http://www.osnews.com/story/11588/Should_Microsoft_Release_Patching_Worms_ Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 21 May 2013 06:11:28 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://www.osnews.com/thread?19065 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19065 And when they get sued when their patching worm corrupts a production system in a fortune 1000 company we can all sit back and laugh.


Some companies skip patches for a reason. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19066 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19066 This comes up every 6 months. The answer hasn't changed. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19078 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19078 The article also says no. For the same reasons as before.

It is a good read, though. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19091 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19091 I know this is one of those recurring memes onthe net, but really who is it that tinks this is a good idea? How much will these peole like it when the next 'patch worm' does a DRM update and suddenly non of their media will work? Or suddenly they'e unable to open the html document they jut saved because they don't have authorcreator authentications?

Don't laugh, the way things have been going lately that IS the future. The next time one of us geeks wh ought know better proposes something like this, even as speculaion, let's try to remember that what gets imposed on the technically iliterate is something that we ALL have to lve with--just look at Windows activation and how many pirates its created out of people who use a VLK copy of Windows despite actually being the owner of a legitatmate Windows Key and media simply to avoid the hasslesof re-re-e-re-regstation every time they upgrade.

People need to start thinkin about the law of unintended consequences!

--bornagainpenguin

PS: 'I use Linux, this type of stuff doesn't affect me' doesn't apply here--Linus has made it clear that he (for better or worse) sees nothng wrong with DRM...this type of thing affects everyone! Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bornagainenguin) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19093 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19093 Principal Skinner: Milhouse? Do you like the beach?
Milhouse: Who doesn't?
Principal Skinner: Good. I want you to pick up all this medical waste that's washed up on the shore, here.
Milhouse: Ow! I pricked myself.
Principal Skinner: Well, just keep working. You'll prick yourself with the antidote sooner or later. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Tyr.) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19095 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19095 I think it'd be neat to see someone do this, but like the guy in the interview said, there are downsides to it.

Despite the potential downsides, I say go for it! Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19096 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19096 That's what Windows Update is for. If they want to force a patch, then they should push it through Windows Update without the option to refuse the patch. There are numerous reasons for not doing this of course, most of them mutual to the idea of a "patch worm", but if they are going to do it at all, it should be through the front door and not the back. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Motz) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19101 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19101 Bloody well put. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DittoBox) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19105 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19105 In case you don't know the first worm was designed to automagically patch a piece of software and it soon got out of control. Imagine the disaster of a piece of software designed by Microseft combined with the potential havok wrecking of a worm. The best thing they could do is unplug all those PCs running the proprietary piece of shit Windows XP system from the network and ony allow non-Windows OSs on the Internet. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19120 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19120 I think you're blowing this whole DRM thing out of proportion.

If for example, Microsoft removes your ability to play non-DRM'd content (which I don't see happening anytime soon), use something else. If the use of hardware enforced DRM becomes mandatory, it's not the technology that is the problem, but the people making the rules.

TCPA can be used for a lot of good things, most of which have sod all to do with DRM, and you as a Linux user would do well to adopt it for those reasons when the technology becomes widely available (storing cryptographic keys in the hardware instead of in files on your HD, etc.).

I don't ever see a situation come about wherein alternative operating systems will not be able to run on TCPA hardware. If some Disney flicks won't play on these machines because that corporation doesn't trust your software, I hardly see that as a huge loss.

Back on topic, I think this patching worm is a neat idea, but it's likely to cause more problems than it's worth. That's what automatic updates are for. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lazarus) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19125 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19125 Wasn't the first internet worm pretty innocent, but the coder made a mathmatical error and it brought most of the internet down? I'd hate to see what a buggy rushed to release MS produced worm could do. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (thryllkill) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19138 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19138 >>I think you're blowing this whole DRM thing out of proportion.

Fair enough...It's just the first example that came to mind.

I just have a problem with people thinking a 'patch worm' is a good idea. Like I said we need to beware the law of unintended consequences.

>>If for example, Microsoft removes your ability to play non-DRM'd
>>content (which I don't see happening anytime soon), use
>>something else. If the use of hardware enforced DRM
>>becomes mandatory, it's not the technology that is the
>>problem, but the people making the rules.

Ah! But with a 'patch worm' we're not talking about the people who make the rules anymore. We're talking about arbitary decisions being made for you by God knows who! Okay, here's a senario for you, like many of us I have a legal copy of Windows XP, yet use a VLK cd in order to not have to call home to Microsoft every time I reinstall or want to fiddle with my hardware or software. Now suppose someone gets tired of all the people out there running the FCKGW Windows series and builds a patch worm that would cause their machines to stop working by patching the system to behave like XP HomePro after the grace period.

What about a 'patch worm' that goes through your MP3s collection and if it finds say...Madonna it deletes all songs with her name? Or maybe the RIAA manages to get that law rammed through where by they can send viruses out to 'fix' your computer if you're caught with any of the known p2p mp3s?

>>TCPA can be used for a lot of good things, most of which
>>have sod all to do with DRM, and you as a Linux user
>>would do well to adopt it for those reasons when the
>>technology becomes widely available (storing
>>cryptographic keys in the hardware instead of in files on
>>your HD, etc.).

Which is eactly the arguments used by Linus himself in favor of adding these technologies to Linux. That said I don't like the idea of apps being able to run on my system without my giving the say so. And a surprisingly large ammount of the population agrees, which is why they've had so many people getting so upsset when random spyware app X installs itself without intervention. The loss of control of their machine infuriates them!

>>Back on topic, I think this patching worm is a neat idea,
>>but it's likely to cause more problems than it's worth.

Which is amazingly the point I'd been trying to make. Only I gave some examples.

--iWindoze Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bornagainenguin) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19143 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19143 Fair enough. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lazarus) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19145 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19145 You need to recheck your worm-history. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ronald Vos) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19186 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19186 Despite the potential downsides, I say go for it!

OK, what are the upsides that are worth the downsides?

Keep in mind that you have to put serious effort into convincing me (and others) who have already gone over this idea many times in the past and have come up with the conclusion each time that it's a really really bad idea.

I'm not against being convinced, though at this time I'd have to consider anyone who released a patching worm in to the wild a "bad guy" just as bad as the creators and distributors of intentionally distructive viruses. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19188 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19188 Agreed. I like to know when i'm being flam-boozled Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19208 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19208 Ok, besides the topic being old and beaten, there were some interesting links behind the article. From the blog, you can reach that guy's papers for example. Good reading. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ronald Vos) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19289 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19289 what I cannot understand is this....

why do journalists come up with stupid ideas like this and expect everyone to say "yes please!"

do they think all Windows users are that stupid they do not know the importance of updating their own machines ?

do they not trust the Windows users to try at least to keep their own PCs secure ?

do they think all Windows users are so dumb that they have to have everything done for them automatically ?

Personally, I do not use Windows, but if I did, I would have felt insulted by the retard who thought of this. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (raver31) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19310 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19310 I'm sorry, but no. That's rediculous and people should go to prison if they unleash it. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ma_d) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19380 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19380 ... mickeysoft unfukcs the damage. Now, bend over and enjoy. Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19412 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19412 Updates are always a difficult process, sometimes they break things. eg.XP service pack 2
But at least when you do apply them you know that you applied them and can take steps to figure out how to fix the newly created problem.
If patches are applied without your knowledge then you have no starting point with which to fix things.
Very Bad Idea. Thu, 18 Aug 2005 03:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jessta) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19419 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19419 If you are talking about the Morris worm, it is questionable if it really was a mathematical error. Later analysis showed that it was fairly sloppy written, and I seem to remember that this "mathematical error" didn't really have any impact on the outcome. Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19420 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19420 It's a reality that a lot of hosts on the internet that run MS Windows aren't patched. We are talking about 30% or more. And since Windoh has a great market share, we are talking of millions vulnerable systems... Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19462 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19462 I just spent a whole evening with a Powerbook, and then checked OSNews and there it was. People argue with foam at the mouth about whether or not MICROSOFT SHOULD RELEASE ITS PATCHING WORM! And another article is about "New variants of worms" that hit Windows systems. Wake up people! That's gross! That's ridiculous! Are you taking worms for granted or what? They should never ever happen in the first place! Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Buck) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19488 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19488 'nuff said. Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19543 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19543 i got enough 3rd party software i use that does a good job at preventing worms. i never had any virses at all since i deleted internet explorer and used opera as my default browser Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?19763 http://www.osnews.com/thread?19763 Jesus Christ, how much bandwidth do you want to waste to fix a broken product? It's time to give up the idea of security on a closed source platform and switch to open source.

Be free, be open. FREEDOM! Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?20072 http://www.osnews.com/thread?20072 A patching worm has just as much potential to halt the internet as a real worm. What if microsoft had released XP SP2 (or parts of it) as a worm? I saw that SP crash 8 out of 10 computers it touched. Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments