microsoft does it, they are evil!

Re:baby steps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671731)

Which is exactly my point, yet I got downvoted for some reason. When Apple does it, it's great! When Microsoft does it, they are evil!

Of course, you are on Slashdot ;)

Re:baby steps (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46670403)

Erh... both Google and FB treat their customers actually rather well.

You? You mean they don't treat YOU well? No, wait, you're not the customer, you're the product.

Does that include Bing Bar? (5, Insightful)

Glasswire (302197) | about 4 months ago | (#46669777)

One person's adware / malware is another's vital revenue stream.

Re:Does that include Bing Bar? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669881)

And don't forget Skype. Oh, for all installations of Skype to suddenly be blocked!

Also advertisements are immoral so I couldn't give a fuck if business owners (I am one, before you cry "pinko commie!") need to find another way to pay for their yachts.

Re:Does that include Bing Bar? (4, Insightful)

Deathlizard (115856) | about 4 months ago | (#46669901)

I wouldn't call the Bing Bar (or the Bing desktop for that matter) Adware per say simply because it doesn't attempt to sell anything, but it definitely is bundleware and needs to die in a fire like the rest of the toolbar garbage.

That's going to be the real test for this initiative. Is it going to at least ask you remove the more legitimate toolbars like Ask, Bing Yahoo and Google Toolbars or is it going to ignore them. If it ignores them, Conduit's going to have a field day suing the hell out of MS for blocking their "Non harming" toolbar while ignoring the others. If they do detect them they better make sure Bing Bar is on the list or Google will be screaming "Antitrust" until the cows come home

Re:Does that include Bing Bar? (1)

fightersfury (2206088) | about 4 months ago | (#46670131)

What about the Xbox home screen? You pay a certain amount of money for the system. You pay 50$ a year to ACCESS their online services. Then they shove ads all over that auto-play when you scroll over them.

Seems like it's adware when anyone else is doing it, but if MS does it, it's golden.

Re:Does that include Bing Bar? (2)

Deathlizard (115856) | about 4 months ago | (#46670877)

If I had to make a call there, it would be Ad Supported. Although MS is getting very ad happy with their metro apps as of late. Hell even Solitaire is coming with Ad's now. At least so far they've been static images which i'm ok with more than virus infected flash ads. The same goes with banner ads for Android apps as well.

I define Adware as an application installed by a third party that is not associated directly with the downloaded app in any way and disrupts your experience outside of that particular app. A good example would be bundleware installers that love to install VLC media player for you as well as "Value added apps to enhance your experience" (if you want to see what I mean, Search for VLC media player in Google and Bing and click on one of the ads) or ads in the android notification bar popping up every 5 minutes.

Now this is where it gets dicey. What if the developer Wants you to see ads because its their revenue stream? Fine, but only show the ads when I'm directly using the app. I don't want you making money off me when I'm browsing the web by covering up malware infected website ads with malware infected banners (BTW I use Adblock plus for this reason), or annoy me about how I need to pay you to fix my 23409 registry errors every 5 minutes by about 12 different registry scanners running on my machine at once sucking down CPU time to scan. Or notify me that there's this great game I need to download from Google play every five seconds.

Re:Does that include Bing Bar? (2)

sconeu (64226) | about 4 months ago | (#46670595)

What bugs me about Bing Bar is that I hide it every time it shows up in Windows Update.

Yet the next Patch Tuesday, there it is, just like Groundhog Day.

Re:Does that include Bing Bar? (2)

oji-sama (1151023) | about 4 months ago | (#46672141)

Perhaps you should uninstall it as it would remove the need to update it? (I've never seen a Bing Bar update)

Re:Does that include Bing Bar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671301)

Yeah, I get *so* tired of things wanting to, by default (unless I uncheck it), install the Google/Yahoo/Bing/Whatever toolbar into my browser. Um, no, I'm fine with my browser the way it is, if I wanted your toolbar, thought it was of any use to me, I'd download it myself manually as a separate install.

... or hey, you want that free trial copy of McAfee on your machine, right? Don't forget to uncheck that box if you don't.

... or at one point I remember installing Apple iTunes update had the default of installing Safari with it. I didn't download/install Safari in the first place, so why does the 'updater' want to install it? If I wanted to download it (which I did later), I would have, and then sure, update it - but I don't want your 'updater' to install a package I chose not to have as part of it's 'update'.

Basically, quit making the 'default' on an updater to install crapware (or anything) I don't already have... that's not an 'update' that's a shifty ploy to get more software on my machine.

Would legal service be better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669995)

Would they not get better income for makeing legal programs? Why cheat, mislead, lie to user to install something thats bad for their computer? Or what about bad people that uses exploits to avoid user interaction and force their software on your computer?

Can be too good business installing software that users dont want and get ridoff asap when they find it on their computer?

Re:Does that include Bing Bar? (4, Interesting)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 4 months ago | (#46670119)

Bing Bar nothing. Windows 8 includes an unavoidable banner ad [microsoft.com] for the Windows Store.

Re:Does that include Bing Bar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46672073)

Does this include things like attempting to install McAfee? (Looks at Java.)

Store? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669783)

Does that mean it is going to block all the adware crap claiming to be "free" in its 8.x App Store? Thankfully, that should about clear the "shelves"!

About time (1)

Deathlizard (115856) | about 4 months ago | (#46669785)

It's about time they start doing something about adware. At least put that "Low Threat" section in MSE to good use.

On the other hand, if they detect adware the same way the other AV's do, I wont be out of a day job. The only thing I've found that removes adware is ADWCleaner and the Junkware Removal Tool. The rest either don't detect it all, Detect only the most virulent or damaging forms of it, or detect it and won't remove it.

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669987)

They don't do anything drastic about it anymore because the lawsuits by the spyware authors. A few years ago I believe the courts determined that these programs where legitimate programs and listing them as spyware or malware was illegal. That's why even Malware Bytes does not have them checked by default, they are listed as PUP(potentially unwanted program). The user needs to check them to remove them. As for the specialty programs like ADWCleaner and Junkware Removal Tool and others, they may be too small for these companies to bother with suing so they can get away with it. It would be nice to see all Antivirus programs actually take a heavy hand to these again. But as long as they are getting through it is making me money.

Re:About time (1)

bmo (77928) | about 4 months ago | (#46671063)

A few years ago I believe the courts determined that these programs where legitimate programs and listing them as spyware or malware was illegal.

No they didn't.

A lot of spammers and malware authors shout about "free speach" but the only court case where a spammer won was where Spamhaus replied to the lawsuit but didn't show up. Which was later overturned.

--
BMO

Removing competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669811)

Only Metro and the Windows Store can spam you now!

Oh and ofcourse every search you make will include sponsored Bing results.

so it will block ie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669877)

IE is the worst for unwanted advertisements.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669891)

About those ads in Skype

Microsoft blocks Slashdot Beta????? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669941)

Works for me.

They don't but, I do (easily & how)... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670101)

By adding these lines to your custom hosts file, & NOT taking cookies here (I never have) or using a "registered 'luser'" account:

216.34.181.45 slashdot.org
216.34.181.45 beta.slashdot.org
216.34.181.46 images.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 it.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 developers.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 ask.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 tech.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 yro.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 mobile.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 apple.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 books.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 games.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 news.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 hardware.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 interviews.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 linux.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 science.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 idle.slashdot.org

* Works for me, & others here... bigtime.

(Facf is - It's a MAJOR PART of why I don't use a "registered 'luser'" account here in fact (along with tracking etc. that occurs when you do, as well as the fact it makes you an EASILY TRACKED SHEEP, for trolling tool).

What do I use to create a custom hosts file for purposes WAY above & beyond that, that I created myself? This:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

Custom hosts add speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity from a SINGLE FILE vs. inferior SLOW usermode browser addons, AND?

What you CAN'T TOUCH, can't hurt you... including ads robbing your speed & tradcking you without your permission, as well as infecting you with malicious script (many time occurrence this decade), and they make you reliable vs. DNS faults (redrirect Kaminsky flaw type & downed DNS) + FAR more to YOUR benefit.... courtesy of "yours truly".

APK

P.S.=> So much for using a "registered 'luser'" account on /., when they FORCE things on you YOU didn't ask for & YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CONTROL WHAT COMES INTO YOUR PC + WHERE YOU WANTED TO GO, not them... apk

Re:They don't but, I do (easily & how)... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670225)

Thanks, APK. :) You are a man with character.

Do you have any other networking tips & tricks?

"You ain't seen nothin' yet"... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670719)

You're welcome, & sure I do & here's clues to some here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] and here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

HOWEVER - best of all, here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

Where it's shown how I completely DUSTED a "3 digit wannabe /. registered 'luser' "genius" (lol, NOT) on hosts today, point by point In getting him to contradict himself ( he needed no app to do hosts he said, but he used one & then, lmao - HE STILL BLEW IT LARGE on data there, generating repeats that bloat hosts) that is pointed out there.

APK

P.S.=> Yes folks - you just KNOW I've just GOTTA say it (as is per my usual "inimitable style", lol):

THIS?

This was all just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" & it always is vs. /. noobie skill level trolls I easily dismante & DESTROY with facts, every single time (& funniest part? All they HAVE is minus mods to vainly & effetely "hide" my posts whose points they are UNABLE TO DEFEAT validly on a technical level -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] )

... apk

Re:They don't but, I do (easily & how)... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670841)

minus modding apk's post here now and here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] isn't proving him wrong. It shows he has you all floored technically.

Microsoft's security products? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 4 months ago | (#46669993)

Does that include the standard windows firewall?

Walking a line (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46669997)

I think MS has some valid concerns about the legal ramifications of this as they can be accused of anti-competitive behavior for blocking software the user probably clicked on and actually asked to install, even if they were tricked into it.

Because ... (1)

jamesl (106902) | about 4 months ago | (#46670005)

If adware is malware, why wait until July?

Because if they just popped it on the unsuspecting world with neither prior notification nor opportunity for users and IT professionals to react and inform, pundits would be caught unaware and unprepared and spend the next weeks complaining. Loudly. Vociferously. Obnoxiously. And users would be more pissed off than they will be in any case.

Re:Because ... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 4 months ago | (#46670727)

Now, because they announced it beforehand, pundits will spend the next weeks complaining, loudly vociferously, obnoxiously, all the way until MS actually release it. Users will be as pissed of as in the other scenario, because despite the previous communication, they won't bother listening, and won't know about it anyway.

Aimed at FBI screen locking adware (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 4 months ago | (#46670017)

They're well behind the times. They're apparently aiming at things like this ransomware (http://privacy-pc.com/how-to/fbi-moneypak-virus-computer-locked-by-fbi.html) There are unfortunately a lot of ad tools out there right now that still try to lock your application to their web site. And I recently had to have a long talk with someone at work who browsed a porn site and had a dozen or so pop-ups _under_ his active screen, all showing webcam pornography. When he tried to close the web browser, the pop-unders were displayed, and it forced me to talk to him about keeping his workspace visitor safe.

Re:Aimed at FBI screen locking adware (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 months ago | (#46670171)

When he tried to close the web browser, the pop-unders were displayed, and it forced me to talk to him about keeping his workspace visitor safe.

That's nice.... in many organizations; browser accessing a porn site would have to be reported to HR, and it would generally be grounds for immediate termination.

OH yeah.... even if it did happen to be Adware that caused the porn to be displayed while they were operating it, b/c the user got their computer infected...

Re:Aimed at FBI screen locking adware (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 4 months ago | (#46670371)

As it happened, he wasn't browsing at work. He was browsing at home, and since some employees are on call and need to respond quickly to service requests, he was off duty but using his work laptop for personal use. When he opened his laptop in the morning, it wasn't even in the active tab of his browser so wasn't apparent. But when he minimized the browser to show something else to a co-worker, oh my.

Separating personal use from workspace resources can be very awkward, especially with companies where "Bring Your Own Device" is supported, or where you're laptop is company purchased.

Conflict of interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670037)

Does that mean that Microsoft will prevent windows users to use Windows 8 ?

That's nice, but I've already been @ it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670039)

For decades - How? Simple: This -> Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> * "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

*** "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Beware: large hosts files slow down Win 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670263)

Probably mostly Microsoft's fault for not using an O(n) algorithm, but install a large hosts file like MVPS and the system will repeatedly chew the CPU during page loads as the system reprocesses the *unchanged* hosts file. Stupid, but that's how MS made it work.

I eventually uninstalled the hosts file and made my own ad blocking DNS on a VPS instead. Better than a hosts file, faster, and automatically works for every device on my LAN without requiring installation!

My app accounts for that too... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670553)

It's well documented how to stop it (stop usermode slow faulty with large hosts files Windows dns clientside dnscache service) http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ho... [mvps.org]

Per my subject-line: My program accounts for that @ build time...

( & saves the wasted CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O wasted on the weak faulty usermode SLOW dnscache in Windows.)

Lastly:

DNS IS LOADED WITH FAULTS - huge ones, when set into recursive mode (and you have to do that for updates iirc) vs. the Kaminsky redirect flaw for well over 1/2 a decade now, even though a patch exists (but 99% of ISP's don't implement it - too much hassle in MX setup).

APK

P.S.=> I'll give Linux 1thing - it has NO SUCH FAULTS with hosts... apk

Re:That's nice, but I've already been @ it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670465)

I wonder if that point you'd actually want to run a local DNS server or something. The HOSTS file is kind of a quick 'n' dirty hack after all.

Re:That's nice, but I've already been @ it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670523)

I certainly decided to do that. Hosts files don't scale in terms of administration (installation on devices, updates, etc). My DNS does scale... and it autoupdates the ad server list daily (pulled from multiple sources).

It Just Works.

Would it count as irony if I used APK's hosts file as an input source for my DNS ad blocker server?

FastFlux, Dynamic DNS botnets & more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670611)

WTF? Ever heard of logon scripts OR chron jobs/scheduled tasks from a network wide admin account user?

Apparently not, AND additionally?

They make it EASY to migrate hosts to ALL NETWORK NODES/ENDPOINTS that have a std. BSD ip stack (most all do), like your PC's & Servers on a network!

APK

P.S.=> Apparently, OU ARE NOT AWARE of DNS flaws in security (huge ones) in redirect weakness & exploit ala the Kaminsky flaw (not patched @ 99% of ISP's worldwide due to MX difficulities in setups for them) & also vs."FastFlux &/or Dynamic DNS using botnets (which EXPLOIT THE HELL OUT OF DNS) - so much for your "scaling" - scaling to redirect exploits & botnets is more like it... apk

Re:FastFlux, Dynamic DNS botnets & more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670815)

Foolish apk, come back when your "solution" requires zero additional client side installation/configuration and works the same for PC, Mac, Android, iOS, and everything else (as the DNS solution does). Your proposed approach just doesn't work.

Furthermore, you act like you don't need DNS after you install a hosts file. Obviously you still do. Fixing the ad server issue by running a modified config instance of dnsmasq on a private, firewalled server is secure enough.

So, apk, can your fix do all of this with no required user action *and* work on all platforms? No? I didn't think so.

Wrong (hosts are part of the IP stack) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670875)

Anything w/ BSD based IP stack has hosts (99% of OS out there) uses hosts, fool.

Where did I state I don't use DNS?

Show us that please - or stop *trying* to VAINLY put words in my mouth I never once stated... piss poor puny troll tactic that.

WHAT I FIND FUNNIEST? you IDIOTS around here keep "piling up" MORE ontop of browsers or the OS, when a custom hosts file SINGLE PART does their jobs with less moving parts.

APK

P.S.=> ONLY place they don't, afaik? ANDROID "kitkat" (shows how much even GOOGLE fears hosts imo - they are, after all, a 34++ billion dollar a year advertiser, & hosts cut THAT to shreds too)... apk

Re:Wrong (hosts are part of the IP stack) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670971)

That's nice, apk. It's refreshing to hear you say that hosts files don't work on all platforms (Android kitkat counts as a platform). Taking a list of ad/malware servers and installing these as overrides on a DNS server *does* work on all platforms.

Using this approach requires *zero* client configuration to accomplish everything your hosts file claims to do (simply push the address of the ad-blocking DNS out via your DHCP server on your LAN router). Instantly works for all platforms (not "all except...") and doesn't require the end user to perform any modifications to their machines or devices.

I'm enjoying having ads blocked on all my Kitkat devices (and everything else too), as well as blocking ads for all my guests who connect to my network... and they didn't have to do a thing to get this benefit.

DNS = full of security holes... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671285)

Kaminsky flaw anyone? FastFlux &/or Dynamic DNS using botnets too?? Please... lol! More 'moving parts' complexity & room for BREAKDOWN too?? Come on... YOU EXPOSE YOURSELF TO THOSE ISSUES using dns only, fool - hosts STOP redirecting weakness from DNS (fact).

Kitkat? Only one & ALL OTHER PLATFORMS USE HOSTS FINE afaik &?

That's simply PROOF even GOOGLE fears hosts which chop ads to shreds with less parts & doing MORE by far than browser addons do, & even shoring up DNS defiiencies by the score too!

(& GOOGLE should fear hosts which is indicated CLEARLY by them chopping hosts out of their kitkat phone indicates - after all - they are just another leech advertiser that sells your information, & profits by it, stealing your speed you paid for, as well as exposing you to malicious script in ads - which I have DOZENS of proofs of the past few years of no less)

APK

P.S.=> Again - so it "sinks in" for you, in case you didn't "get it" - migrating hosts across network nodes/endpoints like PC desktops + servers = cake (every heard of logon scipts or scheduled tasks/chronjobs run to copy files to endpoint nodes? Look into it - child's play easy & done ALL the damn time too)... apk

hosts files are pointless effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671367)

Too bad for you that mobile devices are more common than PC hardware anymore, and so saying "all other platforms except..." is a big problem for you. Login scripts and network accounts aren't applicable for mobile devices. The DNS solution handles mobile and desktop devices with zero config.

Crazy APK... I basically got a DNS to serve the hosts file for me. The DNS answers authoritatively for domains that it does not have SoA for, and returns the IP addresses I choose to substitute.

There is nothing that you can do in a hosts file that this DNS solution cannot do. It's the exact same effect, except no client configuration & maintenance required (as hosts files need).

Look into it. It's far easier than what you describe as necessary to deploy hosts files.

Hosts = NO effort @ all (DNS = security risk) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671605)

Courtesy of "yours truly" & my skills in coding (you don't have) http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

Since you avoided my fair question earlier (where you said I don't use DNS, yet I do, in OpenDNS since they @ least filter & use DNSSEC unlike most, AND patched vs. Kaminsky flaw)?

Show us, FIRST, where I said I don't use DNS... ok? You can't, since I do... but?

I overcome DNS weaknesses you don't DARE dispute idiot (kaminsky flaw unpatched on ISP dns servers, like 99% of them, & also "fastflux" + dynDNS using botnets exploiting DNS like mad too...).

How?

Simple - Custom hosts OVERCOME redirect security weaknesses all of those exploiters employ... easily.

Plus?

Custom hosts EVEN GET YOU PAST "slashdot beta" they FORCE on you registered 'lusers' too, which s a redirect as well, and unwanted one (they were doing it to ME too, as an ac, but I beat it with hosts easily) and they do FAR MORE for users in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity online (that other browser addons 'competitors' can't even BEGIN to touch, period). Fact.

(Slashdot beta, which many here clearly don't want -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] shown in that exchange)

APK

P.S.=> By the way: ANYTIME you feel "up to it"? You're MORE THAN WELCOME to validly technically dispute & DISPROVE my 17 enumerated points on hosts' value to end users of them, shown here http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] Which I KNOW DAMN WELL you're unable to do (it's imnposisble is why - I cannot be outsmarted by DOLTS that infest this place, lol)... apkItemid=74

Since you avoided my fair question earlier (where you said I don't use DNS, yet I do, in OpenDNS since they @ least filter

Hosts files don't work on all platforms, DNS does. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671843)

Great, glad you understand you still need to use DNS. The way you claim hosts files will overcome DNS issues certainly leaves people wondering if you realize that DNS is necessary.

I use DNS too. My DNS blocks ad servers, much like your hosts file does (except hosts files require far more effort). Since we are both using DNS, I simply choose to use one that blocks ad servers. Effectively, I configured the DNS to serve the hosts file.

One more thing my DNS does that your hosts file can't: I can block subdomains by wildcard. For example, it takes a single line of config to block all doubleclick servers that exist or ever will exist. I did the same for all ad networks. Hosts files have to list out each ad server, line by line, always doomed to play catch up.

There is nothing a hosts file can do that a custom DNS cannot. Your comment about redirect flaws is irrelevant, because this DNS is effectively serving the hosts file. No one can redirect a request that never hits their server.

I can block Slashdot beta via my DNS just as trivially as you do with your hosts file (i.e. by overriding the IP returned for the queried host). In fact, my DNS config is generated from various hosts files and adblock lists.

Show us how you can block domain wildcards and make mobile devices use your hosts file with zero config required on the device and maybe people will start listening to you.

DNS = chock full of security holes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671981)

Thats hosts overcome vs. FastFlux + DynDNS using botnets & the Kaminsky bug (99% of ISP's aren't patched vs it even 5++ yrs. after a patch is out - YOU take a STUPID risk depending solely on DNS)

Especially when hosts protect you vs. those threats noted above... fact.

Only 1 platform doesn't run hosts: ANDROID "kit kat", all othres out there, afaik, DO! Google = AFRAID of hosts apparently....

(Maybe they SHOULD use hosts on kitkat again - after all, DO look at all the EXPLOITS on ANDROID!)

Man... lol, the "invulnerable Linux" you pack of OPEN SORES liars kept saying that about, along the lines of "Windows != Secure, Linux = Secure" bullshit... well, reap your rewards -- YOU FAILED (& you're being torn up WORSE than Windows EVER was, lol...)

However - all other platforms that use the BSD IP stack run hosts (how many 100's to 1,000's are those?)

APK

P.S.=> ,b>You not only EXPOSE YOURSELF to dns NUMEROUS exploitable flaws (in itself due to recursion, which you HAVE TO USE to update), but also to FastFlux & DynDNS botnets too as well as using more "moving parts complexity" room for breakdown (see above as to THAT in security issues that exploit DNS)... lol! Man... do you KNOW how EASY it is for me to "run r wasting CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O adding ontop of your browsers (addons) + OS (dns servers OR even the dnsclient faulty with large hosts files usermode SLOW service)...

Still, since I've been waiting on this - Tell us - Where did I EVER SAY I don't use DNS, as you said, hmmm? I never once did... you dorks here, amaze me... no small wonder the USA is going down, when those like the trolls around here compose it... sad! apk

Only 1 can't use hosts (google fears it) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46672049)

Can't you read? Only 1 doesn't run hosts: ANDROID "kit kat", all others do! Google fears hosts obviously. You on the other hand take security risks depending on dns alone since hosts fix those redirect problems. Of course, being the troll you are, you refuse to acknowledge those facts, and the fact that dns is an insecure piece of shit.

Re:Wrong (hosts are part of the IP stack) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671341)

why'd avoid apk's question proving he said he doesn't use hosts here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] as you stated he's said? Is it since you're a weak troll he's torn a new asshole who has to try to put words in apk's mouth he never said and you have to lie about it obviously since you can't show us he said that ever? Yes.

As usual, all they have vs. apk's facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670645)

Are trying to hide his post on hosts with minus mods http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] and the fact he shot down any and all naysayers here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] as well as here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] overcoming their weak objections and pointing out flaws in their faulty 'solutions' instead of out debating him. He always wins.

Re:As usual, all they have vs. apk's facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671281)

Are trying to hide his post on hosts with minus mods http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] and the fact he shot down any and all naysayers here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] as well as here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] overcoming their weak objections and pointing out flaws in their faulty 'solutions' instead of out debating him. He always wins.

Because there's a bunch of dirt bags here that don't want you using the hosts file to block ads, it interferes with their revenue.

Too bad I destroy those dirtbags easily (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671317)

With facts - anyone's free to peruse beneath this post http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] to see that much, as I annihliated them point by "so-called 'point'" of theirs, easily, using facts vs. their bullshit.

APK

P.S.=> Dirtbags are afraid... that much, is obvious & I LOVE IT (even others like yourself see it)! apk

Dealing with the problem at the wrong end (2)

eneville (745111) | about 4 months ago | (#46670127)

Why disable software once it's installed? Shouldn't you at least attempt to stop the program getting installed first? Rather than open the front door and let the crap in, keep the door locked and screen your visitors.

Why wait till july? (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about 4 months ago | (#46670151)

Maybe cause they want to make sure that XP users get punished for not coughing up the cash for a worse OS?

I'm trying Win 7 right now, it's slower on searching, locks up the PC if it hits a damaged file on a PC while searching, and doesn't even have a responsive mouse until it's been moving for ten or fifteen seconds - it's like the driver for the mouse goes into sleep mode after inactivity.

I bought my Dad a PC as a christmas present - He's not very polite on how he describes windows 8.

I want XP back.

Re:Why wait till july? (0)

Arker (91948) | about 4 months ago | (#46670653)

XP is a very popular and well-liked OS.

If everyone that prefers it would just break out the checkbook and donate to ReactOS, you could have a free clone with no artificial end-of-life. As much demand as there obviously is for this, you would think the project would have received more support.

Permablock Camfrog (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 4 months ago | (#46670219)

Their ads try to install things on your system without your knowledge.

skype ads (1)

feds (3005861) | about 4 months ago | (#46670361)

why they don't start removing unwanted advertisements from Skype instead?

partners (2)

Tom (822) | about 4 months ago | (#46670383)

If adware is malware, why wait until July?

Because they need to give time to their OEM and other partners as well as their own departments to transition to something that'll bypass this change.

Hear this sound, Tom? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670501)

"SnAp* went yer femur (w/ yer foot in yer mouth eating your words washed down with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat) what not with YOU sayin you didn't need an app to process hosts data here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] and yet you used one (uniq) and you STILL BLEW IT LARGE vs. apk (lmao) http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org] bigmouth. Now, go eat your words... hahaha, "Oh the SHAME of it" (mghty (lol, NOT) "/. 3 digit lusr" noob that you have evidenced yourself to be). Plus, You couldn't even beat apk on the fact he was right that RequestPolicy doesn't do as much as hosts do either (which was the topic YOU tried to change and failed on, hahahaha)

Re:partners (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671179)

Because they need to give time to their OEM and other partners as well as their own departments to transition to something that'll bypass this change.

It's not like it will actually affect anything. Microsoft Scrutiny Essentials is rated as the very worst security suite and only finds about 61% of malware. [[http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/12/21/0013243/microsoft-security-essentials-misses-39-of-malware]]

Tom, your libel broke your leg again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671195)

Hahahaha you idiot - "eat your words" punk http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

* Rarely have I SEEN such a no mind that LIES (like above) & I shot down repeatedly there on:

1.) You refusing to debate RequestPolicy's BLATANT inferiority to hosts files (first of all) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

2.) You literally stating you don't need an app to process hosts properly here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

(LMAO - yet you used uniq & FAILED THAT TOO dumbass, on repeating bloat data you'd still have with it -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] )

3.) SAYING MY APP is a VIRUS, you piece of shit? Fuck you, & "eat your words", you little lying BITCH -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

4.) Then ,b>you BLEW IT AGAIN on data in hosts yet again (you'd have repeats and you do NOT understand hosts data at all from its sources in the security community) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

* You're a TOTAL piece of shit... so much for "3 digit registered 'luser'" status you have here - I show it's not WORTH Shit (espcially lying SHIT like you).

You technically inept noob.

APK

P.S.=> This punk Tom? A real piece of shit... I literally *tried* to warn hm to 'steer clear' of trying me on hosts, but no... the moron "Tom" fried himself...apk

They want to start doing their own Adware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670543)

A while back, MS said something about a new API to push ads on the user. It sounds like they are getting ready to pull the trigger on that and they want to get rid of other adware or force the adware publishers to pay them to use the new API.

Not all adware is malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670545)

Not all adware is malware, but all malware is malware.

The problem mainly is that some software that is adware, leaks privacy, and software like Microsoft-owned SKYPE is adware.

That's nice but I've been @ it for decades (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670777)

How? This (what you can't touch, can't hurt you) - Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> Reposting this since the technical invalids around here (lol) couldn't VALIDLY technically disprove my points on hosts giving uses more speed, security, reliability & anonymity with less moving parts complexity + room for breakdown or WASTE (of cpu cycles, ram, & other forms of I/O wasted on faulty products like Windows' DNS cache OR DNS itself) & downmodded me effetely instead! apk

Re:That's nice but I've been @ it for decades (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46670821)

Man, you're right in your ps. All they had was minus mods http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] and you dusted the dns dorks completely in your replies that shut their crap down easily which showed they don't even know networking on their os platform of choice. Bunch of pussy weasel wannabe computer experts around here can't hold a candle to you apk and they know it. The minus mod says it all when that's the best they've got and nothing more.

Thanks for noticing (yes, I know)... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46672071)

Anyone's FREE to read my parent post & those beneath it http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] and decide for themselves.

* :)

(I love outwitting the DIMWITTED dolts around here... it's just, & you KNOW I've just GOTTA say it as usual, "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ex'" since they're basically undereducated techie DOLTS that haven't learned enough to THINK FOR THEMSELVES... only to rely on "experts" well... I DESTROY EXPERTS of all types, regularly & easily).

APK

P.S.=> "Onwards & UPWARDS".. apk

It's just Microsoft trolling for money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46671043)

If adware is malware, why wait until July?

We are talking about Microsoft here. It's to give the ad people time to offer up payment to make sure that their particular malware is white-listed.

Total agree (1)

pettertom (3598999) | about 4 months ago | (#46671055)

i am total agree with you in this matter. Mobile Phone Solutions [the9idea.com]

The real question... (2)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 4 months ago | (#46671217)

Will it prevent the Bing bar from being installed ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>