dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
26
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

PX Eliezer704 to JimF

Premium Member

to JimF

Re: magicjack is a RIPOFF

I agree. This is a difference in terminology and maybe more so in philosophy.

I find myself in the unusual position of siding with RockyBB.

JimF, just because something does not show up as running in TaskManager does not mean that it's not running. That's a very important point.

Now, I am NOT saying this is the case with MJ.

Let's switch to some hypothetical program---let's call it Glork.

Now, IF Glork had some type of Trojan or other backdoor activity, it would NOT show up as running.

In fact, a successful Trojan, Rootkit program, or other malware, will do its best to NOT show up at all.

Take a look at this, please:

»windowssecrets.com/2008/ ··· r-Trojan

Now, I am NOT saying that this applies to MJ. No!

But there is more to computer security than whether or not something shows up as running in TaskManager.
JimF
Premium Member
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA

JimF

Premium Member

That is an interesting read, and rootkits (or Bootkits) are certainly possible. But it appears that Sinowal (or any other one that I have heard of) are blocked by Vista's UAC, which I use. It is a good reason to upgrade from XP.

RockyBB
Premium Member
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO

RockyBB to PX Eliezer704

Premium Member

to PX Eliezer704
said by PX Eliezer704:

I find myself in the unusual position of siding with RockyBB.
What's wrong with you? You really should consult with a therapist.
RockyBB

RockyBB to PX Eliezer704

Premium Member

to PX Eliezer704
said by PX Eliezer704:

Now, I am NOT saying that this applies to MJ. No!
see recent trade article mentioning compromised computers: »www.networkworld.com/new ··· 000.html The takeaway of the story is that the bad guys were stopped, but consider the mess in the meantime.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

said by RockyBB:

The takeaway of the story is that the bad guys were stopped, but consider the mess in the meantime.
I think that's an incorrect comparison for 2 reasons:

1) The web hosting company was well known problem for a long time. Upstream providers nor the government would take action. It took the threat of a newspaper story to get the upstream providers to shut down the hosting company, which hosted sites that controlled the remote bot-infected computers.

2) There's a big difference between a general knowledge that some people are infected with something, from someone they have no knowledge of interacting with, and news that a specific software product is conducting malicious activity.

For example, when it became known that Sears/AOL/Prodigy (whatever it was called back in '91) was scanning customer computers, uploading results to the server, it was very clear who was affected.

Your suggestions about MJ's "potential" to go malevolent could apply to any software maker/product. It's a valid warning concerning anything anyone runs. But, there's nothing specific about MJ to warrant concern.

The lack of an uninstall feature probably has more to do with the fact that very few people are animated about it. (Only one person is animated as much as you are.).

- They don't hide (or obfuscate) their software.
- They tell people how to uninstall it.
- They don't run as a daemon (meaning it requires the user to execute the software for it to run, and thus it doesn't run if they stop using it, but don't remove it.).

As mentioned earlier, if they provided an uninstall program you probably wouldn't trust it. You'd claim that it's a sign of their intent to "mislead" their customers. "Someday.... they'll disable it, or not uninstall one component, and, voila!, you've been turned into a zombie"

As long as readers aren't misled, I'm ok with your hypothesis.

Mark