Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Security

Vista Designed to Make Malware Easy 311

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the it-wasn't-that-hard-in-xp-either dept.
SlinkySausage writes "Trojan horses masquerading as 'cracks for Vista' are starting to appear on pirate boards. More worrying though, Microsoft has confirmed that Vista's image-based install process is designed to allow third-party software to be slipstreamed into the installation DVD. Great for corporate deployment of Vista with software pre-installed, but also a huge benefit for malware writers, who can distribute Vista images with deeply-rooted malware."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vista Designed to Make Malware Easy

Comments Filter:
  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nemetroid (883968) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:04PM (#17090106)
    Pirates risk getting malware with their downloaded Vista. Is this a problem?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Exactly. If someone pirates it and gets Malware, it's not really MS's problem. Their not obliged to help pirates keep safe from malware.
    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 6Yankee (597075) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:14PM (#17090236)
      Yes.

      What about everyone else on the Internet who gets DDoSed or spammed by this malware? Last time I checked, I was on the Internet - for me, therefore, this is a problem.
      • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by orkysoft (93727) <orkysoft@myr[ ]box.com ['eal' in gap]> on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:22PM (#17090316) Journal
        It would be just as much a problem with any other piece of software, Microsoft Windows or not, pirated or not.

        To recall the tired (tyred?) car analogy, it is a problem if people start driving cars that are dangerous to other drivers, due to unreliable breaks or parts falling off when driving at high speed.

        ISPs need to be more proactive at disconnecting people who can't keep their computer clean.
        • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gbjbaanb (229885) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @01:59PM (#17091322)
          It is currently a problem with F/OSS software already. Take a look on google for emule (a popular P2P program amongst today's youth I understand). Only 1 of the hundreds of results takes you to the sourceforge.net emaul page, all the others are 'free malware included' versions.

          TFA is a troll.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by 6Yankee (597075)
          It would be just as much a problem with any other piece of software, Microsoft Windows or not, pirated or not.

          I agree. The risk is there with Vista, Photoshop, anything.

          Nemetroid's view seemed to be that the pirates deserve everything they get - and you won't get much argument from me on that point - but that view doesn't take into account the consequences for the rest of us. It's unlikely that today's "malware" is going to screw around with only the machine it's installed on. Perhaps my original comment wa
        • Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Ajehals (947354) <a.halsall@pirateparty.org.uk> on Sunday December 03, 2006 @02:43PM (#17091724) Homepage Journal
          *ISPs need to be more proactive at disconnecting people who can't keep their computer clean.*

          I agree in principal - but disagree in practice, - I have had a number of calls and even been disconnected by various ISP's due to behaviour that they assumed was viral - simply because their methods of detection were too simplistic - perfect for most people but a pain for many others - the solution in my case was to go for an ISP that was rather more expensive than the norm...

          Oh and the reasons for the calls and disconnections -

          Your computer has a virus because it is sending and receiving email directly - via ports 25 + 993, - apparently (according to their documentation) I either had a virus or my mail client was incorrectly configured - I should change the SMTP server to smtp.foo.com and my "pop3" server (never mind that 993 is clearly related to IMAP) to pop.foo.smtp. - My return calls to the ISP required escalation to their 3rd level before they understood that I didn't want to use their mail servers.... (I was even told that their servers were incompatible with my servers, and that there was no such thing as an IMAP server...."its POP3 for Post Office Server...")). So real reason for the disconnect was me using a mail client with my own servers - this was before I used a local mail server - more on that later....

          Same ISP; I used port 23456 for testing an app I was writing (still am writing - its intended to manage a number of Debian machines apt configs and updates etc creating groups of them etc...) - I was told that I had been detected as a Hacker by technical support. I changed ports - and then left that ISP about am month later.

          New ISP was taken over by another ISP after about 8 months of my contract with them. At about this time I had started to use my own mail server and about 2 weeks after that all mail associated ports (for some reason except 587) would return errors - ( Here is a copy of the message received whenever you try to connect to port 25 manually - the same for others...)

          server-001:/home/*********# telnet smtp.foo.com 25
          Trying 216.234.246.150...
          Connected to smtp.foo.com.
          Escape character is '^]'.
          554 Please check your SMTP server is set to smtp.********.com. Further help is available at http://help.*******.com/sessionBegin.do?solutionId =kb*****
          Connection closed by foreign host.

          (*'s to protect the innocent - which they are sort of..)

          Again major discussions with tech support - first off with them claiming that no ports were blocked or redirected (I recorded that call and played it back to every level of support I got passed to...) Anyway I was finally told that yes they only allowed mail through their servers (but why was I not using either their mail servers or a web mail service? - they even offered to help me set up a hotmail address....). This was apparently due to the sending of spam and due to issues with virus infections so I guess its a fair point. So rather than putting up much of a fight (as in contract terms and TOS etc.. I offered to leave if they terminated the contract without penalty (which they did and let me keep the router that I had never used, a set of cordless dect phones (Which was nice) and a 4 month old sony k800i. Not bad - and no grumbles.

          I now have a business account with a major provider - and all is well.

          I guess what I am saying is that its all well and good detecting things which could be malicious - but you will miss a lot (there is only so much you can do) and you will block a lot of legitimate users - or identify them incorrectly as viral.

          Last point it turns out that the ISP that forces you to use their mail servers will relay any mail from within its network regardless of pretty much anything (including the lack of from addresses or the inclusion of hundreds of recipients) so the blocking of mail there is really part of their solution (presumably they monitor what goes through their mail servers too...) which may have an impact on privacy as well as on the flexibility of service.

          Anyway. As I said - I agree with you but I am not sure how the ISP's are supposed to do it. Clearly mandatory virus scans are out of the question.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by sponga (739683)
        Lets be real here and actually thinking that the pirates are usually the ones who know most about technology.
        Most likely the pirates will be the ones who find out that they are infected and will try to fix it; compared to installing it on Mom's laptop and never bothering to fix it.

        I think this is being blown out of proportion and a little exaggerated.
        • > Most likely the pirates will be the ones who find out that they are infected
          > and will try to fix it; compared to installing it on Mom's laptop and never
          > bothering to fix it.

          Most wannabe pirates know less than nothing about software and are quite likely to install "it" on Mom's laptop.
      • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @01:11PM (#17090852)
        These problems arise for three reasons:

        1) People run insecure machines. 2) People leave computers on. 3) People leve them coennected to the internet.

        Break any of these three links in the chain and you'll fix bot netting. (1) is impossible, given V1.00-beta humanity. But surely, (2) and (3) are pretty easy to achieve. For Joe Sixpack, there is no benefit in keeping a PC running 24/7, except that it helps contribute to the power bill and rolling blackouts.

        Servers, of course, are a different matter but they are [hopefully] better administrated.

      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ribond (149811) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @01:54PM (#17091264) Journal
        the bar for insightful drops ever lower.

        This is another FUD piece. Vista makes it more difficult to modify the installation sources. In XP and previous os's the installation sources were just a pile of binaries. Anyone with write access to the source could take out one thing and add another...

        With Vista the OS is already built and closed up inside of an image file... to review:

        in vista in order to "exploit" this "vulnerability" you need to have write access to the installation sources and the tools and knowledge to rebuild the share (the image format is not "zip", you need a certain understanding of the process to make this go).

        in XP you just need access to the shares.

        And in what way is this different from any other thing that you'll ever install on your computer?

      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by alienw (585907) <alienw.slashdot@gm a i l . c om> on Sunday December 03, 2006 @02:35PM (#17091636)
        Actually, what is really amusing is that people who pirate their software tend to be knowledgeable enough to avoid getting viruses and tend to know how to remove them. On the other hand, many people who BUY software tend to be clueless and an easy target for malware writers. Despite software industry propaganda, it is practically unheard of for pirated software to be infected with viruses or spyware (unlike most legal downloads). While I am sure many of the "vista cracks" posted on message boards are indeed trojans, perfectly cracked images are probably already starting to become available from more reputable sources... But hey, I'm sticking with Ubuntu -- it's a better system and it doesn't cost $200.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by StikyPad (445176)
          what is really amusing is that people who pirate their software tend to be knowledgeable enough to avoid getting viruses and tend to know how to remove them.

          If that were true, Google probably wouldn't feel obligated to display warnings [google.com] when visiting certain unscrupulous websites which provide "cracks." If that were true, Kazaa and eMule wouldn't be littered with virii and malware. You're making a large generalization about a group of people who have only one thing in common: They didn't feel like paying
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MagusSlurpy (592575)
      Problem? I doubt it. Designed feature to limit piracy? You betcha.
      • by joshetc (955226)
        I believe it is more like designed FUD to limit piracy. They figure if you are at too great a risk system-wise as a result of pirating people will simply not do it. The thing is that it really doesn't matter. Just about any pirated version of Windows could have crap hidden in it. Not to mention the fact that there is virtually no need to do this if Windows XP is any indicator. If they want to infect you they almost always will be able to infect you. Even if a select few gurus are too solid to be infected th
    • Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by molnarcs (675885) <molnarcs AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:33PM (#17090452) Homepage Journal
      This article is troll, especially the "designed to make malware easy" part. This has nothing to do with design - it is an option that I'm quite surprised Microsoft didn't take away from Vista (if they did, you'll have an article complaining about it).

      Slipstreaming is essentially remastering Vista (and XP-s) ISOs to include the latest patches/service packs, i.e. in case of XP, this allows you to have a windows install that won't get you rooted in 5 minutes after you go online (with SP2). You can also include drivers or basically anything you have installed. In other words, you can install win XP, firefox, ffmpeg codecs, a viruscanner, openoffice, etc., and then you can make a custom ISO that would install windows XP and all that software in one go! This is good if you maintain a number of PCs in a comp. lab.

      This feature makes life of sysadmins a lot easier, and I'm glad MS didn't take this away - I wouldn't be surprised if the control freaks did. To turn this into a "Vista designed to make malware easy headline" is simply trolling, and article should be tagged troll accordingly. Especially since almost all operating systems have this ability (to remaster the ISOs to include updates/security fixes and 3rd party programs. Basically this is what linux distributions are about).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Nikker (749551)
        I agree, this is great for Microsoft in many ways. First the people who pay for the 'virgin' copies have a great amount of flexibility on their deployment. Second the noobs that get it pirated have to look over their shoulders, so to speak as they would likely have a copy with the latest malware-du-jour.

        Of course the one thing that can fix this is a signed copy (PGP) of each original ISO. This could certify that it is original as long as the algorithm has few collisions that will be of use to an atta
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by molnarcs (675885)
          I agree, this is great for Microsoft in many ways. First the people who pay for the 'virgin' copies have a great amount of flexibility on their deployment. Second the noobs that get it pirated have to look over their shoulders, so to speak as they would likely have a copy with the latest malware-du-jour.

          Exactly - and what's worse regarding this article is that it has always been this way. As to PGP signatures (or sha256/md5 sums) - I believe each win xp iso is unique. At least that would make sense if MS

  • This is idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by readams (35355) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:05PM (#17090124)
    This article is just dumb. You can make custom Linux images with custom software also. If you download a random Vista ISO and install it, you deserve what you get, just like you would if you download a random Linux ISO.
    • by FST777 (913657)
      There is one big difference, and that is the current price for both OSses. Since Linux is Open Source, most folks who deploy it have downloaded an original copy, not some obscure malware infested "crack". For Vista, lot's of wannabee scriptkiddies will go searching for a "free" version of the OS, ending up with this crap.

      Don't forget that those same kiddies will install said "crack" on every computer they can get their hands on (like their Grandma's).

      The custom Linux images you mention won't stand a c
      • by Lars T. (470328)
        So Linux is safer because when you get a "free" Vista CD you KNOW it isn't legit, while the "free and open Linux distro" CD you get may or may not be a trap? I'm all for bashing Microsoft, but that line of "reasoning" isn't.
        • by FST777 (913657)
          Point was: there are a lot of trusted free downloadable Linux-ISO's around. No "free" Vista ISO is trustable.
    • by Aim Here (765712)
      Erm, that's why you check the md5 (or hopefully some better) hash of the iso you just downloaded with the checksum provided by your distro manufacturer's homepage, yeah?

      Good luck getting the md5 checksum of your pirate Vista iso from a trustworthy soul at Microsoft...

      (Okay, md5 isn't the epitome of security these days, but it's still probably ridiculously difficult for someone to generate the appropriate gribble that can be put inside an iso with a preinstalled rootkit so as to match the original hash)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Almahtar (991773)
      I guess the difference in this case is that people don't have a reason to download Linux ISOs from random, untrusted sites. They can get it free at the official sites already. They have to pay to get Vista from the official source, so many will turn to unofficial (illegal) sources. The danger in this case is not introduced by technological difference, but difference in the motivations of the end user.
  • Sympathy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nbannerman (974715) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:06PM (#17090138)
    And if you use an official installation image, that you've properly licensed, you'll know exactly what you are getting.

    Now if someone wants to download an third-party image for something they haven't paid for, and gets stung with malware, how on earth is this Microsoft's fault?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ginga (201422)
      Yes and further to that, you could see this as a really smart move by Microsoft's Anti-piracy people...
      • personally, i think it's brilliant -- "don't pirate vista because you'll be pwned before you've even finished the install". of course, this only works until someone is clever enough to start publishing hash checksums for known safe images...
  • Can't say I feel bad for a bank robber when it turns out the teller slipped them a dye packet...
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Brad1138 (590148)
      Can't say I feel bad for a bank robber when it turns out the teller slipped them a dye packet...

      Apples and Oranges
      Your comparing a big corporate bank with a big corporate software firm, obviously stealing software doesn't hurt anyone.
  • by RonnyJ (651856) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:08PM (#17090168)
    Great for corporate deployment of Vista with software pre-installed, but also a huge benefit for malware writers, who can distribute Vista images with deeply-rooted malware.
    Given that the former is much, much more likely, how about an article entitled 'Vista Designed to Make Corporate Deployment Easy' ?
  • Silly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 0123456 (636235) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:09PM (#17090174)
    Much as I dislike Microsoft, I don't see why people who are downloading pirate copies can really complain when the pirate copy is full of scumware... if people are willing to break one law to crack the software, why do you think they won't break more to install scumware on your computer?
  • Pile of FUD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jb.hl.com (782137) <joe AT joe-baldwin DOT net> on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:09PM (#17090176) Homepage Journal
    What, the, fuck?

    So you can customise the install disc yourself and slipstream software into it? Surely that's been possible with every single distro of Linux for the last few years or so now? Could put malware into a custom Ubuntu CD, couldn't you? Not a new thing.

    More to the point, unless you download your version of Vista from some obscure warez site, it's very unlikely to have malware slipstreamed into it; UNLESS YOU PUT IT IN YOURSELF.

    Just because something has the capability to have malware put into it does not make it bad. This is a stupid fuss being made of nothing. I'd say I expect better from Slashdot, but considering the number of Microsoft/Zune/Vista bashing troll articles that are getting posted these days I'd be lying.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by a.d.trick (894813)

      Your exactly right.

      This remindes me of the last time someone found out a way to crash firefox and jumped up and down saying ZOMG!! teh hax!!11. And my computer science friends who couldn't recognize a shell if it bashed them in the face will be prancing around saying Use IE, it's the most secure (even though there's a million ways to crash IE remotely). And what really gets me is that the editors at slashdot are dumb enough to post this nonsense.

      • by jb.hl.com (782137)
        I think this is going beyond dumbness and into malice. I can't see any other reason explaining the surge in MS bashing articles.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by a.d.trick (894813)

          Actually, I think it's more a matter of greed. This particular method is known as Yellow_journalism [wikipedia.org] and it's hardly limited to MS bashing or even the tech sector.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by StarfishOne (756076)
        And my computer science friends who couldn't recognize a shell if it bashed them in the face


        Congratulations, you win my Pun of the Day Award! :D

    • Re:Pile of FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Daath (225404) <lp@co d e r . dk> on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:32PM (#17090440) Homepage Journal
      Only... Noone wants linux. Hmm that came out wrong: The linux distro you want, is already available for download, from the source. Windows isn't avaiable for free legal download anywhere, so some will probably get sucked in by this.
    • by moranar (632206)

      More to the point, unless you download your version of Vista from some obscure warez site, it's very unlikely to have malware slipstreamed into it; UNLESS YOU PUT IT IN YOURSELF.

      People interested in slipping malware into something would hardly limit themselves to just put it on "some obscure warez site", when they have the possibility to put it on a p2p network. Also, it only takes the first idiot to d'load it from the site and move it to its "share" directory to begin the chain.

    • by GenKreton (884088)
      I'm not sure how people mod'ed this up. The difference is your source of downloadable linux distros is from confirmed, trusted sources. Your source for downloadable Microsoft products, however, is not quite as reliable. Linux will never have this problem assuming the users take reasonable caution to verify the authenticity of what they are getting. The sites all publish checksums if you want to get it from faster sources.

      With that said, I don't really see a problem with this in Vista either. It's a good for
      • > With that said, I don't really see a problem with this in Vista either. It's a
        > good form of punishment to those who chose to pirate software instead of
        > paying up or taking the better alternatives. But we all suffer in the end from
        > more bot machines. Events like EveryDNS being dos'ed can only get more
        > powerful.

        And that's the problem.
  • Why would Microsoft make piracy easier?

    They have added a valuable feature for their paying customers, and former non-paying customers may be more likely to pay.

    From Microsoft's perspective, it's a no brainer business decision.
  • getting stung by malware because you try to pirate windows is bad apparently.

    Of course currently providing trojaned distros or packages in linux is absolutely impossible just ask the ssh people.
  • I guess it's a normal Slashdot day when this kind of thing makes news. The half page "article" mentions that

    a) there's a trojan that claims to be a free activation utility to Vista
    b) you can slipstream malware into pirate Vista images (also possible in XP)

    I.e. using pirated software could get you malware, which is news because of...?
    • you must be new here.

      this is slashdot. any non-issues that can be spinned in an anti-MS way is news.

      when they do something good, they're wrong. when they do something bad, they're wrong. for the people here, there's no way MS can win.
  • by zjbs14 (549864) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:13PM (#17090216) Homepage

    What's the point of this article? If I download illegal cracked versions of a commercial Microsoft OS, something bad might happen? And somehow that's Microsoft's fault? If someone did the same thing with a RHEL install ISO, would that be Red Hat's fault?

    This smacks of the same FUD that Microsoft tosses around about Linux and other FOSS. Let's stop stooping to their level.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by moranar (632206)
      The difference is, the MD5 or SHA1sum of any Linux distro is usually available. I doubt that'll be the case with Vista.
      • by synthe (86919) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @01:06PM (#17090786) Homepage Journal
        The SHA-1 hash is available on any official downloads (Vista, Office 2007, etc) from Microsoft. That includes TechNet, MSDN, and Connect (Beta testers) download links. For reference, b71e04564ca22e4d9928e59298eff87cf62b382b is the SHA-1 hash from the TechNet Plus download of Vista x86 (one DVD includes all versions except Enterprise).
    • How did this end up on the main page?

      Because it casts Microsoft in a bad light. Not that they need much help, but we must do any little thing to further the cause.
  • As Taco says, it's possible with XP. Just have a look at the availibe XP torrents, here's one for example: XP Jacked Robusto Edition [thepiratebay.org].
  • by sporkme (983186) *
    Now my family will not have to go to all the trouble of downloading their malware - it will come preinstalled! It's a feature!
  • You can't protect all of the people all of the time - the only issue here is the collateral damage that will affect people who get all the spam these pre-rooted installations will be pumping out. However since the rest of us are already getting flooded with spam from XP machines I don't really see what difference it will make.

    If people want Vista they can pay for it. The operating system market will be a whole lot less broken once it gets harder to pirate copies so freely.
  • Designed to panic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Z0mb1eman (629653) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:17PM (#17090274) Homepage
    The amount of spin in this story is making me dizzy.

    Getting malware when downloading a crack is always a possibility, yes.

    However, this entire story smells of FUD - this is one of the oldest arguments software vendors use to scare people away from pirated software - "All pirated software has viruses in it! Don't use it, it'll make your computer blow up! Make sure your copy is legit!" It's a valid argument, and they have every right to defend their products from piracy, but I suspect it is often overstated.

    Then take this article's headline - "Vista Designed to Make Malware Easy". We've gone from fact (one Vista crack was found - and caught by people downloading it - with malware in it), to speculation during an interview, to an entire Slashdot headline. Good good. The relevant part from the interview:


    Dan Warne: I know that I have a cynical journalist's mind, but isn't that a bit of a risk for malware to be injected into Vista install DVDs, given that those apps are executed before logon?

    John Pritchard: Yes, well I would certainly recommend when people are looking at any content they make sure they have the approved and hologrammed DVDs to make sure they're dealing with the genuine product, to get away from not knowing where the source comes from. But if they have got control of the unattend and built it themselves then hopefully they know what they are putting on it.


    Finally, if the above headline is correct, then how is it different from "Linux Designed to Make Malware Easy"? Anyone can bundle a rootkit with a Linux distro and put a torrent of it up somewhere. Heck, it's even easier, since Linux is free and open to start with. The bottom line is, if you're not getting your software from a trusted source, then you have no reason to trust it.

    I'm gonna go lie down for a bit until the spinning stops.
    • by Tomcat666 (210775)

      Finally, if the above headline is correct, then how is it different from "Linux Designed to Make Malware Easy"? Anyone can bundle a rootkit with a Linux distro and put a torrent of it up somewhere. Heck, it's even easier, since Linux is free and open to start with. The bottom line is, if you're not getting your software from a trusted source, then you have no reason to trust it.

      I agree with almost all of your posting, but "easier" doesn't really hit it. There are public (and well-advertised) MD5 checksums of most distro's ISO files, there's almost no way of getting malware in so easily. But then of course, regular users never check their MD5s and they don't apply to customized distro images either... so you definitely got a point. ;)

  • How is it Microsoft's concern if the only people this will affect are piraters who get their Vista images from a source other than Microsoft? This is like the gun excuse that comes around with every video game censorship discussion; just because a gun can be used to kill, does that mean Smith and Wesson is to blame? This feature can be used for good as well, and making it seem like a haven for malware for people who get their Vista copies from places other than the actual distributers is just reaching for a
  • Can someone come up with a believable scenario where this could be exploited as part of a legitimate install?

    If not, why is this even news?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Calydor (739835)
      Easy. Any Vista CD bundled with a new computer, and containing a bunch of proprietary malware crap to allow the company behind the computer to make more monies.
  • In this case you do get something for putting up with popup ads - you get a free operation system, ultimate edition at that. I would imagine uninstalling it (format c:) removes the ads as well, so what do you have to complain about?
  • Can't you slipstream patches into an XP or 2000 install? I know I install XP off of a XP + SP2 CD these days, I'm not seeing where Vista is that much different. Frankly, this whole article is retarded, if you're downloading a copy of the OS off of some pirate site that associates with spammers it really doesn't matter which OS it is, they all could have something bad in them.

    A better title for this article would have been: "Downloading and running untrusted software from disreputable sources can get yo
  • Assuming the malware was written properly, it has already jacked your OS before you can intall your defenses (norton, spybot, etc) since it's there as part of the initial installation. Your tools may as well be running in a virtual machine at that point, the rootkit could have already made it virtually impossible to detect the bundled malware after the fact.

    Isn't OS X using "signed binaries" for their critical apps like the dock and Finder? I assume those would not be so easy to subvert or even modify in
  • The biggest problem I have with the article is the title. Others have made the comment, quite accurately, that no legitimate deployer of Vista will be harmed. At least one comment suggested that the story was an example of FUD spread, supposedly, by Microsoft to keep people from using pirated copies of Windows. I actually think the FUD is more aimed at Microsoft by trying to prolong the image that Windows has as being insecure and easy to infect. Is Vista perfectly safe? Of course not. But too many people p
  • So. All this tells me is that if you install from an image, you can include anything on the image you want. Well, Linux or any other OS is just as vulnerable to this. Bringing it up in the context of Vista is just pure FUD against MS. Why doesn't Slashdot wait until Vista is in enough hands for some real vulnerabilities to emerge? I'm fairly confident that will happen at some point.

  • If you get a warez WinXP CD today, I've heard rumors that it normally contains a WGA crack. So does most any other software too, either if it's a no-cd check, no activation check or whatever which the user will happily execute. Not to mention it's trivial to extract an image, replace the original file with a trojaned one and create a new image, without any extra files. So what exactly is the story about? Oh, features that make it much easier to bundle in apps. You think they're going to put your "deeply roo
  • Title should read: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AusIV (950840) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @01:06PM (#17090790)
    Vista Design Makes Malware Easy

    Vista isn't designed to make malware easy, it's a problem inherent in the design. When I read the headline I thought "Microsoft wants it easy to distribute malware?" But when I read further, it's just another misleading headline on slashdot.

  • Vista's image-based install process

    Why does this sound familiar? I say Vista be renamed Pussy Cat. Future upgrades can be named Tabby, Manx and Burmese since Apple is already using big cat names. Why is it if Windows is so fundimentally superior does it as the years go by get more like Mac? This is from a primarily Windows user. Just seems like Windows is stuck in the rut of trying to catch up with what it considers an inferior OS. Mac isn't perfect but when it comes to involvation and stability there r

  • by suv4x4 (956391) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @01:27PM (#17091000)
    If you're legit, the chance of running a bad install are zero.

    But Windows still allows you to run ANY program you download. And this affects legit users too. Why isn't anybody talking about this.

    I think it's about time Microsoft forbids running programs on Windows, or malware will have an edge.
  • As I remember in XP you could remaster it too. add drivers. Software that had a .msi file. you could as easly download malwared xp off the internet but it didnt happen. Linux is also pro malware at that pooint ... you can remaster distros.
  • By bypassing the standard network stacks inbuilt trojans can render any security totally moot.

    With Bittorrent the quality of pirated software is bound to increase, all we need are some friendly people to release checksums for the Vista DVD and then a bunch of Serial #'s.

    By making the OS unlock with diffrent serial #'s they reduce the difficulty of cracking it exponentially.
  • by kimvette (919543) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @02:44PM (#17091730) Homepage Journal
    You really don't have anything to worry about, because the EULA forbids making ISO images of the consumer editions of Vista.

    Right? :D
  • by goldcd (587052) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @03:06PM (#17091894) Homepage
    Seemingly this is the first anti-MS story, that even Slashdot has collectively called as Troll.
  • FUD!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by llzackll (68018) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @03:10PM (#17091910)
    This has been possible with every version of windows since 98, and probably even previous versions.

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow

Working...