Credit goes to Bruce Schneier, who warned about this when it was first introduced publicly. He predicted exactly what would happen with Microsoft's back doors (also learn about CIPAV), which it foolishly believed it could keep under exclusive police control. According to this from Gizmodo:
Apparently Microsoft's COFEE software that helps law enforcement grab data from password protected or encrypted sources is leaking all over the internet. So not only can you steal the software, but break the law by using it too.
Siren.gif: Microsoft COFEE law enforcement tool leaks all over the Internet~!
[..]
It was one of the most sought after applications on the Internet until it was leaked earlier today. And now that it’s out there—and it is all over the place, easily findable by anyone able to use a search engine—we can all move on with our lives. Yes, Microsoft COFEE, the law enforcement tool that mystified so many of us (including Gizmodo~! and Ars Technica~!), is now available to download. If only there were a “bay” of some sort where, I don’t know, pirates hang out…
What Windows Autorun Has Wrought
[...]
A new report by Microsoft shows that the two most prevalent threats to Windows PCs in the first half of 2009 were malicious programs that have been aided mightily in their spread by a decision by Microsoft to allow the contents of removable media -- such as USB thumb drives -- to load automatically when inserted into Windows machines.
In its latest "Security Intelligence Report," Microsoft counted the number of threats detected by its anti-malware desktop products, and found that the Conficker worm, along with a Trojan horse program called Taterf which steals passwords and license keys for popular computer games, were detected on 5.21 million and 4.91 million Windows computers, respectively.
A couple of stories have hit the headlines this year concerning the huge cost that some UK Local Governments incurred when dealing with malware attack on their Windows machines. If you missed them, Manchester City Council had a single USB infected with the infamous Conficker worm and it cost them — brace yourself — £1.5m ($2.4m) of which £1.2m (US$1.9m) was spent on IT, of which a staggering €£600,000 (US$980k) went on consultancy fees including money to Microsoft. A while later, Ealing Borough Council were hit with a cost of €£500000 (about US$ 800k) when they were also hit by a single USB stick containing conficker. Some in the industry tweeted and blogged this as being a “hidden cost of using Microsoft Windows”. In the ensuing discussion, many pointed out that the high cost was really due to the lack of a proper patching and disaster recovery policy at the council. So which is right? Is dealing with malware a hidden cost of using Windows or of a poor IT strategy?
[...]
Regardless of your software choice, a poor patching policy is a very bad idea if you value system integrity. But if you going to argue your case on TCO, Microsoft, don’t then try to dodge talk of the additional costs for maintaining, patching and clearing a Windows-based system.
Comments
uberVU - social comments
2009-11-09 10:07:37
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Gumblar: Blog: Windows Back Doors Spin Out of Control, End up in Black Market ... http://bit.ly/3BEV9q...
Yuhong Bao
2009-11-09 05:24:03
your_friend
2009-11-09 07:33:36
Jose_X
2009-11-09 21:37:42
From the user's pov there are many backdoors inside Microsoft software and many third parties exploiting these every day (Windows malware). Which of these backdoors are intentional to exploit the user or intentional to facilitate "justified remote overrides" and which are bugs is not that important if the goal is for the owner of the box and the data to avoid compromises and violations of privacy, period.
OTOH, I think Microsoft _might_ lay claim over ownership to a lot of software and data created by their software. In this case, the accurate question would be, why use "their software to create their data" instead of using open source software ("your" software) to create your data?
Since all software essentially has bugs, the choice between Microsoft software and open source software becomes one of degree. How easily can you be compromised when you use each system. And whom do you trust: a particular for-profit company with a dirty past or the public and yourself (who have access to open source)? I trust the public to take care of itself more than I trust Microsoft to take care of all of us.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-11-09 22:00:18
Yuhong Bao
2009-11-09 23:08:18
Yuhong Bao
2009-11-10 00:56:57