Antivirus software company admits antivirus is useless. Flame malware signed with Microsoft keys.

Two interesting stories on The H Online regarding the Flame malware for Windows.

Antivirus company F-Secure has had samples of Flame since 2010, other antivirus companies have as well, yet they were unable to detect Flame until recently.

This means that Flame has been out there for over two years and no antivirus software has done anything about it.

Flame was signed with a forged Microsoft cryptographic key.

The forgery was simple to pull off since Microsoft’s Certificate Root doesn’t keep proper track of their keys and uses weak DES which most e-commerce sites haven’t bothered to use since the EFF demonstrated that it could be easily cracked using commodity PC hardware from 1998.

This demonstrates a couple things I’ve been saying all along.

1. Why do browser makers not bother to make sure that “Trusted” certificate roots can actually be, you know….trusted? You have Mozilla, Google, and Opera conspiring to keep CACert out, but all of them would trust insecure Microsoft keys from Microsoft’s certificate authority. What’s more disturbing is that Windows apparently recognizes Microsoft’s DES keys. I doubt that it would allow you to sign a kernel module with them, but it would be sufficient to suppress the security warning that pops up that says the software isn’t signed.

2. Antivirus software is pointless. It has marginal effectiveness against common malware, and no effectiveness at all with more sophisticated malware. It’s hard to tell whether this is incompetence or because the US government and Israel write malicious Windows software all the time, and they’d rather that users of Windows not be protected from it.

Google is being sued by some idiot using Safari on a Mac. US Congress critters investigate.

I noticed this yesterday and decided to comment.

There’s a big stink going on right now. Someone found out that Google was setting “third party cookies” (for their advertising servers) in Apple’s Safari browser, which defaults to not loading third party cookies (which I’ll get to in a moment).

Now it appears that someone using Safari on a Mac that expected privacy somehow, is suing Google. (The PC World article on the first link has a more accurate technical description of what’s going on)

In short, someone found a bug in Safari, and now Google is being sued and is under investigation by Congress. We know how much Congress can be expected to know about the internet based on their hilarious to horrifying attempts to regulate it as many of them uttered things like “I don’t know how this here internet thing works, but they tell me….” or the late Senator Ted Steven’s infamous “series of tubes” comment. To say nothing of the fact that Congress flip flops between mandatory tracking for all and bullshit “consumer privacy concerns” such as this one. (For those concerned with the former, the bill is called HR 1981, but a more fitting name would be HR 1984)

If this was a bug in Firefox, it would be fixed. If it was a bug in Chrome, it would be fixed.

Somehow, Microsoft and Apple users seem to think they can use proprietary secret software when they’re not allowed to know how it works and have privacy at the same time. Software which has a history of many bugs,  with vendors that typically take weeks/months/years to patch them once they’re made public. These companies also slip back doors into the software for various government agencies.

Apple was recently caught with a back door that they put into iTunes, it remained there for 3 years, undetected, which facilitated man in the middle attacks. (A government could use this to run a counterfeit iTunes server and load malicious software onto the victim’s computer. The article calls it a flaw, but we know what was really going on, and that it was likely just moved.).

There’s no way you can trust Microsoft or Apple’s software to protect your privacy. Anyone who has actually read the EULA for Windows (especially XP, Vista, and 7) should know that there are at least several dozen Windows components that phone home to Microsoft with your personal information. Most do it over an encrypted connection so that the user has a very hard time telling what is actually being sent to them. Apple isn’t any better.

Let’s get back to cookie controls. They’re a red herring. They’re totally bogus. They don’t do anything for you. Every browser has them, even Internet Explorer 6. They don’t do anything to protect you because cookies are passe. Tracking and spyware sites have developed data mining techniques that work well even if the user clears every cookie they ever set.

One method is to associate IP addresses with log ins. Facebook, Google, and Microsoft all do that. Even after you log out, it’s possible for them to track you personally. There’s other methods. Browsers like Firefox and Chrome are just now starting to implement watered down privacy controls for Adobe’s Flash software (which is proprietary software and a frequent cause of cross platform/cross browser security problems).

Flash has “supercookies”, or what is more technically known as Local Storage Objects. Flash LSO’s can be up to 150 KB (which is 37.5 times larger than a cookie), a site can store as many as they want on your computer (just like a cookie), and (unlike cookies), most browsers do very little to nothing about them. Silverlight has something similar, users of Windows where Silverlight is sneaked over the fence by Windows Update should take notice of that.

The take home message here is that it was ludicrous for this guy to expect any kind of enhanced privacy just because Safari has some lame cookie controls which are a piss poor clone of something Mozilla introduced well over 10 years ago. I really doubt that will stop this frivolous lawsuit, and I fully expect the anti-Google interests called Microsoft and Apple to play this up for all the drama it’s worth.

Microsoft hired the scumbags over at  Waggener Edstrom a while back to launch a smear campaign against Google, and Microsoft is already jumping on this Safari problem like a dog in heat. (I won’t link since I can’t seem to find an article that is telling people the truth about where the anti-Google smear is coming from. Waggener Edstrom specializes in astroturfing and attack ads. They’ve worked for companies like BP and Walmart, and for many a corrupt politician. (When you see that disgusting outrageous pants-on-fire “GMail Man” attack ad, that’s who made it).

If you’d like to know more about these people, Techrights has occasionally blogged about what they’re up to and who they work for.

So now that we’ve covered the facts about Microsoft and Apple, IE and Safari’s lack of real privacy controls, and why cookie controls do nothing.

There’s a number of things you CAN do to really prevent or limit how sites track you. Here’s some suggestions.

Firefox users can use Adblock Plus (just remember to opt out of the “acceptable ads nonsense). Delete Easylist’s filter subscription, and add these instead.

Better yet, use Chrome/Chromium with Chrome Adblock, remove Easylist, and use these instead. (Chrome Adblock is better than Adblock Plus for Chrome, the two are unrelated)

Firefox or Chrome 17+ users can install HTTPS Everywhere (The Chrome version is an alpha for the time being, but it does work)

Opera users can use Opera’s content blocker to block advertising and stat/tracking sites. Pre-made lists here. Remember to manually update them now and then or skip the process and let Opera Adblock do the same thing for you if you have Opera 11 or later.

Firefox and Chrome can also block Flash applets from automatically loading, saving you bandwidth and making flash applets that track you or load malicious software less effective. Firefox has Flashblock, Chrome users can enable the Click to Load option in the advanced settings for plug-ins.

Weaker protection for users who insist on inferior browsers with government spyware built in.

Internet Explorer 9 supports “tracking protection lists”, which are a small/watered down subset of true content blocking. Pre-made TPLs for IE here.

Safari users can use Safari Adblock, it’s from the same guy that made Chrome adblock. I’ve never used that one, but if it comes with Easylist, rip it out and add these.

The bottom line is that the only way to protect yourself from tracking servers is to not connect to or run applets from them to begin with.

Microsoft to auto-destroy many copies of Windows with IE “upgrade”

U INFECTED BRO?

Today on The Heise Online, they mention that Microsoft is set to automatically download and install the latest version of Internet Explorer that manages to run on the particular Windows version installed. Since XP is the oldest thing they support, those users will get the obsolete Internet Explorer 8 browser, and Windows 7 users will no doubt get IE 9, which is only barely an improvement over IE 8.

I have no idea how they plan on updating Windows Vista users, but that will no doubt be another surprise for anyone foolish enough to actually be using it. There is IE 9 support for Vista (Which is where they will cut off support), but to get it you need a humongous “platform update” full of select backported crap from Windows 7.

Regardless of what version of Windows the user has, an Internet Explorer update is always dangerous since Microsoft continues to claim it is a system component and not a web browser. It means that at best, you need to reboot your computer, and if the upgrade goes wrong it can mean anything from Internet Explorer not working to the Windows shell failing in inappropriate ways. Internet Explorer installations and upgrades have had a significant number of cases of destroying the operating system beyond being salvageable since at least Windows 95.

No decent operating system claims the web browser is an integrated component that can’t be removed. The Internet Explorer situation is a continuing monopoly abuse and Internet Explorer itself is a relic from the 1990s, when Microsoft tried killing Netscape by forcibly installing their own web browser into Windows.

While we’re on the topic, most other operating systems don’t need to reboot after the user updates their web browser, file manager, media player, email client…..

This “almost comical if so many Microsoft victims weren’t suffering through it” situation makes me wonder what kind of a contrived setup those Microsoft funded “studies” used to get “99.999% uptime”. As soon as you apply any patch or update for Windows, it needs rebooted before the new files are used. Even if the user doesn’t want to reboot. Windows will pester them until they do or better yet, start a countdown and reboot the computer without regard to any work the user has left open and unsaved.

This was one factor, out of many, that frustrated me enough to leave Windows. Another factor is that they routinely triage security patches and frequently leave critical flaws open until the next month, like they did with BEAST this month.

That graph is funny, isn’t it? It’s not that Windows has gotten safer, it’s simply that Microsoft is stretching to classify updates that once would have rated critical as “important” based on the factors of “security improvements” in Windows that are often ineffective. (ASLR not being as random as it could be. NX/DEP being off by default for 32-bit software, many applications don’t bother using stack smashing protection because it exposes their programming flaws and causes them to crash, etc.) In many cases the user is left less than protected by what passes as Windows “security improvements” which is why malware is still rampant.

How can any human being tolerate this?

Help yourself to a decent operating system or at least a decent web browser. Firefox Chrome Opera