Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Won't Offer Patch Before Worm Strikes?
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:35 AM
from the i-object? dept.
from the i-object? dept.
techmuse writes "According to an article in Information Week, Microsoft is aware that the 'Kama Sutra/Blackworm/MyWife' worm will hit on Friday, overwriting office documents, but will not release a patch until its regular monthly patch release on February 14th. Unless, that is, you subscribe to one of Microsoft's pay security services, in which case your machine will have the worm removed in advance." From the article: "The blog offered no explanation why the tool wouldn't be updated earlier, nor did Microsoft immediately respond to questions. Each month, Microsoft pushes a revised tool to Windows users who have Automatic Update enabled for Windows Update or Microsoft Update. The Redmond, Wash.-based company has released the Malicious Software Removal Tool off-schedule once before, in August 2005, shortly after the Zotob worm began striking Windows 2000 systems."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Won't Offer Patch Before Worm Strikes?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 274 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
All should not be lost... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.brendansstudentloans.com/)
Re:All should not be lost... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.brendansstudentloans.com/)
Re:All should not be lost... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft is not distributing the patch out of cycle because it is not a vulnerability, it is a mass mailing worm. It has been categorized as low risk. The "unwashed masses" can get the removal tool from
http://www.microsoft.com/security/encyclopedia/de
Re:All should not be lost... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale)
What we really need is for MS to release a patch to repair the stupid and irresponsible users out there. Why haven't they fixed this obvious security loophole?
The problem with these viruses is that they do not kill the victims. If they did, then at least we could look forward to the point when Darwinisim fixed the problem for us. :)
Re:All should not be lost... (Score:5, Insightful)
And no, I don't think that moving to *nix is the answer either. I've had users follow instructions included with an email virus to type in a password required to unzip the payload, then run it. Those users will certainly be willing to type in "rm *" or whatever instructions come along with a virus. Their user files, the only thing of value on the machine, are toast either way. These are the same folks that will never back up their data either, so they really are toast.
Even people who should know better make mistakes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All should not be lost... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Well, experience has told us that not all of these Microsoft vulnerabilities have anything to do with 'stupid and irresponsible' users.
Thanks to Microsoft, there's so many viruses that don't even require user intervention; some products will simply decide that it should both hide the extension and automatically run it for you.
I don't know the specifics of this worm, but times have come a long way from where you'd have to click on at attachment, select save, and then run. Nowadays the infection can happen automatically, instantly, and completely unobserved -- all because Microsoft figures it should automatically execute anything that looks executable (or that you're not really mature enough to see the extension of this file, so it looks like a JPG, or just simply because it's fun.)
I think it's far more irresponsible of Microsoft to effectively say "Well, between now and when we release the patch, you could lose all of your data. But if you've paid extra, you can have the patch now."
Time was when someone would send you an e-mail warning you that should shouldn't even click on an attachment since it could be a virus, you would politely tell them it was impossible. Nowadays, that's simply not true any more.
I think blaming the users 100% for this is absurd.
Re:TROLL???? (Score:5, Interesting)
At least CBS News pointed out in their report on the worm that Mac users were unaffected.
Re:Simple fix (Score:5, Insightful)
get with the times, should be a tracking link to your torrent.
ftp works for the 2% of people who have their own non nat, static ip address with a ftp server that hasn't been blasted off the face of the internet. I am even in the small percent that do have a static ip, but the people I send files to don't have VPN access to any of my servers, and having ftp openly accesable to the net would just be stupid (and which windows users have sftp client installed? ok I do have port 80 access to a webserver that could serve the file, but thats probably not average or easier than attach either.)
Re:Simple fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly a solution for the unwashed masses. We can't seem to get people from double clicking every email attachment, I'm sure their ready to setup, configure and tweak their own IPTables.
Re:All should not be lost... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://progress.selfip.net/)
Attachments from unknown people? Delete!
Scan Attachments before clicking!
Ask sender if they meant to send attachment!
Microsoft has no responsibility to cover a users idiocy.
Ok, bring the bad karma.
Prior art for this MS business plan. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prior art for this MS business plan. (Score:5, Informative)
This includes the URLS http://beta.windowsonecare.com/ [windowsonecare.com] and http://safety.live.com/site/en-US/default.htm [live.com]
I'm guessing that's free as in beer. I like to bash Microsoft at least as much as the next guy, but I think they've provided a free solution for this one.
-hank
New Microsoft Chief of Software Security (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.dragonswest.com/ | Last Journal: Monday November 05, @07:35PM)
What, me worry? [wikimedia.org]
A simple word for it... (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.bigbrother.net/)
This is what is commonly referred to as "extortion". Pay them now or something bad might happen. You wouldn't want something bad to happen would you?
Re:A simple word for it... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:A simple word for it... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.tukaro.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 17, @12:54AM)
Extortion [wikipedia.org] is when someone says "pay or do this, or something bad could happen later", and the person saying that is the one that will make the bad happen later.
In this case, it's Microsoft saying "We'll take care of this problem sooner for a little money", but someone else will make the bad thing happen regardless. Microsoft is just offering clean up/prevention, not "assured safety". Your lack of acceptance will not make the problem better or worse; it will stay exactly the same.
An analogy might be that there's a gang of kids going around defacing houses, and Company XYZ says "We'll stick a security guard in front of your house for a little extra money, so you'll be ready when those kids show up, and won't have to wait for the police to show up when you do get hit." XYZ is offering an enhanced service; if you turn them down, your house will likely get defaced, but not because of anything XYZ did.
(If you can show that XYZ/Micrsoft is in cohorts with the kids/virus writer, then that is indeed extortion, but at face it's mislabeling.)
Also on Friday (Score:2)
(http://suso.suso.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 09 2004, @12:03AM)
fuel for the fire (Score:1)
(http://wastedworld.net/)
Simple answer (Score:1, Redundant)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
Try to be a little fair (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Or, if you had read the very article you're posting, "Both the company's free online security service, Windows Live Safety, and its in-beta OneCare Live software, however, will disinfect compromised computers, Microsoft said."
Re:Try to be a little fair (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
At least I know how to protect my computers. So the impact to me would be none regardless of what Microsoft does. It is those users that don't even know the definition of malware that are most at risk, and will be the least likely to use Microsoft's proposed remedy.
Re:Try to be a little fair (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, what are you smoking? Those users who don't know how to protect themselves adequately probably don't even know what Windows Update is, let alone rely on it to keep their PC safe.
Incorrect Story (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Happy Valentine's Day! (Score:5, Funny)
How ironic that a patch for the Kama Sutra/MyWife worm will be released on February 14th.
Happy Valentine's Day - Love, Microsoft.
Or if you don't want to pay (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.skorchedearth.com/)
Now, speaking as someone who has tried the online virus scanner, I have to say it works really quite well. It's just the tool to clean your computer of viruses, spyware, malware, unused/unneeded files -- and even knocks out those MICRO$OFT haters on
Re:Or if you don't want to pay (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you see what I'm getting at? All those viruses and spywares and worms on your computer have already done damage when you get them removed. The goal is to keep them from getting on your computer or at least keep them from running. And MS is deliberately charging for that feature. Their online virus-removal thing is nice, and can mitigate some damage, but the horse already left the barn.
Haha... (Score:2, Informative)
(Last Journal: Wednesday April 20 2005, @04:16AM)
The constant hate... (Score:3, Informative)
Honestly... (Score:2, Insightful)
"I would like to return this car" (Score:5, Funny)
"Because there's a car bomb on it set to go off on Friday."
"Sorry, that's not our car bomb."
"No, but when I bought the car, there was a modular plug next to the engine with PLACE CAR BOMB HERE written on it!"
"Sorry, not our problem. You knew this car was prone to car bombs when you bought it, and your purchase agreement specifically spells out that we're not responsible for car bomb damage."
"Can you at least remove the car bomb?"
"Sorry, but your contract specifically states that we're under no obligation to remove any car bombs attached to your car. Now, if you would be interested in purchasing our special Car Bomb Insurance..."
- Crow T. Trollbot
Re:More like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Our car is as car bomb proof as we were able to make it
I'm fairly certain that Microsoft engineers were fully capable of making Windows more secure. They have smart people working there. Reality is that they made it as secure as they were willing to make it. It's like cars in the '60s. Safety didn't sell if it was an inconvienience. Adding more security to Windows would have meant less ease of use and less backwards compatability. Both are important to maintain the customer base and prevent people from considering alternatives. Were they right or wrong? That depends on how you look at it, but you certainly can't say they implemented security to the limits of their ability.
*Trojan*, not worm (Score:2)
Some may argue that Microsoft should release a removal tool before the patch cycle anyway, and there is some credibility to the idea, though the logical extreme is that Microsoft should include an anti-virus program for free with Windows.
You get what you pay for (Score:5, Insightful)
Software licenses are agreements that should have the full weight of contract law. There is no other way that the licenses I prefer, like the GPL, BSD, Mozilla, MIT, etc, get any legal weight. If you can't abide by the terms, take a stand, show some guts, and click "Cancel" on the install. Find some software that is licensed under terms you can accept. Don't be a sheep and agree just because it would be too hard, or make you go look for other software if you disagree.
THIS STUFF IS IMPORTANT.
So? (Score:1)
Bill "Capone" Gates? (Score:1, Troll)
(http://luther.ca/)
"It'd be a shame if anything happened to those Word documents of yours..."
Malicious software removal tool (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/~GillBates0 | Last Journal: Tuesday July 10, @04:36PM)
Our sources say that this 'malicious tool' looks just like 'rm', but is made with evil bits. Some viewers have called in to report sinister rm.666 files all over the file systems - experts suspect these to be soft links to /bin/rm. Reports are steadily streaming in of other variants aliasing themselves to 'rm -rf /'.
Viewers are urged to remain cautious. We shall return at 11 to talk about these and other stories.
2 years of a failed policy (Score:1)
A few more facts to throw water on the fire (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAICT this is as run-of-the-mill as virus threats get, and I'm grateful that MS is maintaining a level of software discipline and not jumping all over themselves to instantly respond to every stupid little worm that crosses the net. I'd much rather see meaningful updates once a month than frantic, possibly-buggy scramble fixes three times a week.
how about reading TFA? (Score:4, Informative)
from TFA:
Bad title (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.citlink.net/~peacereigns/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 12 2006, @08:07AM)
This is not a worm, but a virus, and MS is not releasing a patch, but an updated virus definition.
Viruses are not caused by a system flaw but by user intervention, that is unless it is installed without user intervention, then it is a system flaw. I am not a Microsoft user but I see no fault they are doing.
NO PAY (Score:2)
Two words (Score:1, Troll)
(Last Journal: Tuesday November 13, @10:52AM)
Misleading headline (Score:2, Informative)
the real reson.... (Score:1)
fat bil (Score:2, Funny)
Combinations (Score:1)
(http://www.bizzeh.com/)
About the virus... (Score:2)
(http://www.xpriori.com/ | Last Journal: Friday June 18 2004, @04:18PM)
At the risk of being branded a MS apologist.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't consider it Microsoft's responsibility to ensure that every Windows user gets just-in-time virus removal for free. It might be different if the virus exploited an OS flaw, but to my knowledge this one doesn't. This is why people pay money for AV software. That said, it would be nice if they'd schedule an out-of-cycle release of the malicious software removal tool, but doing so could create a precedent they don't wish to establish.
Windows Live site uses a cookie exploit (Score:1, Interesting)
if you goto the Windows Live.com site (hxtp://safety.live.com) to stop this malicious program/worm the MS site uses a malicious [pc-help.org] cookie [neohapsis.com] exploit [techweb.com] against you, if you deny the exploit you cant get to the site to get help
its like a Hospital saying "we have to break your leg so we can fix your arm"
they should be ashamed
Figures... (Score:1)
About MyWife... (Score:2, Funny)
MS using up their good karma already... (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Friday March 31 2006, @11:17AM)
look at the business, not what's free/easy (Score:1)