Micro$ucks INVASION OF PRIVACY WARNING!!!!!!!
Kyle Anthony York
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950801...@csdsun1.arlut.utexas.edu>,
John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>CNN yesterday.... Micro$ucks users of the network package in Windows 95
>will have their systems automatically audited by Micro$ucks. This to to
>develop a profile of what software resides on the users computers.
>Micro$ucks states they will not sell the information to other companies.
>
>Big Brother is not the government, it is Micro$hit.
>
>Linux rules....
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>John Gossett Research Engineering Assistant
> University of Texas: Applied Research Labs
>
this scares the hell out of me. a `research engineering assistant' who
is incapable of writing without explitives. can't wait 'till this moron
applies for his first grant. guess we know how desperate UoT is for
help.
about the m/s network: if you've ever tried it (doubtfully since you seem
to spend all of your time watching CNN), when you register, you are prompted
whether or not m/s can scan your system & register all software. if you
respond ``no'', this scan doesn't take place.
i agree this is awful, and for this reason i won't use the m/s net, nor will
i allow my machine to be attached to a network on which <<anyone>> is using
m/s net. so be it.
Erik Pennebaker
>CNN yesterday.... Micro$ucks users of the network package in Windows 95
>will have their systems automatically audited by Micro$ucks. This to to
>develop a profile of what software resides on the users computers.
>Micro$ucks states they will not sell the information to other companies.
>Big Brother is not the government, it is Micro$hit.
>Linux rules....
Actually, it doesn't do it automatically. Theres a button that clearly
states what its going to do, and its completely optional.
I think its really funny have everyone freaked about this.
Not that I like microsloth or anything....
/ep
--
Erik Pennebaker>>>-----------------------------------epen...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
"Sucky just isn't a word Ian."
These are not the opinions of CCSO. I am the mouthpiece of Mogordamith.
<<<>>>----------------------------------------------------------------<<<>>>
John Gossett
I take the liberty of rearranging Mr. York's comments because my
intention was to develop a thread about MS invasion of privacy, not start
a flame war. If flames interest you see the bottom of this post.
On 1 Aug 1995, Kyle Anthony York wrote:
> about the m/s network: if you've ever tried it (doubtfully since you seem
> to spend all of your time watching CNN), when you register, you are prompted
> whether or not m/s can scan your system & register all software. if you
> respond ``no'', this scan doesn't take place.
>
This ability to decline the scan was not mentioned on CNN to my
knowledge. Do you happen to know if this option defaults to 'yes', or
'no'? I would hazard a guess that it defaults to 'yes'.
> i agree this is awful, and for this reason i won't use the m/s net, nor will
> i allow my machine to be attached to a network on which <<anyone>> is using
> m/s net. so be it.
Why should we be concerned with networks using MS net? Does MS scan for
software information across the net as well? That is an even more
frightening thought!
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950801...@csdsun1.arlut.utexas.edu>,
> John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> >CNN yesterday.... Micro$ucks users of the network package in Windows 95
> >will have their systems automatically audited by Micro$ucks. This to to
> >develop a profile of what software resides on the users computers.
> >Micro$ucks states they will not sell the information to other companies.
> >
> >Big Brother is not the government, it is Micro$hit.
> >
> >Linux rules....
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >John Gossett Research Engineering Assistant
> > University of Texas: Applied Research Labs
> >
>
> this scares the hell out of me. a `research engineering assistant' who
> is incapable of writing without explitives. can't wait 'till this moron
> applies for his first grant. guess we know how desperate UoT is for
> help.
>
OH WOE is me! My first flame. I could take two paths for this response.
I could be apologetic for my one expletive or I could ignore his
discomfort and continue as before. My response is to point out the last
two lines of my signature and continue.
I always am amused by those who deign to flame someone for their lack of
intelligence, yet are incapable of correct spelling and grammar. I
sincerely hope Mr. York learns the rules of capitalization and uses a
good spell checker before applying for grants.
Finally, I hope Mr. York has the opportunity to attend a class in logic.
This might prevent him from making broad generalizations based on faulty
logic. (See his remark in parenthesis about CNN viewing.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gossett Research Engineering Assistant
University of Texas: Applied Research Labs
Standard Disclaimer: These views may not reflect my employer's views.
My Disclaimer: I fully claim responsibility for the above views.
Quote: "Get over it!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kazimir Kylheku
Kyle Anthony York <noe...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU> wrote:
>about the m/s network: if you've ever tried it (doubtfully since you seem
>to spend all of your time watching CNN), when you register, you are prompted
>whether or not m/s can scan your system & register all software. if you
>respond ``no'', this scan doesn't take place.
You believe that? Show me the snippet of W95 source code that actually
prevents the scan from taking place.
Dave Ginter
> John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> >CNN yesterday.... Micro$ucks users of the network package in Windows 95
> >will have their systems automatically audited by Micro$ucks. This to to
> >develop a profile of what software resides on the users computers.
> >Micro$ucks states they will not sell the information to other companies.
> >
> >Big Brother is not the government, it is Micro$hit.
> >
> >Linux rules....
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >John Gossett Research Engineering Assistant
> > University of Texas: Applied Research Labs
> >
>
> [useless ranting paragraph deleted]
>
> about the m/s network: if you've ever tried it (doubtfully since you seem
> to spend all of your time watching CNN), when you register, you are prompted
> whether or not m/s can scan your system & register all software. if you
> respond ``no'', this scan doesn't take place.
>
> i agree this is awful, and for this reason i won't use the m/s net, nor will
> i allow my machine to be attached to a network on which <<anyone>> is using
> m/s net. so be it.
>
Has anyone tested Microsquish's claim that they don't scan your disk?
How are you to know what information is transfered to and fro between
your machine and Microsquishes?
This is strangely similar to Prodigy's infamous stage.dat fiasco.
I will never connect to a network service that insists that I use
their software. If I can not connect using software that is open and
configurable, then I have have lost control over the information that
is transfered.
Which I guess brings us back to Linux : free, open, configurable and
standard protocols.
--
===================================================================
David Ginter
Voice: 617-873-3403
Email: dgi...@bbn.com
U.S. Mail: BBN Systems and Technologies
Mail Stop: 14/2a
70 Fawcett St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
DISCLAIMER: My thoughts are my own.
John Gossett
CNN yesterday.... Micro$ucks users of the network package in Windows 95
will have their systems automatically audited by Micro$ucks. This to to
develop a profile of what software resides on the users computers.
Micro$ucks states they will not sell the information to other companies.
Big Brother is not the government, it is Micro$hit.
Linux rules....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gossett Research Engineering Assistant
University of Texas: Applied Research Labs
Standard Disclaimer: These views may not reflect my employer's views.
Ryan Tucker
-=> Will you allow your machine to be connected to a network on which computer
-=> capable of generation UPPER CASE LETTERS are connected?
I'LL GLADLY TAKE A MESSAGE FULL OF LOWER CASE LETTERS OVER A MESSAGE FULL OF
UPPER CASE LETTERS ANY DAY. THANK YOU. PLEASE SEND EMALE RESPONSES ONLY, AS
I AM TOO LAME TO CHECK HERE FOR REPLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:-) for the humor impared
-rt
--
============================================================================
=== Ryan Tucker, your local TTGCITN Communications Blametaker (tm) ===
=== rtu...@ttgcitn.com http://www.netins.net/showcase/rtucker ===
============================================================================
Scott Johnson
>John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>will have their systems automatically audited by Micro$ucks. This to to
>>develop a profile of what software resides on the users computers.
>>Micro$ucks states they will not sell the information to other companies.
>>
>>Big Brother is not the government, it is Micro$hit.
>>
>>Linux rules....
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>John Gossett Research Engineering Assistant
>> University of Texas: Applied Research Labs
>>
>
>is incapable of writing without explitives.
If you think that post was bad, you haven't been on the net very long.
>can't wait 'till this moron
>applies for his first grant. guess we know how desperate UoT is for
>help.
I'm sure his grant applications will be a bit more professional in tone.
At least his spelling and capitalization are reasonable... :)
>about the m/s network: if you've ever tried it (doubtfully since you seem
>to spend all of your time watching CNN), when you register, you are prompted
>whether or not m/s can scan your system & register all software. if you
>respond ``no'', this scan doesn't take place.
True. Just to be safe, though, I'd unplug the phone when using Win 95, i
until I actually have to use the modem.... :)
/sj/
Scott Johnson -- Graduate Slave, ECE Department, Oregon State University
Check out my new (but unfinished) Web page--http://www.ece.orst.edu/~johnsos
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The greatest act of patriotism is to criticize one's country when it
falters from the path of righteousness and justice.
Jerry Schonewille
noe...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Kyle Anthony York) wrote:
>
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950801...@csdsun1.arlut.utexas.edu>,
>John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>CNN yesterday.... Micro$ucks users of the network package in Windows 95
>>will have their systems automatically audited by Micro$ucks. This to to
>>develop a profile of what software resides on the users computers.
>>Micro$ucks states they will not sell the information to other companies.
>>
>>Big Brother is not the government, it is Micro$hit.
>>
>>Linux rules....
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>John Gossett Research Engineering Assistant
>> University of Texas: Applied Research Labs
>>
>
>this scares the hell out of me. a `research engineering assistant' who
>applies for his first grant. guess we know how desperate UoT is for
>help.
>
>to spend all of your time watching CNN), when you register, you are prompted
>whether or not m/s can scan your system & register all software. if you
>respond ``no'', this scan doesn't take place.
>
>i allow my machine to be attached to a network on which <<anyone>> is using
>m/s net. so be it.
>
regards,
Jerry Schonewille
San Jose, California, USA
je...@polymore.com
Mike Reed
>CNN yesterday.... Micro$ucks users of the network package in Windows 95
>will have their systems automatically audited by Micro$ucks. This to to
>develop a profile of what software resides on the users computers.
>Micro$ucks states they will not sell the information to other companies.
>Big Brother is not the government, it is Micro$hit.
>Linux rules....
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>John Gossett Research Engineering Assistant
> University of Texas: Applied Research Labs
>Standard Disclaimer: These views may not reflect my employer's views.
> My Disclaimer: I fully claim responsibility for the above views.
> Quote: "Get over it!"
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
It was my understanding that the information on ones system is only
sent if the user registers and indicates by checking a box that it is
ok to report that information. It is not automatic, I don't believe.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Mike in Toledo
Rick Gaudette
says...
>
>
>Has anyone tested Microsquish's claim that they don't scan your disk?
:
:
:
>
>Which I guess brings us back to Linux : free, open, configurable and
>standard protocols.
>
>--
>===================================================================
>David Ginter
>
>Voice: 617-873-3403
>Email: dgi...@bbn.com
>U.S. Mail: BBN Systems and Technologies
> Mail Stop: 14/2a
> 70 Fawcett St.
> Cambridge, MA 02138
>
>DISCLAIMER: My thoughts are my own.
Does anyone what question they actually ask you? Are they letting you
know that they are about to download? I heard it was an image of you
directory system from an e-mail warning being distributed. The poster of
the warning said he put a netowrk sniffer on the serial port and watched
a listing of his file system transfer to microsoft, no mention of any
choice in the matter.
PS Is this Dave Ginter previously from MIT-LL if so hows life?
Rick Gaudette
r...@cdsp.neu.edu
Lar Kaufman
Erik Pennebaker <er...@whip.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> writes:
>
>
>>CNN yesterday.... Micro$ucks users of the network package in Windows 95
>>will have their systems automatically audited by Micro$ucks. This to to
>>develop a profile of what software resides on the users computers.
>>Micro$ucks states they will not sell the information to other companies.
>Actually, it doesn't do it automatically. Theres a button that clearly
>states what its going to do, and its completely optional.
> I think its really funny have everyone freaked about this.
You don't see implications of unfair trade practices in Microsoft
(and no other company) having the ability to gather information
about the entire commercial marketplace in which they compete?
-lar
--
Lar Kaufman 508-371-1563 "If you read enough good
189 Peter Spring Road 508-287-0646 (home office) books, you're kind of
Concord, MA 01742 USA co-author, "Running Linux" sorted out in life."
la...@walden.com BUSL '98 -Hugh Grant
Joe Hachem
>I take the liberty of rearranging Mr. York's comments because my
>intention was to develop a thread about MS invasion of privacy, not start
>a flame war. If flames interest you see the bottom of this post.
...
>OH WOE is me! My first flame. I could take two paths for this response.
>I could be apologetic for my one expletive or I could ignore his
>discomfort and continue as before. My response is to point out the last
>two lines of my signature and continue.
>I always am amused by those who deign to flame someone for their lack of
>intelligence, yet are incapable of correct spelling and grammar. I
>sincerely hope Mr. York learns the rules of capitalization and uses a
>good spell checker before applying for grants.
>Finally, I hope Mr. York has the opportunity to attend a class in logic.
>This might prevent him from making broad generalizations based on faulty
>logic. (See his remark in parenthesis about CNN viewing.)
Just a bit of support for your "inflammatory" posting, John. It's
just as well that posting with some passion is called for in this case
(IMO)...the Microsoft Network was given a test drive at work and the
technician did notice something rather unnerving about that "system
scan" procedure...it was even discussed in that very
invasion-of-privacy vein, and I think it's a valid worry. As far as
Mr. York's sensitivity to expletives, I shudder to expect his first
follow-up to one of MY opinionated replies! :)
Joe Hachem
Jim Williams
>
>True. Just to be safe, though, I'd unplug the phone when using Win 95, i
>until I actually have to use the modem.... :)
>
Could you put a packet sniffer on the line when you do finally have to use
the modem? I don't trust Microsoft, and would like to get a real answer.
--
Sphere.
Find a Linux Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/
Buy Linux brand UNIX!
Donald Jeff Dionne
: In article <DGINTER.95...@mahi.bbn.com>, dgi...@mahi.bbn.com
: says...
: >
Warning, this is hearsay....
I know someone that heard from a Micro$hit "leak" that they find out what you
have, and then ask if you want to register it. Later, if this works out ok,
they intend to use the info on what you have to burn you for piracy. I'm
not kidding, and I think my source is credible (more than CNN :-). Now,
I would like to see the trace of the RS232 before I call out the anti-trust
law types, but if they in fact do this, I think they will be in a lot of
legal trouble. Simple sol'n though....
We don't know, even if we look and they don't _SEEM_ to dump your directory
tree auto, they might not do it every time, so we still don't know. We can
only know for sure if we catch them at it. Use software you have control
over, use nets with software you have control over, and if you must run
code you don't have control over, run it in a controlled environment (Linux?)
: PS Is this Dave Ginter previously from MIT-LL if so hows life?
: Rick Gaudette
: r...@cdsp.neu.edu
Jim Williams
>
>Has anyone tested Microsquish's claim that they don't scan your disk?
>your machine and Microsquishes?
>
Not that I've heard of... I'm hoping someone will fully check this out.
>
>Which I guess brings us back to Linux : free, open, configurable and
>standard protocols.
>
As has been recently pointed out to me by the FSF, technically it's GNU software
which is filling this role (including Linux, which uses the GNU licence). The
important thing about Linux is that it's the first kernel to be openly developed
over the internet. This, of course, makes Linux even more free and open than
most free software.
Linux goes through a peer review process which would make the big software vendors
shudder and shrink away in horror. :)
Ken Ryan
>Humm....
>
[snip]
>
All right! Conspiracy theories arise!
But...is it paranoia when they're really out to get you?
Ken Ryan
kr...@clark.net
James Logajan
As has been pointed out, it would be very difficult for Microsoft to try
to pull a fast one and not expect to eventually be caught. It would be
a marketing disaster. All those advertising millions lost. Does anybody
seriously believe that Microsoft would risk the wrath of the consuming
public by placing a trojan software-cop in its operating system?
Microsoft DOS/Windows is a technological abomination that ought not to
be tolerated. However, that doesn't excuse spreading of libelous rumors.
Sure I could be wrong, but these postings appear to me to be attacks
caused by jealousy. The warnings are well taken - but try to avoid
the rumor-mongering.
P.S. As I have no intention of ever installing W95, I'll be unable
to check to see what it really does. And don't try to make me ;-)
Joe Sloan
>John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>It was my understanding that the information on ones system is only
>sent if the user registers and indicates by checking a box that it is
>ok to report that information. It is not automatic, I don't believe.
That's their story - and of course, you accept it without question?
--
Joe Sloan j...@engr.ucr.edu http://dostoevsky.ucr.edu
Win95? No, none for me, thanks - I'm already running Linux...
Microsoft is not the answer - Microsoft is the question; the answer is NO!
Werner Almesberger
James Logajan <jam...@netcom.com> wrote:
> As has been pointed out, it would be very difficult for Microsoft to try
> to pull a fast one and not expect to eventually be caught.
I assume that's why the procedure isn't done entirely automatically.
Doing illegal things costs time and money. Being dishonest frequently
doesn't. (Who remembers Intel's big advertizing campaign a.k.a. the
Pentium bug ?)
> It would be a marketing disaster. All those advertising millions lost.
No. The millions have been invested very well - everybody's been holding
their breath waiting for W95 (e.g. instead of buying OS/2 or switching to
a non-proprietary system).
> Does anybody seriously believe that Microsoft would risk the wrath of
> the consuming public by placing a trojan software-cop in its operating
> system?
Yes. Unless a significant part of the consumers turns away from them,
those who are currently locked into using their products will continue
to be so. A de-facto monopoly is a very useful thing to have.
- Werner
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, DI-LRC,EPFL,CH werner.al...@lrc.di.epfl.ch /
/_IN_R_311__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/
Kyle Anthony York
In article <3voi0g$6...@galaxy.ucr.edu>,
Joe Sloan <j...@dostoevsky.ucr.edu> wrote:
>In article <3vmj12$1...@tofu.alt.net>, Mike Reed <mr...@norden1.com> wrote:
>>John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>It was my understanding that the information on ones system is only
>>sent if the user registers and indicates by checking a box that it is
>>ok to report that information. It is not automatic, I don't believe.
>
>That's their story - and of course, you accept it without question?
>
or better yet, simply record the call using a cheap recorder & play it
back through the modem. you will see nothing is being sent unless you
answer ``yes''
if you answer ``no'' to the registration question, no scanning
occurs. no directory structure or other local data is transfered. period.
my concern is that one day this might not be the case. call me paranoid.
i also truly believe that m/s has left back-door passwords in the
m/s net shipped with win95, wfw, and nt. again, probably just paranoia.
but...if this is the case, all m/s would need to do is send a command
and instantly retrieve all information from all machines connected my
the m/s net.
will this ever happen. no. why? one of us paranoid folks would quickly
discover it causing (1) a public relations nightmare, (2) <<LOTS>> of
lawsuits, (3) gov't action
best o' luck
--kyle
Robert Stockmann
: [Vast quantities of paranoid rumor and unsubstantiated ravings deleted]
: As has been pointed out, it would be very difficult for Microsoft to try
: to pull a fast one and not expect to eventually be caught. It would be
: a marketing disaster. All those advertising millions lost. Does anybody
: seriously believe that Microsoft would risk the wrath of the consuming
: public by placing a trojan software-cop in its operating system?
: Microsoft DOS/Windows is a technological abomination that ought not to
: be tolerated. However, that doesn't excuse spreading of libelous rumors.
: Sure I could be wrong, but these postings appear to me to be attacks
: caused by jealousy. The warnings are well taken - but try to avoid
: the rumor-mongering.
: P.S. As I have no intention of ever installing W95, I'll be unable
: to check to see what it really does. And don't try to make me ;-)
I don't trust Microsoft, especially not Mr. Gates. Look what a record
he has with justice cases. Even the FBI keeps an eye on Microsoft.
Just remember the furious justice war between Apple Macintosh and Microsoft,
where Apple accused MS for stealing icons and the mouse driven GUI principle.
Also has Microsoft stolen programs like Stacker, and just put it into
its MSDOS package. And after that Stacker was accused by Microsoft for
using Microsoft's disk compression techniques.
Microsoft is to me like a Company who wants to
have the Third Reich in software land, and now also in networking.
Microsoft has applied for a permission to exploit MSN also in europe
but the EEC has serious doubts for giving Mr. Gates the permisson.
Robert
--
++---------------------------++----------------------------------------++
|| R.M. Stockmann || Delft University of Technology ||
|| st...@cpt7.stm.tudelft.nl || Department of Chemical Engineering ||
|| phone: +31 15 784395 || Section Industrial Catalysis ||
|| home: +31 1620 36177 || Julianalaan 136 ||
|| fax: +31 17 784452 || 2628 BL Delft The Netherlands ||
++---------------------------++----------------------------------------++
Cameron L. Spitzer
With comp.os.linux.hardware?
Recall the newsgroups were split to make it easier to find stuff.
Posting stuff in the wrong places defeats that.
If you've got evidence of Windoze 95 reporting private info
from your system to Micros*ft network, post it to comp.risks
and alt.privacy where people will be able to find it.
In article <3vp2hm$e...@clarknet.clark.net>, Ken Ryan <kryan> wrote:
>phy...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>
>>Humm....
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>
>
>All right! Conspiracy theories arise!
>
>But...is it paranoia when they're really out to get you?
--
This article is Copyrighted, 1995, by Cameron L. Spitzer, who hereby
explicitly withholds permission to store or transmit it from Microsoft
Corporation and its holdings. By storing or transmitting this
article, Microsoft Corporation indicates its agreement to pay
Cameron L. Spitzer one thousand United States dollars (US$1000),
due and payable within thirty days of the storage or transmission.
Kyle Anthony York
In article <3vp0ov$o...@news1.deltanet.com>,
>>>
>>>John Gossett Research Engineering Assistant
>>> University of Texas: Applied Research Labs
>>>
>
>>is incapable of writing without explitives. can't wait 'till this moron
>>applies for his first grant. guess we know how desperate UoT is for
>>help.
>
>as much as not being able to write ABOUT MicroS__t with out using
>explitives... Boy look at that I've got the same problem.....ummmmmm
>"Confused? Don't be. If a subnet mask is used on your network,
> your network administrator will provide you with the correct
> value" TCP/IP Network Administration, p.35
>
phy...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
> John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>will have their systems automatically audited by Micro$ucks. This to to
>>develop a profile of what software resides on the users computers.
>>Micro$ucks states they will not sell the information to other companies.
> sent if the user registers and indicates by checking a box that it is
> ok to report that information. It is not automatic, I don't believe.
> Mike in Toledo
Humm....
I didn't saw the source code; did you ?
Who can *guaratee* you that they will not try ?
And it's not necessary to be only in Windows 95, it can be in any
Microsoft application (including Windows NT).
And what if you have "sensible" data ?
How can you be *sure* that they will not try to encode somehow your information
and send it God know where ? (so that you can't prove anything)
I will not bet on their honesty.
Not the fact that they did or not that scares me,
but the fact that they *tried* .
How can you be sure that is no posibility for them to gain remote control
over your machine once you are connected to the network ?
Would you trust a bank who use Windows for keeping your account
details ?
I prefer Linux for keeping my data. :-)
And I use PGP to encode them if necessary. :-)
Ryurick M. Hristev
phy...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Paul Dineen
: It was my understanding that the information on ones system is only
: sent if the user registers and indicates by checking a box that it is
: ok to report that information.
What motivation does Microsoft offer to encourage people to do this?
Jim Williams
>>
>again, no. all one needs to do is use a tsr to track disk activity,
>or better yet, simply record the call using a cheap recorder & play it
>back through the modem. you will see nothing is being sent unless you
>answer ``yes''
> if you answer ``no'' to the registration question, no scanning
>occurs. no directory structure or other local data is transfered. period.
>
Actually, what I *really* want to know is the protocol dialog that your machine
and the network go through when you say yes. My question is simple, does the
machine send the data without first being asked for it, or does the network
send some command which causes the data to be downloaded?
--
Sphere.
Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/
Buy Linux brand UNIX!
root
: joh...@holmes.ece.orst.edu (Scott Johnson) wrote:
: >
: >True. Just to be safe, though, I'd unplug the phone when using Win 95, i
: >until I actually have to use the modem.... :)
: >
: Could you put a packet sniffer on the line when you do finally have to use
: the modem? I don't trust Microsoft, and would like to get a real answer.
I will probably arrange this. I have a modem here *points* attached to
my Linux box. My parents own a Gateway over there *points to other room*,
and for some reason my dad blew the money on Windoze'95 for it.. I can (and
will 8-) start up uhh.. probably kermit, since it's the only
leave-the-data-alone passthrough program I've got right now.. set it to log
what goes through to file, and not touch it 8-). I'll let you know whenever
they get it..
: --
: Sphere.
: Find a Linux Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/
: Buy Linux brand UNIX!
root
: Rick Gaudette (r...@cdsp.neu.edu) wrote:
: : In article <DGINTER.95...@mahi.bbn.com>, dgi...@mahi.bbn.com
: : says...
: : >
: : >
: : >Has anyone tested Microsquish's claim that they don't scan your disk?
*cut and slash*
*chop and bobbit*
: We don't know, even if we look and they don't _SEEM_ to dump your directory
: tree auto, they might not do it every time, so we still don't know. We can
: only know for sure if we catch them at it. Use software you have control
: over, use nets with software you have control over, and if you must run
: code you don't have control over, run it in a controlled environment (Linux?)
I know that Doctor Dobbs Journal managed to eventually get some
debugging done on Win 3.1, after they defeated the self-decryption, and
found a debugger that was not disabled by Windoze's redirection of single
step interrupt (they used like a in-house 386 mode debugger.) (They had
found on 3.1 beta versions, it would do a long battery of tests to determine
if it's real M$ DOS or not, including crap like testing alignment of FCBs..
File Control Blocks.. not used since DOS 1.0 8-).. if it wasn't M$ it
would... no shit.. print a RANDOMLY GENERATED error number. Even in
production version, it can be turned back on by changing 1 byte.)
Well, if DDJ managed to crack through the security measures on 3.1,
maybe they can on '95 too, and determine if it sends a directory tree?
Well, at the very least it MUST be theoretically possible 8-).
: Je...@RyeHam.EE.Ryerson.Ca
N J Bailey
>[Vast quantities of paranoid rumor and unsubstantiated ravings deleted]
>
>As has been pointed out, it would be very difficult for Microsoft to try
>to pull a fast one and not expect to eventually be caught. It would be
>a marketing disaster. All those advertising millions lost. Does anybody
>seriously believe that Microsoft would risk the wrath of the consuming
>public by placing a trojan software-cop in its operating system?
>
>Microsoft DOS/Windows is a technological abomination that ought not to
>be tolerated. However, that doesn't excuse spreading of libelous rumors.
>
*selling* people software, and since (in the UK) most PC users are unable
to distinguish between the OS and the Hardware, they seem to have won.
The really sad thing is that a lot of people steal software when they
can have (IMHO better) functionality for free!
Nick.
Yuri Volobuev
: Who can *guaratee* you that they will not try ?
: And it's not necessary to be only in Windows 95, it can be in any
: Microsoft application (including Windows NT).
: And what if you have "sensible" data ?
: How can you be *sure* that they will not try to encode somehow your information
: and send it God know where ? (so that you can't prove anything)
: I will not bet on their honesty.
: Not the fact that they did or not that scares me,
: but the fact that they *tried* .
: How can you be sure that is no posibility for them to gain remote control
: over your machine once you are connected to the network ?
: Would you trust a bank who use Windows for keeping your account
: details ?
I think there's not too much to worry about. After all, missing source code
isn't quite a reason to think that no one can disassemble it at see what is
does. May be nowadays it sounds incredible, people mostly forgot what is
assembler and binary code, but: there _are_ hackers on this planet, and
there _are_ smart people who can make their computers do what _they_
want, not what Micro$ucks wants. Just give them time.
There's a good proverb in Russian, I don't quite know how to translate it,
my English is far too bad for this, but it's something like: "For every foxy
(smart?) ass there's a (tool || dick) with a (special feature)". Life shows
that it's true.
I have no doubts that even if Windoze has some code that can send out some
info from your PC withour you will, soon there'll be a `patch' released that
will fix it. I even know people who can do this, and I think they _will_ do
that since they aren't a sort of people who would pay money for MS crap (it
is piracy, but...), nor they want their disk scan be sent to MS.
Yuri
David Gaudine
The idea is that when you call them for support they don't have to ask you
as many questions about your system configuration, they already have
a full (if somewhat outdated) list of your hardware/software.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Gaudine, Programmer, EMC Lab Home: (514)481-0837
Concordia University, Loyola Campus, Montreal Work: (514)848-3118
Rarely speaking for anyone important da...@donald.concordia.ca
Joan Tine
> again, no. all one needs to do is use a tsr to track disk activity,
> or better yet, simply record the call using a cheap recorder & play it
> back through the modem. you will see nothing is being sent unless you
> answer ``yes''
> if you answer ``no'' to the registration question, no scanning
> occurs. no directory structure or other local data is transfered. period.
> my concern is that one day this might not be the case. call me paranoid.
> i also truly believe that m/s has left back-door passwords in the
> m/s net shipped with win95, wfw, and nt. again, probably just paranoia.
> but...if this is the case, all m/s would need to do is send a command
> and instantly retrieve all information from all machines connected my
> the m/s net.
Anyone who's played with steaganography knows that your entire
filetree could be encoded and sent in a screen map or other graphic,
changing only one color bit per screen location, resulting in a
perfectly ordinary and displayable picture. How to do it? When
sending _you_ a screen map, enable a bogus "full-duplex" mode and
instead return the previously constructed map. Unless you have the
steg password, you'll NEVER find encoded data in the bitmap. Storage?
It's a file you display on your own terminal as part of your session,
and as such, would attract none of the initial attention the
"stage.dat" file did. The state of the art in encryption and data
compression is such that there is no way to monitor the actions of
anybody who can spend the kind of money Microsoft can, so let's adopt
a healthy fatalism when using their products, and practice some basic
security and compartmentalization of anything important.
Don't trust trust.
Joan
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
the Right Disreputable, Lady Wombat
Priscilla Asagiri Aerobic Fashions in Fiberglass
The Anna Madrigal Endowment for Pathological Forensics, 1967
Norman Moore
ites:
:>
:>[Vast quantities of paranoid rumor and unsubstantiated ravings deleted]
:>
:>As has been pointed out, it would be very difficult for Microsoft to try
:>to pull a fast one and not expect to eventually be caught. It would be
:>a marketing disaster. All those advertising millions lost. Does anybody
:>public by placing a trojan software-cop in its operating system?
:>
:>Microsoft DOS/Windows is a technological abomination that ought not to
:>be tolerated. However, that doesn't excuse spreading of libelous rumors.
:>Sure I could be wrong, but these postings appear to me to be attacks
:>caused by jealousy. The warnings are well taken - but try to avoid
:>the rumor-mongering.
:>
:>P.S. As I have no intention of ever installing W95, I'll be unable
:>to check to see what it really does. And don't try to make me ;-)
And if someone had told you two years ago that if you were to buy a
PC computer system from about 85% of the vendors in the US that you were
also going to be forced to pay for a copy of Dos/Windoze whether you wanted
it or not, would you have said it was only a rumor???
Normally I would agree that M$ wouldn't do anything so stupid, knowing
that they would eventually get caught. But lately I've noticed a degree of
arrogance in M$ heretofore unseen in the industry (including the IBM of old).
With their recent victory over Judge Sporkin (a sad day for both the computer
industry and jurisprudence) it's beginning to look as though M$ believes its'
own hype, and feels they're too big and powerful to be told what they can and
can't do.
Would I be surprised if M$ was in fact running a 'sniffer' on every
system that registers with MSN??? Hell no, not for a second...but what
really scares me is that I can just see the majority of 'computing lemmings'
singing the company lie that "it's for your own good!!". If you don't
believe that could happen I think you're being naive, things like that happen
all the time. You don't have to be too old to remember the days when it was
thought that "What's good for General Motors is good for the country", and it
seems like just yesterday that we here in the US lost much of our '4th
amendment' rights, it was so our government could "protect us".
Am I just paranoid?? Well maybe, but when a company gets as big and
powerful as M$ they have a tendency to believe they're too important to have
to abide by the same rules the rest of us follow, and what makes it worse is
the fact that even when it was a smaller company M$ already acted in this
same fashion. This is why I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the MSN does use
a sniffer, and when they get caught many users will defend them saying "It's
for your own good...they need the information so they can make your system
run better".........sound familiar???
...Norm
===================================*===================================
| Norman Moore | Although I LOVE my Country... |
| Rockville, Maryland USA | |
| powered by: OS/2 Warp..Linux! | ...I FEAR my Government!!! |
| norm...@clark.net | |
===================================*===================================
root
: In article <1995Aug4.0...@snugbug.cts.com> jo...@snugbug.cts.com (Joan Tine) writes:
: >Kyle Anthony York (noe...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU) wrote:
: >It's a file you display on your own terminal as part of your session,
: >and as such, would attract none of the initial attention the
: >"stage.dat" file did. The state of the art in encryption and data
: Could someone fill me in on what the stage.dat flap was? I heard a little
: about it, but I don't recall now what happened. I do read this NG fairly
: regularly, so you could post here, but I'd prefer mail to save bandwidth.
Prodigy. They did the disk scan and send the list thing in the form of
a file called "stage.dat".
Probably they still do it *shrug*.
: Thanks,
: Mike
Jim Williams
>
>It was my understanding that the information on ones system is only
>ok to report that information. It is not automatic, I don't believe.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
The problem is that we have no way to determine that you are right. It seems fairly
well determined that Win95 asks a question about it -- but at this point I know
nothing else for sure.
I know that I'm not willing to accept Microsoft's Word for amything on this matter.
It seems that with Win95 the software is capable of uploading some information about
your disk structure to Microsoft under some circumstances. I don't know the full
range of circumstances therefore I suspect Microsoft of evil intent.
--
Sphere.
Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/
Buy Linux brand UNIX!
Michael J. MacDonald
>Kyle Anthony York (noe...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU) wrote:
>It's a file you display on your own terminal as part of your session,
>and as such, would attract none of the initial attention the
>"stage.dat" file did. The state of the art in encryption and data
Could someone fill me in on what the stage.dat flap was? I heard a little
about it, but I don't recall now what happened. I do read this NG fairly
regularly, so you could post here, but I'd prefer mail to save bandwidth.
Thanks,
Mike
Robert Mobbs
: There's a good proverb in Russian, I don't quite know how to translate it,
: (smart?) ass there's a (tool || dick) with a (special feature)". Life shows
: that it's true.
Whoah. Think I'll embroider that on a doily.
Robert Mobbs
rmo...@seattleu.edu
Glasnost!
Robert Mobbs
: Could you put a packet sniffer on the line when you do finally have to use
: the modem? I don't trust Microsoft, and would like to get a real answer.
Sure, if you can find one that survives a full reboot. My experience
with Win95 Beta was that it reboots your system as it "sets up" the
installation procedure.
Folks, the answer is just don't buy the piece of crap "OS." It's
too big, it's too slow, it's an invasion of privacy, and it's a product
of an inferior company.
Robert Mobbs
rmo...@seattleu.edu
Robert Mobbs
: [Vast quantities of paranoid rumor and unsubstantiated ravings deleted]
: As has been pointed out, it would be very difficult for Microsoft to try
: to pull a fast one and not expect to eventually be caught. It would be
: a marketing disaster. All those advertising millions lost. Does anybody
: seriously believe that Microsoft would risk the wrath of the consuming
: public by placing a trojan software-cop in its operating system?
I firmly agree! And why would Prodigy risk its huge consumer
pool by scanning and altering their users hard drives ... oh ... oops.
: Microsoft DOS/Windows is a technological abomination that ought not to
: be tolerated. However, that doesn't excuse spreading of libelous rumors.
Um, the disk-scanning is a fact. Microsoft has reportedly stated
that it is optional -- bear in mind that in this situation, then, they
are the instigator of the rumor. We have no proof that it is optional.
: Sure I could be wrong, but these postings appear to me to be attacks
: caused by jealousy. The warnings are well taken - but try to avoid
: the rumor-mongering.
Jealousy? Of what? A geeky-looking millionaire who is so
funny-looking he only has one press photo? A bloated semi-OS which
can't even properly multitask? The point-and-drool interface ripped
off from Caldera, Adobe, et. al.? Give me a break.
Robert Mobbs
rmo...@seattleu.edu
Jeff Rader
: : I didn't saw the source code; did you ?
: : Who can *guaratee* you that they will not try ?
: : And it's not necessary to be only in Windows 95, it can be in any
: : Microsoft application (including Windows NT).
: : And what if you have "sensible" data ?
: : How can you be *sure* that they will not try to encode somehow your information
: : and send it God know where ? (so that you can't prove anything)
: : I will not bet on their honesty.
: : Not the fact that they did or not that scares me,
: : but the fact that they *tried* .
: : How can you be sure that is no posibility for them to gain remote control
: : over your machine once you are connected to the network ?
: : Would you trust a bank who use Windows for keeping your account
: : details ?
: I think there's not too much to worry about. After all, missing source code
: isn't quite a reason to think that no one can disassemble it at see what is
: does. May be nowadays it sounds incredible, people mostly forgot what is
: assembler and binary code, but: there _are_ hackers on this planet, and
: there _are_ smart people who can make their computers do what _they_
: want, not what Micro$ucks wants. Just give them time.
: There's a good proverb in Russian, I don't quite know how to translate it,
: my English is far too bad for this, but it's something like: "For every foxy
: (smart?) ass there's a (tool || dick) with a (special feature)". Life shows
: that it's true.
: I have no doubts that even if Windoze has some code that can send out some
: info from your PC withour you will, soon there'll be a `patch' released that
: will fix it. I even know people who can do this, and I think they _will_ do
: that since they aren't a sort of people who would pay money for MS crap (it
: is piracy, but...), nor they want their disk scan be sent to MS.
: Yuri
The guys at work, windoze weenies, told me there already is a patch for
keeping microshaft from peeking into your machine. Look around, maybe you to
can find it. If i put Win95 on my machine, it will be stand alone or just
connected to another machine in the house. Thats it! No dial out for me.
Jim Williams
>
>Microsoft DOS/Windows is a technological abomination that ought not to
>be tolerated. However, that doesn't excuse spreading of libelous rumors.
>
I, at least, am not spreading libelous rumors. I'm just asking questions.
I leave it to others to turn them into rumor. :)
I would like to know the true answers to some of my questions though. If
nothing else, the only way Microsoft could answer my questions is to
release the source code for their systems. This would be a *good thing*
in my book.
Reality is a point of view
| I think there's not too much to worry about. After all, missing source code
| isn't quite a reason to think that no one can disassemble it at see what is
| does.
Last time I looked at a Microsoft license agreement (a long time
ago of course) disassembly was strictly forbidden. My fuzzy
memory seems to think that the tweak in the agreement happened
around the time that the anti DR-DOS code was revealed. Or maybe
after the stink about the Stacker code, or the Novell code, or
the Apple code . . .
Unfortunately the habit has been acquired by other vendors, such
as the Netscape people. Not that it would stop anyone from
disassembling, but FUD is there.
--
Gary Johnson gjohnson@[205.179.33.1]
(gjoh...@season.com Real Soon Now)
Jeff Garretson
hard drive, is the little light that flashes when the drive is in use
controlled by hardware or software? I.e. does Micro(it's getting
difficult to refrain) have control over that, too?
Sorry to prolong the thread (which, incidently, has nothing to do with
any of the listed groups except, possibly, comp.os.linux.advocacy).
Jeff Garretson jeff...@cac.washington.edu
C&C Lab Assistant http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jeffgarr
@-`->-- In memory of D.Z. -- Life's not the same without him.
Adam J. Thornton
Norman Moore <norm...@clark.net> wrote:
> Normally I would agree that M$ wouldn't do anything so stupid, knowing
>that they would eventually get caught. But lately I've noticed a degree of
>arrogance in M$ heretofore unseen in the industry (including the IBM of old).
Not the IBM of the 1960's.
The similarities in attitude are striking. But MS isn't that huge, yet.
Nevertheless, the nice thing about the industry is that inertia kills, and
size breeds inertia. I'm reminded of a quotation uttered by Nolan Bushnell,
Atari's founder, last year, on visiting the Redmond campus:
"Wow, this place is almost as big as Atari was in 1984."
Adam
--
ad...@io.com | ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu | Viva HEGGA! | Save the choad!
"Double integral is also the shape of lovers curled asleep" : Pynchon
64,928 | TEAM OS/2 | "Ich habe einen Bierbauch!" | Linux | Fnord
You can have my PGP passphrase when you pry it from my cold, dead brain.
Joerg Mertin
:
: In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950801...@csdsun1.arlut.utexas.edu>,
: John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
[...]
:
: about the m/s network: if you've ever tried it (doubtfully since you seem
: to spend all of your time watching CNN), when you register, you are prompted
: whether or not m/s can scan your system & register all software. if you
: respond ``no'', this scan doesn't take place.
Have you seen some of the sourcecode ? If I can't have a look at the
sourcecode, I wouldn't give a D**m about to believe them it wouldn't
take place. Have a look at my signature and you'll see what I think of
them...
cu
--
Solong & Happy Hacking
________________________________________________________________________
| Joerg Mertin : smu...@stardust.bln.sub.org (Home) |
| in Berlin Spandau at : jo...@pc50.zrz.tu-berlin.de |
| Stardust's LiNUX System : Data, Fax & Voice 49 30 3627345 |
| PGP 2.6.2i Key on Demand : ZyXEL Link |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
`*** Fatal Error: Found [MS-Windows] -> Repartitioning Disk for LiNUX...'
Alain Knaff
: +---- Yuri Volobuev <yu...@ufn.ioc.ac.ru> wrote:
: | I think there's not too much to worry about. After all, missing source code
: | isn't quite a reason to think that no one can disassemble it at see what is
: | does.
: +----
: Last time I looked at a Microsoft license agreement (a long time
: ago of course) disassembly was strictly forbidden. My fuzzy
: memory seems to think that the tweak in the agreement happened
: around the time that the anti DR-DOS code was revealed. Or maybe
: after the stink about the Stacker code, or the Novell code, or
: the Apple code . . .
Shrink warp licenses are unenforceable, and are to be ignored. Should
a court rule otherwise, Micro$oft might be in for a big surprise with
all those "MSN is prohibited to redistribute this message, fine =
$1,000,000" signatures.
: Unfortunately the habit has been acquired by other vendors, such
: as the Netscape people. Not that it would stop anyone from
: disassembling, but FUD is there.
: --
: Gary Johnson gjohnson@[205.179.33.1]
: (gjoh...@season.com Real Soon Now)
=================================================
= Anti Micro$oft signature under construction =
=================================================
Alain
John M Dow
> jam...@netcom.com (James Logajan) wrote:
> >[Vast quantities of paranoid rumor and unsubstantiated ravings deleted]
> >
> >As has been pointed out, it would be very difficult for Microsoft to try
> >to pull a fast one and not expect to eventually be caught. It would be
> >a marketing disaster. All those advertising millions lost. Does anybody
> >seriously believe that Microsoft would risk the wrath of the consuming
> >public by placing a trojan software-cop in its operating system?
> >
> >be tolerated. However, that doesn't excuse spreading of libelous rumors.
> >
> *selling* people software, and since (in the UK) most PC users are unable
> to distinguish between the OS and the Hardware, they seem to have won.
>
I know what you mean. I've heard people in PC shops asking for a Windows PC, but they're not
bothered about IBM compatibility(and walking out with a Pentium!!!).
> The really sad thing is that a lot of people steal software when they
> can have (IMHO better) functionality for free!
>
> Nick.
>
John
****************************************************************************
*Der alte Sturm, die alte Muh'! * Wagneria & Sinclairia & Lizards *
*Doch stand muss ich hier halten!-Wotan* http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jmd *
****************************************************************************
Alain Knaff
: Regarding how to tell if Micro(I'll refrain...) really is scanning your
: controlled by hardware or software? I.e. does Micro(it's getting
: difficult to refrain) have control over that, too?
Yes it has. The magic word is caching. It may have read the directory
structure from disk to memory on startup. Thus it doesn't have to reread
it again before transfering.
The converse is true too: If the drive light flashes, this may also be
due to the loading of plenty of programs, random swapping etc.
Thus, it is difficult to tell what is going on by just watching the
drive light.
: Sorry to prolong the thread (which, incidently, has nothing to do with
: any of the listed groups except, possibly, comp.os.linux.advocacy).
: Jeff Garretson jeff...@cac.washington.edu
: C&C Lab Assistant http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jeffgarr
: @-`->-- In memory of D.Z. -- Life's not the same without him.
--
Alain
Jim Williams
Jeff Garretson <jeff...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>Regarding how to tell if Micro(I'll refrain...) really is scanning your
>hard drive, is the little light that flashes when the drive is in use
>controlled by hardware or software? I.e. does Micro(it's getting
>difficult to refrain) have control over that, too?
>
I think it's hardware, but it can be very difficult to relate that light
to what's happening inside the machine.
Very well controlled of you, BTW. :)
--
Sphere.
Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/
Buy Free UNIX!
Paul Lydon
--
*******************************
* Paul Lydon *
* Brassington, Derbyshire, UK *
* pa...@palydon.demon.co.uk *
*******************************
Dave Ginter
[jam...@netcom.com (James Logajan) writes:]
>
>
> As has been pointed out, it would be very difficult for Microsoft to try
> to pull a fast one and not expect to eventually be caught. It would be
> a marketing disaster. All those advertising millions lost. Does anybody
> seriously believe that Microsoft would risk the wrath of the consuming
> public by placing a trojan software-cop in its operating system?
James, one would also think it a marketing disaster to release buggy,
operating systems late. One would also believe it is a marketing
disaster to give your buying public the finger by strong arming the
Justice Department. One would think that MicroSquish doesn't much give
a damn about the consuming public.
As to the magnitude of the marketing disaster that would occur, I
can't help but notice that Prodigy is still in business after being
caught doing what people are afraid of microsquish doing.
> Microsoft DOS/Windows is a technological abomination that ought not to
> be tolerated. However, that doesn't excuse spreading of libelous rumors.
I've been following this thread reasonably carefully, however, I don't
recall any rumors which I would call libelous. Perhaps you should post
some of the libelous rumor-mongering, such that we (your reading
public) could take you a little more seriously.
> Sure I could be wrong, but these postings appear to me to be attacks
> caused by jealousy. The warnings are well taken - but try to avoid
> the rumor-mongering.
As I stated in the above paragraph, I can not take you seriously if I
do not know what you are talking about. Your atribution of the alleged
rumor-mongering to jealously seems to me to serve as an apologist for
MicroSquish.
>
> P.S. As I have no intention of ever installing W95, I'll be unable
> to check to see what it really does. And don't try to make me ;-)
>
Congrats.
The FACTS as I understand them are :
1. microsoft has built in the capability to scan your harddrive and
upload information that microsoft deems pertinent to microsoft network's
main computers.
2. microsoft has a dialog box, asking for your permission to upload
that information to their network.
3. No one has stated that they have determined to a level of
confidence that microsoft does not actually upload information
regardless of your answer to the request in the dialog box. As a
matter of fact, as has been pointed out earlier, this would be
difficult to do given todays encryption capabilities, and the promise
of an alleged multitasking OS from microsoft.
4. microsoft could make your points valid, by simply stating in the
liscensing agreement that they will not upload any data/information
from your computer without your express permission and interactive
involvement.
--
===================================================================
David Ginter
Voice: 617-873-3403
Email: dgi...@bbn.com
U.S. Mail: BBN Systems and Technologies
Mail Stop: 14/2a
70 Fawcett St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
DISCLAIMER: My thoughts are my own, and in particular to the above article,
I think it's relatively safe to say, "and not those of my employer".
Will
: > my concern is that one day this might not be the case. call me paranoid.
: > i also truly believe that m/s has left back-door passwords in the
: > m/s net shipped with win95, wfw, and nt. again, probably just paranoia.
: > but...if this is the case, all m/s would need to do is send a command
: > and instantly retrieve all information from all machines connected my
: > the m/s net.
And then again - what if some kind of computervirus makes use of M$-Net
to gather data? Especially data like it is in Quicken, or other software
which keeps your cash-ids.
Perhaps it does not have to be M$ themselves to exploit the possibilities
there in... after all, windows95 is not unix, and every silly program acts
as systemoperator. this might be ok for singleuser-standalone machines,
but hooked up to a network it is most likely to proofe fatal.
: Anyone who's played with steaganography knows that your entire
: filetree could be encoded and sent in a screen map or other graphic,
: changing only one color bit per screen location, resulting in a
: perfectly ordinary and displayable picture.
Makes me shiver...
Cheers, Michael Will
James Logajan
[elided]
: > Microsoft DOS/Windows is a technological abomination that ought not to
: > be tolerated. However, that doesn't excuse spreading of libelous rumors.
: I've been following this thread reasonably carefully, however, I don't
: recall any rumors which I would call libelous. Perhaps you should post
: some of the libelous rumor-mongering, such that we (your reading
: public) could take you a little more seriously.
If you wish to take someone seriously who posts to a lot of irrelevant
groups with a subject line "Micro$ucks INVASION OF PRIVACY WARNING!!!!!!!"
and to not take my cautionary message seriously, that is your perogative.
The definition of libel varies broadly across the planet and even
within a particular jurisdiction it depends on what you can convince a
judge or jury to believe. Nevertheless, here is one posting which seems
to fit the criteria of "rumor," potentially libelous, and IMHO, paranoia:
[elided]
> Warning, this is hearsay....
> I know someone that heard from a Micro$hit "leak" that they find out what you
> have, and then ask if you want to register it. Later, if this works out ok,
> they intend to use the info on what you have to burn you for piracy. I'm
> not kidding, and I think my source is credible (more than CNN :-).
[elided]
> We don't know, even if we look and they don't _SEEM_ to dump your directory
> tree auto, they might not do it every time, so we still don't know. We can
> only know for sure if we catch them at it. Use software you have control
> over, use nets with software you have control over, and if you must run
> code you don't have control over, run it in a controlled environment (Linux?)
>
I believe that in many jurisdictions a person who passes on information that is
untrue and damaging to someones reputation can be held liable. Labeling it
as hearsay is redundant in this case and would not protect the poster from
being held liable for the libelous content. (In this case, claiming MS
does something that, if true, may cause people not to buy their product).
: > Sure I could be wrong, but these postings appear to me to be attacks
: > caused by jealousy. The warnings are well taken - but try to avoid
: > the rumor-mongering.
: As I stated in the above paragraph, I can not take you seriously if I
: do not know what you are talking about. Your atribution of the alleged
: rumor-mongering to jealously seems to me to serve as an apologist for
: MicroSquish.
You obviously must not have read the sentence where I stated my low opinion
of DOS/Windows. Microsoft does not need me to act as their apologist. My
reason for posting at all was to warn people to stick to what they know
to be true or to stating their opinions. My opinion is that MS Windows sucks.
I do not like their disk scanning policy, even optionally. I just think that
there are a lot of better arguments against MS products than attributing
to MS evil actions that there is no evidence for yet. The warning for
purchasers of W95 to watch out is reasonably taken, but beyond that you should
stick to the facts.
Re the jealousy issue, my sentence says "...appears to me...," obviously it
does not appear to you that it is due to jealousy. It is my perception
that more than a few software writers are jealous of the billions that MS
makes on poorly designed operating systems. Others may not perceive this.
: The FACTS as I understand them are :
: 1. microsoft has built in the capability to scan your harddrive and
: upload information that microsoft deems pertinent to microsoft network's
: main computers.
: 2. microsoft has a dialog box, asking for your permission to upload
: that information to their network.
: 3. No one has stated that they have determined to a level of
: confidence that microsoft does not actually upload information
: regardless of your answer to the request in the dialog box. As a
: matter of fact, as has been pointed out earlier, this would be
: difficult to do given todays encryption capabilities, and the promise
: of an alleged multitasking OS from microsoft.
This fact, while true, is about as useful as saying that "It has not
been confidently determined that X has not commited unsavory act Y."
Worthy of a mudslinging political campaign.
: 4. microsoft could make your points valid, by simply stating in the
: liscensing agreement that they will not upload any data/information
: from your computer without your express permission and interactive
: involvement.
: --
: ===================================================================
: David Ginter
Finally, why is anybody buying W95 anyway??
Ken Ryan
>Regarding how to tell if Micro(I'll refrain...) really is scanning your
>hard drive, is the little light that flashes when the drive is in use
>controlled by hardware or software? I.e. does Micro(it's getting
>difficult to refrain) have control over that, too?
>
It's quite securely in hardware. Trouble is, there's lots of reasons an
operating system (or pseudo-operating-system) might want to access your drive.
Memory swapping, configuration files, flushing cached disk writes, etc. all
will flash the LED, and drive you nuts if you try to track it.
Ken Ryan
kr...@clark.net
SRKodai
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc
or
comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc?
If you don't want to buy Microsoft products, don't buy them!
Please stop filling my computer with off subject posts.
Scott Kodai
IGI Computer Services
Stephen Knilans
>John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> writes:
>
>
>Actually, it doesn't do it automatically. Theres a button that clearly
>states what its going to do, and its completely optional.
> I think its really funny have everyone freaked about this.
>
Doesn't do it automatically? You mean you must give it a list of all the
programs you have? I doubt that! Clearly states what it will do? Many get
too used to such messages, and a mistake can always be made!
The fact is that Microsoft has NO right to do this! It is invasion of
privacy, PURE AND SIMPLE!
Steve
Stephen Knilans
>
>As has been pointed out, it would be very difficult for Microsoft to try
>to pull a fast one and not expect to eventually be caught. It would be
>a marketing disaster. All those advertising millions lost. Does anybody
>seriously believe that Microsoft would risk the wrath of the consuming
>public by placing a trojan software-cop in its operating system?
Do they have an question asking if you wish to do this? If not, then NOBODY
would be argueing here, hence, I must assume the answer is YES! If it is yes,
They can just say "WHOOPS" if they were ever caught. "Oh, we forgot that
ONE line! Sorry! 8-(". That is the way many think, and I know for a fact that
bill gates thinks that way. It isn't much different from his first negotiations
with a company called IBM, and another called seattle microworks! He leveraged
himself into a VERY cusshy position, and kicked SMW OUT! The result? MS/DOS!
>Sure I could be wrong, but these postings appear to me to be attacks
>caused by jealousy. The warnings are well taken - but try to avoid
>the rumor-mongering.
>
Jealousy? Man, are YOU ever reaching! I didn't like Citicorps attempts to
gain control of market surveys of commodity items either.
Steve
Stephen Knilans
>
>In article <3voi0g$6...@galaxy.ucr.edu>,
>Joe Sloan <j...@dostoevsky.ucr.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3vmj12$1...@tofu.alt.net>, Mike Reed <mr...@norden1.com> wrote:
>>>John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>again, no. all one needs to do is use a tsr to track disk activity,
>or better yet, simply record the call using a cheap recorder & play it
>back through the modem. you will see nothing is being sent unless you
>answer ``yes''
> if you answer ``no'' to the registration question, no scanning
>occurs. no directory structure or other local data is transfered. period.
Gee, I thought we were talking about a program. A WINDOWS program, no less!
Such programs do a LOT of disk activity, so a TSR would not help narrow things
down.
Have you TRIED the tape recorder approach? You would have to connect in answer
mode. How could you filter out the OLD answer carrier? How would it sync?
Logically, such an attempt would be difficult, if not impossible.
>my concern is that one day this might not be the case. call me paranoid.
>i also truly believe that m/s has left back-door passwords in the
>m/s net shipped with win95, wfw, and nt. again, probably just paranoia.
> but...if this is the case, all m/s would need to do is send a command
>and instantly retrieve all information from all machines connected my
>the m/s net.
>
>will this ever happen. no. why? one of us paranoid folks would quickly
>discover it causing (1) a public relations nightmare, (2) <<LOTS>> of
>lawsuits, (3) gov't action
>
Actually, Some companies HAVE provided backdoors, and I NEVER heard of any
action! Also, info can be encoded, and sent little by little. It would be
near IMPOSSIBLE to detect!
Robert Mobbs
: The definition of libel varies broadly across the planet and even
: within a particular jurisdiction it depends on what you can convince a
: judge or jury to believe. Nevertheless, here is one posting which seems
: to fit the criteria of "rumor," potentially libelous, and IMHO, paranoia:
: [elided]
Or, perhaps, "elitist". Using obscure terms does not make us
think you're any more intelligent.
The main point of the issue is the below statement:
: > Warning, this is hearsay....
And there your argument falls, James. If the professor of an idea
openly states that the idea is "hearsay" or an "opinion", it is not libel
under judicial law. Read up on it.
: I believe that in many jurisdictions a person who passes on information that is
: untrue and damaging to someones reputation can be held liable. Labeling it
: as hearsay is redundant in this case and would not protect the poster from
: being held liable for the libelous content. (In this case, claiming MS
: does something that, if true, may cause people not to buy their product).
Heh...incorrect. Perhaps you should actually read of what you
speak.
: Re the jealousy issue, my sentence says "...appears to me...," obviously it
Ah, but by your own rules, you have just commited libel! The
fact that you said "appears to me" is irrelevant, remember ...
: Finally, why is anybody buying W95 anyway??
The same reason some people feel this pressing need to speak when
they have no clue. Maybe they're just used to it.
Robert Mobbs
rmo...@seattleu.edu
Tim Drozinski
> The FACTS as I understand them are :
>
> 1. microsoft has built in the capability to scan your harddrive and
> upload information that microsoft deems pertinent to microsoft network's
> main computers.
>
> 2. microsoft has a dialog box, asking for your permission to upload
> that information to their network.
>
What does it do if you DON'T have a modem? Tranmit through the etheric
plane? Psychic vibrations? Surreptitiously print out a letter and sneak
out to the mailbox while you're away at work? Please don't tell me that they
were so stupid as to REQUIRE a modem for the installation of an OS/Windows
system. Or maybe a Microsoft agent follows you from the store, and breaks into
your home in the middle of the night, scanning your hard drive (and beating your
Tetris score).
I can believe that they put it in. I can believe that they might use some
kind of terror campaign to get it through, and then to come down on Joe User.
I can't believe that they think the average user is so stupid as to allow it,
or buy the product if it's unavoidable. I also can't believe that they believe
that everyone has a modem, and that everyone that DOES have a modem has it
connected at all times.
Fuck Windows. I'll stick to DOS 5.0 and Linux. I might just go buy a Mac.
Droz
__________________________________________________________________________
Tim Drozinski | Annoying Person #8319 | t...@db.erau.edu
Droz________________|_______________________________|_____dr...@db.erau.edu
| "'Mother' is the name for GOD on the hearts and lips of all children." |
| -- The Crow |
| Check out my homepage: http://erau.db.erau.edu/~tjd/ |
|________________________________________________________________________|
Matthew Kennel
: [Vast quantities of paranoid rumor and unsubstantiated ravings deleted]
: As has been pointed out, it would be very difficult for Microsoft to try
: to pull a fast one and not expect to eventually be caught. It would be
: a marketing disaster. All those advertising millions lost. Does anybody
: seriously believe that Microsoft would risk the wrath of the consuming
: public by placing a trojan software-cop in its operating system?
: Microsoft DOS/Windows is a technological abomination that ought not to
: be tolerated. However, that doesn't excuse spreading of libelous rumors.
: Sure I could be wrong, but these postings appear to me to be attacks
: caused by jealousy. The warnings are well taken - but try to avoid
: the rumor-mongering.
What I 'heard' (I think on NPR) about this was that
* It would scan the *network* (not just your machine) to see
what other programs you had installed.
* It would send this information to MS for special "marketing"
E.g. everybody with Lotus Notes somehow gets a special deal
to switch to MS Network or whatever. {This is a titanic
competitive advantage!}
* You could refuse to do this.
However, the part about scanning the network is the really chilling part.
That means that *one* bozo who accepts "yes" to the seemingly benign question
transmits information about everybody who is reachable on your local *network*.
If 19 people say no but one person accidentally says yes--whoops!!
It's going to seem just like part of the installation process and lots of
people who don't know much about computers will follow along with the prompts,
worried that Bad Things Will Happen if they don't play by the book.
So it could doesn't have to "cheat" and transmit things when you don't
ask it to. But still be quite worrisome.
This seems like Microsoft:
*) They don't care about your own private data.
*) They don't want to cheat and send stuff when you ask them not to.
Bad publicity.
*) They really want to make more money. That's what they care
about.
*) They've prospered by knowing, and creating, the path of least
resistance. They use that to their advantage.
: P.S. As I have no intention of ever installing W95, I'll be unable
Andre M. Maloney
>The fact is that Microsoft has NO right to do this! It is invasion of
>privacy, PURE AND SIMPLE!
Actually, I think it's a great idea, and it was probably born out of the
frustration of the tech support people. No longer will they have to explain
to people how to find out what version of MS whatever they're running. No
longer will they have to say "Well, call me back when find out what com port
the mouse is on." etc. Sad to say but *most* end users can't give tech-support
the answers needed to troubleshoot the problem.
While I don't intend to buy MSW95, I think the automated supply of information
will help the soon-to-be beleagured tech-support staff. I'll even go so far as
to say I salute MS for trying something novel to help its customers.
Cheers
Craig Maloney
: [jam...@netcom.com (James Logajan) writes:]
: >
: >
: > As has been pointed out, it would be very difficult for Microsoft to try
: > to pull a fast one and not expect to eventually be caught. It would be
: > a marketing disaster. All those advertising millions lost. Does anybody
: > seriously believe that Microsoft would risk the wrath of the consuming
: > public by placing a trojan software-cop in its operating system?
: James, one would also think it a marketing disaster to release buggy,
: operating systems late. One would also believe it is a marketing
: disaster to give your buying public the finger by strong arming the
: Justice Department. One would think that MicroSquish doesn't much give
: a damn about the consuming public.
Oh contraire... They give a damn, right at the exact moment that the wallet
or checkbook leaves the pocket/purse.
: As to the magnitude of the marketing disaster that would occur, I
: can't help but notice that Prodigy is still in business after being
: caught doing what people are afraid of microsquish doing.
However, most of the consuming public is not aware of what is going on. Look
at the Pentium bug and compare it with the Prodigy scandal. The prodigy
scandal did not have the coverage that the Pentium bug did. Compare the
Pentium bug with Michaelangelo. People swore that their machine might
have a virus after they heard about michaelangelo.
[Rest deleted for brevity]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Maloney | Phone: [313] 390-8096 | Automotive Safety Center
Opinions expressed above are my own. | Ford Motor Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mirko Kraft
In article <3vtauh$e...@newsflash.concordia.ca>, da...@donald.concordia.ca (David
Gaudine) writes:
|> In article <3vrnjo$d...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>, Paul Dineen <p...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
|> >Mike Reed (mr...@norden1.com) wrote:
|> >: John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
|> >
|> >: It was my understanding that the information on ones system is only
|> >: sent if the user registers and indicates by checking a box that it is
|> >: ok to report that information.
|> >
|> > What motivation does Microsoft offer to encourage people to do this?
|>
|> The idea is that when you call them for support they don't have to ask you
|> as many questions about your system configuration, they already have
|> a full (if somewhat outdated) list of your hardware/software.
I just can't believe that M$ spends so much money and time in programming a
sniffer just to simplify support. Have you ever tried to get support from M$ -
in my eyes it's just a waste of time.
What I think is that on the one hand they try to find illegal copies of their
software and burn those people and on the other hand they can find out how many
copies of other software companies' products are out there. And if you own a
non-M$ software be sure to get a special offer for the M$-product short after
registartion.
BTW: If they are able to scan through your executables, they also can scan your
very private data (file protection is a forbidden word in the M$-world). Does
anyone really want this ???
Mirko
------------------------------------------------------------
/ / Mirko Kraft
/ kr...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
/ / /~~/ / / |/
/___ / / / /__/ /| ... because you can't beat a champion !
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Farrell
that's all well and fine, but it should all be out in the open....
e.g., you call ms for tech support and they say, run "support"
program, which then forwards that info.
--
Stephen Farrell The Ben May Institute
The University of Chicago Image Analysis & Web Admin.
email:spfa...@midway.uchicago.edu voice:312-702-0656 fax:312-702-6260
home:312-288-8184 http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/spfarrel
Erik Pennebaker
>However, the part about scanning the network is the really chilling part.
>That means that *one* bozo who accepts "yes" to the seemingly benign question
>transmits information about everybody who is reachable on your local *network*.
>If 19 people say no but one person accidentally says yes--whoops!!
Not really....network infomation would consist of a the server files
you have access to, which is bad but not quite the same as somehow
peeking into every other pc on a lan. If it could peek into other
win95 computers, that'd be a juicy security hole.
As I mentioned before, I've heard that there is a clear button asking if
you want to send this information. Microsloth isn't doing anything illegal
or nasty, its just that the world is so filled with stupid people that
don't know any better....
/ep
--
<<<Erik Pennebaker>>>--------------------------<<<epen...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>>>
"Happiness, is a warm gun. (bang bang shoot shoot)"
These are not the opinions of CCSO. I am the mouthpiece of Mercury.
____________________________________________________________________________
Mirko Kraft
|> In article <3vlhl8$j...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
|> Kyle Anthony York <noe...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU> wrote:
|>
|> ...
|> about the m/s network: if you've ever tried it (doubtfully since you seem
|> to spend all of your time watching CNN), when you register, you are prompted
|> whether or not m/s can scan your system & register all software. if you
|> respond ``no'', this scan doesn't take place.
Yes, you are prompted. But as far as I know MS and its software, who guarantees
that the scan really takes not place when I select 'no' ?
Chris McMullen
>joh...@holmes.ece.orst.edu (Scott Johnson) wrote:
>>
>>True. Just to be safe, though, I'd unplug the phone when using Win 95, i
>>until I actually have to use the modem.... :)
>>
>
>Could you put a packet sniffer on the line when you do finally have to use
>the modem? I don't trust Microsoft, and would like to get a real answer.
>
>
GBH against Bill Gates. Surely, if Microsoft were living up to the paranoia,
the data would just be delayed till the modem was back in...
Would it be possible to somehow run the Registration Wizard program again and
again, and tag on a big binary file, or run it so many times, that the sheer
volume of data screwed Microsoft's server?
--
Chris McMullen... sccm...@ucsalf.ac.uk
************************************************************************
*...maintainer/writer of the Discworld Game Faq... posted weekly to: *
*...usenet groups alt.fan.pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett.announce and....*
*...comp.sys.ibm.pc.games... also available via ftp or www.............*
*----------------------------------------------------------------------*
*...And remember.. loose feet are a very *real* problem... Vic Reeves. *
************************************************************************
ami...@freenet.scri.fsu.edu
>Regarding how to tell if Micro(I'll refrain...) really is scanning your
>hard drive, is the little light that flashes when the drive is in use
>controlled by hardware or software? I.e. does Micro(it's getting
>difficult to refrain) have control over that, too?
>
Win95 could simply scan the disk during bootup, when it's thrashing about, or
during one of it's cache dumps. After all, the LED only indicates that there is
disk activity. It doesn't distinguish between reading and writing. That's one
reason I'm glad I use OS/2. The Internet Access Kit is universal, and works
with ANY Internet access provider, not just Advantis (the IBM provider).
AJ
Billy Chow
>> : It was my understanding that the information on ones system is
>> only : sent if the user registers and indicates by checking a box
>> that it is : ok to report that information.
>>
>> What motivation does Microsoft offer to encourage people to do
>> this?
David> The idea is that when you call them for support they don't have
David> to ask you as many questions about your system configuration,
David> they already have a full (if somewhat outdated) list of your
David> hardware/software. --
David> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't believe somebody actually thinks that the reason why Microsoft
scan your disk is to provide better service.
/Billy
John Wagner
In article <409sk8$h...@sunsystem5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>, kr...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Mirko Kraft) writes:
|>
|>In article <3vtauh$e...@newsflash.concordia.ca>, da...@donald.concordia.ca (David
|>Gaudine) writes:
|>
|>|> In article <3vrnjo$d...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>, Paul Dineen <p...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
|>|> >Mike Reed (mr...@norden1.com) wrote:
|>|> >: John Gossett <jgos...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
|>|> >
|>|> >: sent if the user registers and indicates by checking a box that it is
|>|> >: ok to report that information.
|>|> >
|>|> > What motivation does Microsoft offer to encourage people to do this?
|>|>
|>|> as many questions about your system configuration, they already have
|>|> a full (if somewhat outdated) list of your hardware/software.
|>
|>I just can't believe that M$ spends so much money and time in programming a
|>sniffer just to simplify support. Have you ever tried to get support from M$ -
|>in my eyes it's just a waste of time.
|>
|>What I think is that on the one hand they try to find illegal copies of their
|>software and burn those people and on the other hand they can find out how many
|>copies of other software companies' products are out there. And if you own a
|>non-M$ software be sure to get a special offer for the M$-product short after
|>registartion.
|>
|>BTW: If they are able to scan through your executables, they also can scan your
|>very private data (file protection is a forbidden word in the M$-world). Does
|>anyone really want this ???
Well most of what is said is true, the data that MS will have will NOT be outdated, remember EVERY time you call the data will be downloaded.
Of course those of us in this group already have an answer for MS invasion,
it's called Linux and doesn't sniff out pirates, or count the number of
MS products and last useage numbers. So log into MSN with Linux.
John
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Heck even I don't know what I do, so the company can't. +
+ jwa...@mitre.org | John Wagner | PH# (703)883-3740 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jo...@picard.transy.edu
>disk activity. It doesn't distinguish between reading and writing. That's one
>reason I'm glad I use OS/2. The Internet Access Kit is universal, and works
>with ANY Internet access provider, not just Advantis (the IBM provider).
>
>
> AJ
That's the beauty of a company that supports an "open systems" concept!
brian naylor (jo...@www.transy.edu)
Erik Pennebaker
>ARE YOU KIDDING!!!! I work in a research environment where lots of critical
>data is on several servers that I of course have access to. So if W95 can
>*only* access the server information that *I* can, then there goes the
>security of a whole corporation!!!
>It would be ABSOLUTELY DISASTROUS!!!
Your missing the point....it downloads file names. If you are working with
sensitive information, then you should have the intelligence to click "no"
when it asks the question (as you obviously do).
If you are in an environment where file names are critical info, then
you prolly have a hole right there.
>Now one may say then don't install it. Sure, but I work with many researchers
>whose expertise is not in the field of computers and networks (they just want
>there easy to use win-apps), who have access to the same info, and just may
>go ahead and install W95 - probably saying YES to every prompt they get.....
Yeah, this is the real problem. Remember though, you can install it just
fine without sending them info over the modem. I think its only for their
network that it asks the question...
>And if u feel safe using Linux, don't. With such an open developing env.
>used to create/evolve linux, almost anyone could do the same thing....
>U just don't happen to *pay* them to do it to u.... :)
Took the words right out of my mouth...who has the time to scan through
100s of k of code for a security bug? I do all the compilation under a
dedicated login ("safuser") that doesn't have access to anything. I run
binaries through the "strings" command to check for phrases that might be
bad, but this still doesn't prove anything.
At least microsloth is nice enough to warn you....
>Life would be so much better if we burned all the silly "productive"
>software in the world and just play Descent (or doom or MWII, whatever)...
>Who's gonna want to swipe your .plr file anyway?????
*grin*
/ep
--
Erik Pennebaker>>>-----------------------------------epen...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
"If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise."
These are not the opinions of CCSO. I am the mouthpiece of Zeus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay McCown
>
>brian naylor (jo...@www.transy.edu)
>
By the way, does anyone know the status of ObjectREXX for linux.
Jay McCown
jp...@msstate.edu -- mcc...@ee.msstate.edu
Craig Maloney
: If 19 people say no but one person accidentally says yes--whoops!!
Reminds me of the discussions we had as kids about vampires...
"If one of you allows the vampire in, he's in... that's it. "
Fitting comparison? Maybe...
Bobby D Hournbuckle
>m...@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) writes:
>>However, the part about scanning the network is the really chilling part.
>>That means that *one* bozo who accepts "yes" to the seemingly benign question
>>transmits information about everybody who is reachable on your local *network*.
>
>you have access to, which is bad but not quite the same as somehow
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
ARE YOU KIDDING!!!! I work in a research environment where lots of critical
data is on several servers that I of course have access to. So if W95 can
*only* access the server information that *I* can, then there goes the
security of a whole corporation!!!
It would be ABSOLUTELY DISASTROUS!!!
Now one may say then don't install it. Sure, but I work with many researchers
whose expertise is not in the field of computers and networks (they just want
there easy to use win-apps), who have access to the same info, and just may
go ahead and install W95 - probably saying YES to every prompt they get.....
Dooooohhhh!
So if all this MS trojan horse crap is true, I say we immediately send wild
Bill G. into political, social, and moral exile and torch every copy of
WinXX.XX in existence and go on living peaceful lives using DOS....
Doh again... I guess u just can't win....
And if u feel safe using Linux, don't. With such an open developing env.
used to create/evolve linux, almost anyone could do the same thing....
U just don't happen to *pay* them to do it to u.... :)
Life would be so much better if we burned all the silly "productive"
software in the world and just play Descent (or doom or MWII, whatever)...
Who's gonna want to swipe your .plr file anyway?????
2cents
Bob
Doug DeJulio
Billy Chow <stc...@lewis.eng.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>David> The idea is that when you call them for support they don't have
>David> to ask you as many questions about your system configuration,
>David> they already have a full (if somewhat outdated) list of your
>David> hardware/software. --
>David> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I can't believe somebody actually thinks that the reason why Microsoft
>scan your disk is to provide better service.
Microsoft has admitted (to me) that this wasn't true anyway.
I'm in the W95 preview program. I did the online registration thing,
and gave it permission to send them the list of applications and
copies of my config.sys and autoexec.bat and my hardware inventory.
I called Microsoft tech support, because I was having a bizarre
problem with my CD-ROM drive. They asked me for the details of my
hardware setup, and I started to tell them. Then I said "hey, this
was all in my online registration, can you look it up there?"
The support droid said no. He said only the marketing department had
access to the registration data.
(He *was* able to solve the technical problem I was having, by the
way. It turned out that my CD-ROM drive had massively outdated
firmware, such that it couldn't run in a preemptive multitasking
environment, or so the CD-ROM manufacturer claims.)
--
Doug DeJulio | R$+@$=W <-- sendmail.cf file
mailto:dd...@pitt.edu | {$/{{.+ <-- modem noise
http://www.pitt.edu/~ddj/ | !@#!@@! <-- Mr. Dithers swearing
Doug DeJulio
Andre M. Maloney <a...@primenet.com> wrote:
>In an earlier post it was said:
>>The fact is that Microsoft has NO right to do this! It is invasion of
>>privacy, PURE AND SIMPLE!
>
>Actually, I think it's a great idea, and it was probably born out of the
>frustration of the tech support people.
Um, this would make sense, except it's not working out that way. The
tech support folks cannot gain access to this information.
I run W95. I've called tech support. The tech support folks cannot
gain access to this information. They told me so. Only marketing
gets access to this information, or so the tech support person I spoke
with claimed.
Joseph T. Malloy
>
>I have a question. Is everyone worried about Microsoft "peeking" into their
>systems SIMPLY BECAUSE IT INCLUDES ON-LINE REGISTRATION!?!?!?
>
>I've been reading bits & pieces of this thread, and so far I have not seen
>any evidence that Microsoft is actually collecting data on the systems.
>
>Why don't people get upset at Delrina as well? How many of you people have
>WinFax or DosFax and registered it? Were you worried? Why are you worried
>now?
>
>I'm a Linux user myself. I'm not one to go around supporting Microsoft, but
>I want to know if there are any substantive reasons to believe that Microsoft
>is collecting system information illegally with Win95.
Well, some folks are just plain paranoid that Billy G.'s out to git them
(that siren in the background the the Microsoft Police!); others are anti
Microsoft because they incorrectly fear that it's a monopoly. And some
are ostwo users who know better but figure all's fair in love and war.
It's been explained to my satisfaction that MS gives you a choice of
whether or not to include the hardware and software with registration --
you *must* choose "yes" or "no", there is no default answer. And they
give you another choice as well: you don't have to use the on-line
registration at all.
Doug DeJulio
>
>I have a question. Is everyone worried about Microsoft "peeking" into their
>systems SIMPLY BECAUSE IT INCLUDES ON-LINE REGISTRATION!?!?!?
Nope. They're upset because the online registration contains a list
of the software it found on your hard drive.
I'm in the W95 preview program. I *did* use the online registration.
After typing in the name and stuff, it came back and said "I found the
following programs on your hard drive. May I please notify Microsoft
that you own them, so we can tell you about product updates and stuff
like that?" And a list followed, indicating that it knew I'd
installed Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, and Works. I
clicked on "YES", and Microsoft now knows I've got those pieces of
software installed on a W95 system.
It's actually really not a problem, unless you're a pirate (I'm not, I
actually bought all that stuff, at dirt-cheap student rates). It
doesn't seem to notice non-Microsoft applications -- at least not any
of the ones I own.
Brad Garcia
I have a question. Is everyone worried about Microsoft "peeking" into their
systems SIMPLY BECAUSE IT INCLUDES ON-LINE REGISTRATION!?!?!?
I've been reading bits & pieces of this thread, and so far I have not seen
any evidence that Microsoft is actually collecting data on the systems.
Why don't people get upset at Delrina as well? How many of you people have
WinFax or DosFax and registered it? Were you worried? Why are you worried
now?
I'm a Linux user myself. I'm not one to go around supporting Microsoft, but
I want to know if there are any substantive reasons to believe that Microsoft
is collecting system information illegally with Win95.
Brad Garcia
root
: In article <4089kc$f...@nnrp2.primenet.com>,
: Andre M. Maloney <a...@primenet.com> wrote:
: >In an earlier post it was said:
: >>The fact is that Microsoft has NO right to do this! It is invasion of
: >>privacy, PURE AND SIMPLE!
: >
: >Actually, I think it's a great idea, and it was probably born out of the
: >to people how to find out what version of MS whatever they're running. No
: >longer will they have to say "Well, call me back when find out what com port
: >the mouse is on." etc. Sad to say but *most* end users can't give tech-support
: >the answers needed to troubleshoot the problem.
: >While I don't intend to buy MSW95, I think the automated supply of information
: >will help the soon-to-be beleagured tech-support staff. I'll even go so far as
: >to say I salute MS for trying something novel to help its customers.
: >
: >Cheers
: >
: that's all well and fine, but it should all be out in the open....
: e.g., you call ms for tech support and they say, run "support"
: program, which then forwards that info.
Guys, that's what MSD does! (When it works.. it simply locks up about
half the time on my machine.. I guess it doesn't like having serial ports on
like IRQ 6 and 7, etc., as well as Linux does 8-).
: --
Bobby D Hournbuckle
>bdh...@cs.rit.edu (Bobby D Hournbuckle) writes:
>
>>security of a whole corporation!!!
>
>>It would be ABSOLUTELY DISASTROUS!!!
>
>
You are correct, filenames wouldn't be to big of a deal --> if that were *ALL*
it downloaded....
Unfortunately, in MS paradigm, if you have access to the filenames, u also
have access to the files themselves.... Who knows what MS could really do
with this type of capability in all of the OS packs it ships....
And I personally don't trust Billy G. to keep his grubby pocket protector
off of anything that might bring in an extra penny!!!! ;->
Why don't we just create a 32-bit OS specifically for games -- GAMEOS,
and just play all day long... Hey, if Linus Torvalds can do unix,
come on, GAMEOS should be easy!!!!! :)
2cents
Bob H.
Bobby D Hournbuckle
>
>
>it's called Linux and doesn't sniff out pirates, or count the number of
>MS products and last useage numbers. So log into MSN with Linux.
>
>John
>
>--
Remember, unless you actually write your own kernel source code, Linux is even
*LESS* secure in this respect...
It does however allow you to search through the source for your kernel to make
sure nobody threw in a security hole on purpose and to see exactly how big the
hole is, which is more than you can probably ever say for Win95....
2cents
Bob H.
Kendall Beaman
: What does it do if you DON'T have a modem? Tranmit through the etheric
: plane? Psychic vibrations? Surreptitiously print out a letter and sneak
: out to the mailbox while you're away at work? Please don't tell me that they
: were so stupid as to REQUIRE a modem for the installation of an OS/Windows
: system. Or maybe a Microsoft agent follows you from the store, and breaks into
: your home in the middle of the night, scanning your hard drive (and beating your
: Tetris score).
Oh the humanity. You can break into my house and steal my software but
not the tetris score!!! :)
: I can believe that they put it in. I can believe that they might use some
: kind of terror campaign to get it through, and then to come down on Joe User.
: I can't believe that they think the average user is so stupid as to allow it,
: or buy the product if it's unavoidable. I also can't believe that they believe
: that everyone has a modem, and that everyone that DOES have a modem has it
: connected at all times.
Don't underestimate the power of people who don't know what they're
doing. Here's something to think about. The health department I work for
put up a bunch of old terminals for an auction. Obviously they didn't
work right. A lady spent $1300 and bought a few saying "If I can just get
one of these terminals to work I'll have gotten a good deal." Terminals
mind you. Not a computer. Not a monitor. Just a terminal.
: Fuck Windows. I'll stick to DOS 5.0 and Linux. I might just go buy a Mac.
No!!!!! Not a Mac. Don't do it man. You have so much to live for. Come,
lets talk about it some more. You say you've always hated Windows? Let's
explore this... :)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mind what Congress does, as long as they don't do it in the
streets and frighten the horses. -- Victor Hugo
bea...@andrews.edu
John Reinhold
> In article <STCCMC.95...@lewis.eng.ox.ac.uk>,
> Billy Chow <stc...@lewis.eng.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> >David> The idea is that when you call them for support they don't have
> >David> to ask you as many questions about your system configuration,
> >David> they already have a full (if somewhat outdated) list of your
> >David> hardware/software. --
> >David> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >I can't believe somebody actually thinks that the reason why Microsoft
> >scan your disk is to provide better service.
I would not believe what *they* say.
Would you admit that you were doing something that 90% of the
public would oppose? NO, but you might still do it.
What Microsoft SAYS they are doing, and what they are really
doing could be apples and oranges, quite different.
----------------------------<*>----------------------------
TEAM OS/2
At WARP speed, Windows should not be open.
OAKLAND RAIDERS REAL MEN WEAR BLACK
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<:>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
rein...@wsnet.com Montgomery, Alabama USA
rein...@math.enmu.edu Portales, New Mexico USA
No Constitution, No Freedom. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Erv Walter
>And if u feel safe using Linux, don't. With such an open developing env.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>used to create/evolve linux, almost anyone could do the same thing....
>U just don't happen to *pay* them to do it to u.... :)
'Open Developing Environment': Exactly. With thousands of people using
Linux, which is distributed as SOURCE CODE (Yes, lots of people DO read
through the source code patches when they come out), any trogan horse would
be found and reported to the non-source-reading public in a matter of
hours/days. It is the "open delevoping environment" that makes Linux
so safe.
Erv
--
,,,
(o o)
-----------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo-----------------------------
Different all twisty - 00edw...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
a of in maze are you, - edwa...@serv2.fwi.com
passages little. - relat...@bsu.edu
phy...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
> Why don't we just create a 32-bit OS specifically for games -- GAMEOS,
> and just play all day long... Hey, if Linus Torvalds can do unix,
> come on, GAMEOS should be easy!!!!! :)
> 2cents
> Bob H.
It's quite expensive but it have a lot of games written for it,
better than SEGA.
It's a real shame that they didn't though of writing that game loader
as application for an OS but it seems that the things are moving
eg. you have dosemu for Linux, but not every game works under it yet.
It's a real pain to reboot the machine every time you want to play
some fancy games.
Have fun ! :-) :-) :-)
Ryurick M. Hristev
phy...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
olav woelfelschneider
: Actually, I think it's a great idea, and it was probably born out of the
: frustration of the tech support people.
HarHarHar... read the posting popped up here a few days before:
Guy used W95-beta, gave disc-scan permission, then called tech support
and said: Hey, who do you ask me questions, just use the disc scan.
Support-Droid answered: Only the marketing department has access to the
data.
: ... I salute MS for trying something novel to help its customers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
its marketing..... (:
Olav
--
Olav "Mac" Woelfelschneider wo...@rbg.informatik.th-darmstadt.de
mcl...@bubba.is.in-berlin.de
---------------- Linux -- Where do you want to fly today? ----------------
Brad Alexander
: In article 95Aug7...@mahi.bbn.com, dgi...@mahi.bbn.com (Dave Ginter) writes:
: > The FACTS as I understand them are :
: >
: > 1. microsoft has built in the capability to scan your harddrive and
: > upload information that microsoft deems pertinent to microsoft network's
: > main computers.
: >
: > 2. microsoft has a dialog box, asking for your permission to upload
: > that information to their network.
: >
: This is where I have a small problem....
: What does it do if you DON'T have a modem? Tranmit through the etheric
: plane? Psychic vibrations? Surreptitiously print out a letter and sneak
: out to the mailbox while you're away at work? Please don't tell me that they
: were so stupid as to REQUIRE a modem for the installation of an OS/Windows
: system. Or maybe a Microsoft agent follows you from the store, and breaks into
: your home in the middle of the night, scanning your hard drive (and beating your
: Tetris score).
: I can believe that they put it in. I can believe that they might use some
: kind of terror campaign to get it through, and then to come down on Joe User.
: I can't believe that they think the average user is so stupid as to allow it,
: or buy the product if it's unavoidable. I also can't believe that they believe
: that everyone has a modem, and that everyone that DOES have a modem has it
: connected at all times.
Well, one point is if you don't have a modem, you can't get the M$
network...Or any network for that matter...
--Brad
Linux and OS/2. All is right with the world.
"Gentlemen...May the wind be at our backs. Stations, please."
--J. T. Kirk
Stephen Knilans
>In an earlier post it was said:
>>The fact is that Microsoft has NO right to do this! It is invasion of
>>privacy, PURE AND SIMPLE!
>
>to people how to find out what version of MS whatever they're running. No
>longer will they have to say "Well, call me back when find out what com port
>the mouse is on." etc. Sad to say but *most* end users can't give tech-support
>the answers needed to troubleshoot the problem.
>While I don't intend to buy MSW95, I think the automated supply of information
>will help the soon-to-be beleagured tech-support staff. I'll even go so far as
>
Yeah right, and I'm daffy duck! You REALLY think they are doing this to HELP?
They probably won't even give the "techs" the info. ALSO, this solves NOTHING!
Who even says I am using that machine? Frankly, I am SICK of the "educated"
assumptions. It is like HP that didn't give me the book which SHOULD have
come with their printer! They kept asking what O/S I had! I told them "THAT'S
***NOT*** RELEVANT!". They asked me what software I was using, and I SAID MY
OWN!!!!!!! They suggested using drivers, and I told them(which they would have
known the second I called if they had half a brain), that they were WORTHLESS!
1. I was NOT using any O/S they supported.
2. even if they DID, I was not using any software they supported!
3. even if they DID, they STILL should have given me this info!
If I pay for a $1500+ printer that is ADVERTISED as being able to do X,Y,Z,
I expect them to give me the info so I can do that MYSELF whether I hook it
up to an APPLE II, or a CRAY!
Too many techs are just people given a card with a few problems on it, and
CANNED questions. If Microsoft, HP, IBM, etc... want to cut their support
budget to ZERO and provide the same support, they can simply ship that sheet
with the products!
Steve
Gary R Sekinger
of argument. It implies that the opinion being defended has a weak
basis. Simply ripping on Microsoft, IMHO, impiles jealousy of thier
success/software/abilities.
I suggest that folks stick to the purpose of this group, namely Linux Advocacy!
Charles Grant
>reason I'm glad I use OS/2. The Internet Access Kit is universal, and works
>with ANY Internet access provider, not just Advantis (the IBM provider).
Ahh, but how do you know that OS/2 isn't scanning your disk at startup, and smuggling out
a few packets out to IBM's gargantuan mainframes everytime you start a PPP/SLIP session?
IBM may not be your Internet gateway, but they are on the Internet.
Those of you leaning towards conspiracy theories might want to remember a couple of
incidents from the previous decade.
Back in the 80's Sears and IBM launched a new on-line service. You may have heard of it, it's
called Prodigy :-). Like MSN, it allowed users to register on-line, and like MSN it generated
a lot of rumors that the Prodigy software was scanning people's disks and reporting confidential
information back to IBM headquarters. People even found "secret files" (PRODIGY.DAT as I recall)
containing personal information gleaned from their computer. Of course it turned out that is was just
sectors from deleted files being reused without being wiped, but folks were conviced for a long time
that IBM and Sears were spying on them.
I think it was also in the 80's that Brian Kernighan (or was it Dennis Ritchie? My apologies if I've bolixed the
names) won the ACM Turing Prize. At his acceptance he gave a funny and frightening talk on trust in systems
development. He alleged that he had placed a trojan horse in the original C compiler for UNIX, so that whenever
it compiled the password program it gave him a back door. Furthermore, the trojan was so sophisticated that whenever
it compiled the C compiler, it inserted itself in the new executable. Even if you are running Linux
and have read every single line of source, you must have bootstraped from somewhere. How do you
know that it hasn't inserted Trojan horses all through your system? Because you trust your supplier of course!
So who is your supplier and why do you trust them?
OK, Microsoft is a big, self-serving corporation, should you trust them? My guess is that big self-serving corporations
are like people in this regard: they usually don't lie when they know they can be easily checked up on. It is so easy
to monitor every byte that moves between MSN and your computer that they wouldn't have a prayer of sneaking
out any information, other then what they say they are sending, without folks tumbling to it pretty quickly and spilling
the beans to the rest of us. Unless of course they are in cahoots with all the folks who write protocol analyzers. Now
that would be a conspiracy!
Best wishes,
Charles Grant
smc...@ibm.net
>In <40akqc$d...@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu>, ami...@freenet.scri.fsu.edu writes:
>>disk activity. It doesn't distinguish between reading and writing. That's one
>>with ANY Internet access provider, not just Advantis (the IBM provider).
>>
>>
>
> That's the beauty of a company that supports an "open systems" concept!
>
>brian naylor (jo...@www.transy.edu)
Absolutely. And the reason we need more than one OS so Wild Bill doesn't go
completely crazy. As a happy Warper, I can sit back and watch the Gates
zombies wring their hands.
Terry Spurlock
>And if u feel safe using Linux, don't. With such an open developing env.
>used to create/evolve linux, almost anyone could do the same thing....
>U just don't happen to *pay* them to do it to u.... :)
The difference between Linux and Win95 is that we have the source to
almost every program that runs on Linux, and if we want to see what a
program does, we pull out the source and look at it. It's kind of hard
to hide things like this from someone who has the source.
The simple solution to prevent this is to run only programs for which
source is available. You know *someone* out there has checked out the
source, and if he found anything like this, the whole net would be on the
author's ass.
--
The System has detected an Internal Processing Error in module REALITY.SYS.
Please shut down your universe and reboot.
Bob Doherty
: Of course those of us in this group already have an answer for MS invasion,
: it's called Linux and doesn't sniff out pirates, or count the number of
: MS products and last useage numbers. So log into MSN with Linux.
That's only if you can log onto MSN using just a term program. If I'm not
mistaken, you need a front-end program for these online services (I wouldn't
know, for I'm proud to say I've never been on AOL or Prodigy (or any others,
but I regard them a bit higher)), in which case you couldn't use a simple term
program. Anyway, why would you log onto MSN if you're running linux?
--
**********************************************************************
Kevin Doherty -- kdoh...@mail.mbhs.edu
**********************************************************************
Bob Doherty
: James Logajan (jam...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Finally, why is anybody buying W95 anyway??
:
: The same reason some people feel this pressing need to speak when
: they have no clue. Maybe they're just used to it.
Exactly. It's because the world is filled with Homer Simpsons.
(here's the relevant quote)
Lisa: A wise man once said "Tis better to speak not and be thought a fool than
to speak and remove all doubt".
Homer: (thinking)What does that mean? Better say something quick so you don't
look stupid (speaking) Oh yeah? Well, takes one to know one! (thinking again)
Good save (or something like that).
(end quote)
Nobody wants to look like a fool and be the one w/o Win95.
Kenneth M Goldenberg
Chris McMullen <sccm...@ucsalf.ac.uk> wrote:
>Would it be possible to somehow run the Registration Wizard program again and
>again, and tag on a big binary file, or run it so many times, that the sheer
>volume of data screwed Microsoft's server?
I was actually thinking that if you could find the "address" they were sending
the tree to, that that would be a nice place to mail a copy of your Linux
Kernel. After all, they **DO** want to know what we're running right? ;)
Ken
--
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
--->mi...@jedi.pcix.com
Mika Sorsa
: John Wagner (jwa...@mental.mitre.org) wrote:
: : Of course those of us in this group already have an answer for MS invasion,
: : it's called Linux and doesn't sniff out pirates, or count the number of
: : MS products and last useage numbers. So log into MSN with Linux.
: That's only if you can log onto MSN using just a term program. If I'm not
: mistaken, you need a front-end program for these online services (I wouldn't
: know, for I'm proud to say I've never been on AOL or Prodigy (or any others,
: but I regard them a bit higher)), in which case you couldn't use a simple term
: program. Anyway, why would you log onto MSN if you're running linux?
Because they (creatures behind the idea of this download operation) want
us to log and register. So let them have it. Let the 1st M$
win0x5f killer app be an "Automatic Registration Wizard" that *really*
hooks into this and send *some* *info* back to MSN - I'd recommend
Monty Python's Complete Waste of Time, except it's too good to be
wasted for that...
: --
: **********************************************************************
: Kevin Doherty -- kdoh...@mail.mbhs.edu
: **********************************************************************
--
?