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!

Invisible Malware Install 65MB Large

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the it-came-from-marketing dept.

Security 381

Paperghost writes "Words fail me with this one - don't have the .NET framework on your PC to utilise the adware maker's technology? No problem, they'll download it for you without you knowing. The problem is that it's a sixty-five megabyte install." From the article: "...the size of the .NET framework to download can vary drastically depending on what extras you have - don't forget the service packs, SP1 is an extra 10 or so MB in size. But I'm actually understating the amount of space used when installed, as .NET can total up to 100MB."

cancel ×

381 comments

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

The bright side... (5, Funny)

Avyakata (825132) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854913)

I wonder if it comes with 24-hour tech support?

Re:The bright side... (1)

RGTAsheron (844946) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854925)

seeing as thats how long it'd take some people to get the .NET I hope so.

Re:The bright side... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11854976)

Surely the tech support is better than what you'd get from some basement-dwelling linux nerd!

Aaagh! (5, Funny)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854923)

It's bad enough installing spyware, but now they have to go and install Microsoft software!?!?!?!

You slimy bastards!

Re:Aaagh! (3, Insightful)

aarthi_r (857215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854937)

How is it possible to download it *without knowing*?

Re:Aaagh! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11854988)

Sleephacking.

Re:Aaagh! (5, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855007)

Easy. It exploits buffer overruns in the brain.

Re:Aaagh! (4, Funny)

tehshen (794722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855082)

And I thought C# and .NET are less susceptible to buffer overruns... so in the end, this download makes you safer!

Re:Aaagh! (1)

ndtechnologies (814381) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855023)

I guess with a lot of people still using IE 6 without XP SP2, then they don't know that Active X has been exploited...but that still leaves the issue of how they couldn't know that their dial up AOL connection is extremely slow, or how they've reached their Comcast cap limit...

Re:Aaagh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855172)

This is obvious to a programmer. But if you're just a user, imagine the install process without a download dialog, without a EULA clicky, and without a progress bar. Nothing to see. The installation hides as normal hard drive grinding. As amazing as it can sound, it's actually easier to install something without a UI, because then you don't have to spend time programming the UI.

Re:Aaagh! (1)

kkassing (862493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855045)

Look on the bright side, at least it doesn't download the entire thing.

Re:Aaagh! (4, Funny)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855181)

Yeah, not now, but how long before it downloads and installs Windows on your unsuspecting pc?

65 MB without the user knowing? (5, Funny)

kkassing (862493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854926)

I hope they're using bittorrent...

Re:65 MB without the user knowing? (1)

yourexhalekiss (833943) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854945)

(I bet they're not.)

Re:65 MB without the user knowing? (1)

gtkuhn (823989) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854980)

I bet the .NET download comes from M$'s servers. HAHA!

Re:65 MB without the user knowing? (5, Insightful)

traskjd (580657) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855027)

Keeping in mind that the article is trying to do two things:

1. Point out that spyware is getting worse

2. Show that the .net framework is huge

The latter point is simply trying to get people (especially anti-Microsoft people) fired up over nothing. The .net framework is ~23MB, and the service pack is ~10MB. There aren't any "optional extras" to the .net framework as such however they could be talking about components that AREN'T part of the .net framework. You get the framework in several flavours and the standard install is the largest. I'm willing to bet that the total size is how much harddisk space is actually consumed after install - and not the volume downloaded. I'm sure you could say that the Java Runtime is 100MB - it doesn't mean you download 100MB however.

Call me cynical (been on slashdot for many a year now) but parts of this article seem designed to enduce high emotion with a slashdot type crowd.

- JD

Are we sure... (2, Funny)

ErichTheWebGuy (745925) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854929)

... that it's not Microsoft-sponsored? They have done just about everything else to push .NET down our throats...

Re:Are we sure... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11854944)

Why are you worried, you do run Linux don't you? Doesn't all MS haters run Linux? no? Is this possible! OMG, shut yer cake hole and stop yer whining.

Re:Are we sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11854984)

you're forgetting quite some other OSes

Re:Are we sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855002)

lol... actually, yes, I am currently using SuSE, but I am not a Microsoft hater. I just don't happen to care for the .NET framework, in my experience, it's been buggy, unstable, etc. Not to mention the 100 MB of stuff.

And, yes, I have developed using .NET and it's not bad, I just don't happen to like the framework.

So maybe you should try to get some facts before you flame people, mmmmk? Thanks a bunch, that would be great.

Re:Are we sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855017)

I can say the same about the Sun JRE. Dont run MS .Net then run your beloved Opensource products such as MONO! Id rather have an ISO sponsered standard then a Sun one.

Re:Are we sure... (4, Funny)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854985)

Maybe it would get wider acceptance if MS named it differently. I first heard about it a few years back, and wanting to know more, I typed .NET into Google. I got back every www.*.net website on the web, but little about Microsoft. I knew C# had something to do with this, so I typed that in. Google dropped the # and returned every page with the letter C. Then I heard about ASP.NET, and decided to look that up on Google. I got back every www.*.net/*.asp page in the world, again no useful info. Finally, I gave up and installed Linux instead. I heard that mono got me .NET on Linux, and so I looked up mono. I learned alot about being careful about who I kiss, but little else.

Re:Are we sure... (completely offtopic) (4, Insightful)

clintp (5169) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855014)

For those of us that occasionally program in C# with .NET this is a bigger pain that you know. The two most descriptive keywords of the programming environment really are meaningless nothing-words in the Web's (normally) best search engine.

Re:Are we sure... (completely offtopic) (3, Informative)

Digital11 (152445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855057)

Search for dotnet instead. It works.

Re:Are we sure... (completely offtopic) (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855068)

Google now recognizes "C#" as a search term, and you ususally can get hits with "ASP.NET" or some class name.

Re:Are we sure... (completely offtopic) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855088)

Also, search Google Groups. Much of the indepth discussion of MS stuff still is on Usenet.

Re:Are we sure... (completely offtopic) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855089)

Well, that's what you get for using MS shit, dumbass.

Re:Are we sure... (2, Informative)

avalys (221114) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855118)

It seems that C# as a search term [google.com] works fine now, and searching for "Microsoft .Net" works as expected as well.

Re:Are we sure... (1, Informative)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855126)

I know it works now. It didn't used to.

Re:Are we sure... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855000)

"+1, Interesting" == mod on crack

Mod parent down... -1: Incorrect (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855060)

The problem is that MS have never forced the .NET framework down anyone's throats:
  • It's an optional install from the XP SP1 and SP2 CDs
  • It isn't included with any version of XP Home.
  • It isn't listed as a critical update on Windows Update
Taking those major flaws of your arguement into account, and how Microsoft have behaved in the past with products, how you'd consider that they're 'forcing .NET down our throats' is beyond human comprehension...

Re:Mod parent down... -1: Incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855094)

And your position at Mcrosoft is, what now? Surely you work in the PR department...

Re:Mod parent down... -1: Incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855133)

Nope, just someone who recognises a weak argument propped up with baseless fiction...

Re:Mod parent down... -1: Incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855177)

OK, so then you work in the legal department. Maybe you are a paralegal intern who learned those big words from the adults there?

Public service (4, Funny)

nhnfreespirit (809462) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854932)

And the makers will of course claim that they are providing a valuable public service by keeping peoples pc's updated! Bvah!

nhnFreespirit

Re:Public service (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11854947)

compare this size to an original win95 install

Better Browser (3, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854934)

Sounds like somebody needs a better browser.

a lot of space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11854936)

is 65MB really a lot of space like the article said?

Re:a lot of space (1)

Ulric (531205) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854978)

Yes! Not to mention the bandwidth. Imagine a whole office downloading this crap onto every PC.

Re:a lot of space (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11854999)

I have no idea how they got 64MB. Looks like 24MB to me (still not small).

File Name: dotnetfx.exe
Download Size: 23698 KB
Date Published: 3/30/2004
Version: 1.1

Plus without letting us know if this is a patched or unpatched problem, it's a worthless story.

Re:a lot of space (4, Informative)

tehshen (794722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855064)

It's a 65MB install, but only a 24MB download. From TFA:

the actual size of the .NET framework to download is around 23MB, though this is still a lot of bandwidth to use up without asking. In addition, the size of the .NET framework to download can vary drastically depending on what extras you have - don't forget the service packs, SP1 is an extra 10 or so MB in size.

So once it's done its thing and installed .NET, it takes up 65MB.

Re:a lot of space (3, Insightful)

zhiwenchong (155773) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855020)

YOu know, a lot of people complain about the size of the .NET framework, but 65-100MB isn't really a lot of space considering what it does. The upfront size is off-putting, but the savings you get for it more than make up for it.

Ever notice how small most .NET programs are? .NET is the Win32 API done right (not least because of Anders Heijsberg).

Back in the day, we had to distribute Paradox runtimes with our applications, and it was a whopping 2MB file. But that also meant Paradox applications were absolutely tiny, which made it easy to deploy updates and stuff. This can translate to a lot of savings for enterprises running on Paradox.

Re:a lot of space (1)

Fritzed (634646) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855136)

Wait, the runtimes aren't shipped with the applications anymore? I have to download the libraries seperately to get them to run?

Aaaargh!!! Dependancy Hell!

-> Fritz

Re:a lot of space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855083)

It also takes 10 minutes to install the damn thing...

Obviously... (1)

TelJanin (784836) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854938)

...a ploy by drive makers. "Running out of disk space? You need our NEW UBER SUPER DRIVE OMG!!!"

Ok, but... (4, Insightful)

AndyBassTbn (789174) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854942)

Any word on which browsers are vulnerable? Is this the sort of thing to be, once again, filed under "Switch to FireFox"? The author leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

Or is this the child of something that must be user-run first?

Re:Ok, but... (2, Interesting)

WalterGR (106787) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855124)

Excellent question. Is this a browser vulnerability? Or is the installer in question the one you get by going to the BroadcastPC download page [broadcastpc.tv] and clicking the big "Download BroadcastPC" link?

While it seems that the installer downloads the .net Framework redistributable without informing the user, I see nothing to suggest that *BroadcastPC* is installed without the user being aware.

Re:Ok, but... (1)

t0ny747 (849486) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855150)

Micro$oft ie Version .01 to *.* :)

Mono (5, Funny)

_ZorKa_ (86716) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854951)

They could have at least installed the open source version of .Net, aka Mono. What were they thinking!

Re:Mono (4, Funny)

nuggetman (242645) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855059)

I hear you can get in a lot of trouble giving mono to random people, especially people you don't know.

A Different Worm (4, Funny)

prichardson (603676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854954)

I'm still waiting for the worm that will monitor someone's usage habits so it can stealthily download and install Linux.

I bet some people started working on it, but got into a religious argument over what distro to use and gave up.

I could also see a worm that would harvest someone's credit card number and use it to order a Mac Mini.

Serious Idea: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855029)

How about an above-board application which records application usage habits that then reports the amount of difficulty for the monitored user to migrate to a fully open source desktop?

Re:Serious Idea: (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855179)

Can you imagine the amount of time it would take to put something like that together, just to keep track of what apps a person uses, and whether there is a reasonable FOSS equivalent?

And if you want it to really work correctly, you'd need to be able to monitor how a person uses that app, because different people use different programs for different things. For example, one MS Office user might be perfectly happy with OO.o or AbiWord, while another might use Office for a feature that is not provided (or not provided adequately) on any FOSS app.

You'd also need to monitor things like how people interact with the computer. Someone who has to spend a lot of time hunting for things and has difficulties with applications that sport non-standard or opaque interfaces is _NOT_ going to be happy on Linux. (Just think about how many different ways there are to cut-and-paste text that you have to learn if you're using FOSS software.)

malware code (-1, Offtopic)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854955)

1. Download .NET 2. Install remotely 3. ????? 4. Profit!!1

awesome (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11854956)

It's like apt-get for Windows, except you don't even have to ask for the software. Further proof Linux isn't ready for the desktop, I guess.

Re:awesome (0, Flamebait)

j.blechert (726395) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854998)

wtf are you on?

NewDotNet (4, Interesting)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854958)

This reminds me of a couple years ago when many piece of software came bundled with spyware called NewDotNet that claimed to be "needed for next generation internet applications" - just around the same time MS started pushing .NET

I remember uninstalling it from a bunch of machines because people asked, "Do I need this?" Yes....

Oops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11854990)

That last part should definitely read, "No..."

Re:NewDotNet (2, Informative)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855203)

You might be true;y disgusted to know how many machines are still coming in with it on them today. At least half the ones I clean up every week have NewDotNet on them. You would think some would learn over the years, but it sure doesn't seem that way.

Re:NewDotNet (2, Informative)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855213)

NewDotNet enabled non-ICANN domain names like .xxx, .family, etc.

http://new.net/ [new.net]

You can take your tinfoil hat off, now.

Is it just me.. (-1, Redundant)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854961)

Is it just me or did anyone else laugh at this?

What happens if it finds a Linux system? Does it Dl Windows from bit torrent and install that?

Re:Is it just me.. (4, Funny)

duckpoopy (585203) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854974)

It installs WINE.

Re:Is it just me.. (2, Funny)

flynns (639641) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855109)

Hey, if the spyware can get WINE working, more power to it.

I sure as hell can't.

Re:Is it just me.. (1, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854975)

Maybe if you get a Mac, it'll buy a PC for you. Free computer!

Re:Is it just me.. (4, Funny)

lintux (125434) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854987)

I guess it'll download Mono. Hurray, malware is finally getting portable. Now if they finish Mono we can have malware on Linux too! ;-)

Re:Is it just me.. (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855022)

Hey, just look at the cellphone viruses from recent news. It's getting there. Though, that could have just been an exploit specific to a few phone models done in executable code.

Re:Is it just me.. (1)

tehshen (794722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855026)

It's (very) probably a windows-only piece of adware, so if you were running it under Linux (under wine) it would install in fake_windows, I guess.

Re:Is it just me.. (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855093)

It happened to me once. A friend needed a crack for some pirated software and, knowing better than to browse crack sites from a Windows machine, asked me to find it for him. While browsing those, suddenly, FireFox crashed.

When I restarted it, the standard "open-or-save" dialog popped up, suggesting to run some Windows binary through /usr/bin/wine-safe. This is the default action for those, so it obviously was not an exploit tailored for Linux systems, just a Windows one that almost worked...

Of course, stupid me forgot to store the .mozilla dir for forensics before nuking it away.

No problem for me... (2, Funny)

inject_hotmail.com (843637) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854963)

I already have .NET installed! My spyware can slide in all that much faster. :D

Inject.

dialup (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11854969)

This strikes me as woefully ineffective for anyone using dialup. Will the program force them to stay connected until the download finishes?

Re:dialup (2, Informative)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855005)

This is true for pretty much all spyware because of the lack of an always-on connection. Plus, you tend to notice things going wrong on a slow connection.

Darn virtual machines ..... (5, Funny)

alanbs (784491) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854970)

I remember the good old days when we would statically compile in our 100 Mb of needed libraries when propagating some malware. Technology just bites you in the ass sometimes.

Tell your DSL company you want a bandwidth cap (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11854977)

Tell them you're willing to pay extra to be limited to, say, 56 kbit/s.

Re:Tell your DSL company you want a bandwidth cap (1)

blkmage (703260) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854989)

Caps are on amount, not speed.

Re:Tell your DSL company you want a bandwidth cap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855066)

Uh? A bandwidth cap of 10GB/month is a rate, not an amount.

Just think... (4, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854992)

What happens when Longhorn-specific malware packages decide to upgrade those Win95/98 boxes still out there...

Good! (5, Interesting)

mwa (26272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11854994)

Now I know how to install it without clicking "I agree". So we'll be seeing some benchmark results on .NET real soon now, right?

65MB!? Sorry, that's not true.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855012)

The full 'whistles and bells' .Net framework redist is around 23MB [microsoft.com] . It'll not hit 65MB regardless of what anyone says it installs as extras, there aren't any, it's a framework... self contained, single download... FUD again.

Re:65MB!? Sorry, that's not true.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855210)

From article:
The actual size of the .NET framework to download is around 23MB

Fuck you, read the article, it is a a sixty-five megabyte install.

omfg (1, Offtopic)

ewe2 (47163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855018)

even on broadband, how could you *not* notice this?!

Re:omfg (1)

Primal_theory (859040) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855127)

if your listening to music, playing counterstrike, talking on aim or such, or *gasp*...POSTING ON SLASHDOT!!!

/me checks bandwidth usage

Re:omfg (2, Interesting)

mike5904 (831108) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855144)

Well, to be honest I'm not sure I would. I actually downloaded the .NET SDK the other day, and although it did make my web browsing a little (not unusably) slower, it only took about 3 minutes. Also, a lot of people this is targeting probably are used to having a bunch of malware on their computers, so the disk activity from the installer or the slowdown of their internet connection might seem normal to them. If the viru^H^H^H^Hmalware authors really wanted to be covert about it, they could just have it wait for the mouse and keyboard to be idle for a few minutes, and start then, and if activity resumed, just throttle the download.

Bandwidth issues (1)

inject_hotmail.com (843637) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855025)

though this is still a lot of bandwidth to use up without asking

Without going into a holy discussion, I'm not saying that it's right for malware to install assware without asking, but, I wouldn't consider 65MB to be "a lot". I eat that much for breakfast...is that guy on Dial-Up or GPRS?

Inject

Great news! (2, Funny)

phatbuddy (648676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855038)

I'm glad the adware developers have started to use managed code. Wouldn't want their software to be able to do anything "unsafe" on my system. Thanks, guys!

Marc Lucovsky! (4, Informative)

Jacco de Leeuw (4646) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855041)

Hey, at least somebody has been listening to Marc Lucovsky [slashdot.org] !

Consider the .NET framework for a second. Suppose you wrote something innocent like a screen saver, written in C# based on the .NET framework. How would you as an ISV "ship your software"? You can't. Not unless you sign up to ship Microsoft's software as well. You see, the .NET Framework isn't widely deployed. It is present on a small fraction of machines in the world. Microsoft built the software, tested it, released it to manufacturing. They "shipped it", but it will take years for it to be deployed widely enough for you, the ISV to be able to take advantage of it. If you want to use .NET, you need to ship Microsoft's software for them.

Who said Microsoft does not know how to ship software anymore?! Let the trojan authors take care of that!

Re:Marc Lucovsky! (1)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855163)

The problem is this. At precisely the time somebody else has filled this hole in Microsoft's shipping process they have introduced something that will stop it. I present the Microsoft Spyware Removal Tool!

Their too good at *not* shipping software for their own good.

Bridget's hot! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11855056)

Bridget the Midget

Hey, I object to this!

Personally I find Bridget the Midged rather hot.

who cares? (0, Offtopic)

jlines (783213) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855074)

all future versions of windows are going to come with .net bundled in the OS anyway - just like mfc and com

Analogies (2, Funny)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855113)

This is like a fat dude with a bucher's kife sneaking up on a sheep from the front. And hoping the sheep won't notice.

Re:Analogies (1)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855192)

That's the wonderful thing about sheep... They're stupid.

Okay, I'm sorry. (0, Flamebait)

sulli (195030) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855137)

If you still use Windows and IE, you are an idiot. That really is all there is to it.

65MB is nothing! (4, Interesting)

kaleco (801384) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855141)

BT Internet recently doubled the downstream rate on most of their broadband accounts, and after looking at the spyware penetration on some friends' Windows machines, 65MB malware seems completely plausible.

In all seriousness (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855143)

What is it that .NET gives the malware authors in terms of abilities that they can't have without it? In other words, why do they need to bother with .NET?

Re:In all seriousness (1)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855211)

It gives them a fuzzy feeling inside. But they don't realise that the fuzzy feeling is just an angry user with a machete in his hand standing behind them.

zerg (1)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855159)

Can the .NET framework still be installed even if you're not running as Administrator?

Re:zerg (3, Interesting)

defishguy (649645) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855184)

The long and short of it is probably yes. The Windows Installer runs in the system context and not the user context when the client is a part of an AD domain.

Running the Windows Installer in the system context is the only way that the directory can manage software on the client.

Kudos to MS for another brilliant design!

Figured this would happen... (1, Informative)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855164)

...a few years ago. I wrote a small, insignificant article back then on virusses and the ever increasing computer power (both speed-wise as size-wise) at our disposal. I figured that, taken these two facts, it would not take too long for someone to use that power to 'bootstrap' virusses that were immensely powerful. Call it 'cluster-virusses'. Noone would notice a virus of say 1 Mb in size, and in this virus one could install numerous other small virusses that each did it's own devastating task.
The fact that it is "malware" and not a "virus" only means that some commercial use has been made of the virus.
I hope this is a single event, but I fear we have not seen the last of this troubling development.

Next feature from Microsoft... (1)

MarcoPon (689115) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855167)

Windows Update for Adware/Malware, targeted for a summer release. Include technologies to enable quick blind-install, without any user intervention and notifications, for maximum convenience.

Bye!

Oops... (5, Funny)

David Horn (772985) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855197)

You appear to be using Linux. Please wait while we download and install Windows XP.

Progress 1% (2/690MB downloaded)

Unprecedented.... (5, Funny)

Net Spinner (732666) | more than 9 years ago | (#11855207)

Security is one of the core goals of .NET.

That's why 9 out of 10 Malware authors now choose .NET as their preferred language of choice.

A testamonial:
"I finally switched after being pwned by other Malware authors. All my other hack buddies laughed at me!" said 1337HaxX0r, author of AllYURComp.exe, "But now that I'm using .NET, my malicious software is sure to be undeniably secure! Thanks Microsoft!"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?