Topic: why do people buy computers, with possible trojans pre-installed? (Read 3531 times)

Oh, I get your point. If Bill Gates wanted to, well, not Bill anymore, he hasn't touched windows code in years, but if someone in Microsoft wanted to, they could slip a trojan into pretty much any software update they wanted to.

only if you do something stupid(install closed source apps). and of course there are stupid users, that would do it.

windows is possible trojan os, it already haves autoupdate feature.
microsoft can push anything into a windows computer, and not being caught, they can push executable code directly into your computer.
Linus Torvalds can't push anything into a linux computer, he can push it to the source tree, where anyone can read/verify his code.

of course most distros also have autoupdate features, but they are open. yes they do push executable code into you computer, but you can always get the code yourself and compile it, and there is nearly always a reason along with the update, and explanation why its needed. there is also often a open debate about the code before it gets included in a update.

open source is peer reviewed, and therefor secure.

get the point?

Then what's your problem with windows, if the same method can be used on any other OS?

maybe, but not if i was smart enough, and did include an secure autoupdate(covert communication channel) feature.

1. make obfuscated trojan with secure autoupdate.
2. let it be installed on many machines.
3. send malicious 'update', that sends the wallet to me, via the covert channel.
4. profit.

very simple.

You could, but it would be discovered almost immediately.

i could make a trojan to linux if i wanted to, no problem! (obfuscated python script, or precompiled 'miner')
why the hell use a possible-trojan os? (sorry if sounding overzealous)

If it had been phrased like this, I don't think there would have been nearly so much confusion. Why, indeed, to all these tin-hat wearing paranoid bitcoiners use windows, the LEAST secure operating system out there?

How many trojan threads are there?

the question still stands: why do paranoid people on this forum use windows or mac or any other closed source os? (windows and mac are the most popular)

Exactly my point - so you have nothing to worry about. Anyway, I like linux systems, I just don't use them because it's not practical for me to do so. Perhaps as computing advances open source solutions will become more popular. 

FUT - Fear, uncertainty and truth
FUD - Fear, uncertainty and doubt

there is no doubt in my posts, only truth.
the only doubt there is if microsoft has or has not put malware in windows computers, which i don't know, but i don't think they would.
oh. see now im protectin microsoft! it is based on logic, it would be very very stupid of them to put malware on computers, bad bad PR.

but still, they can do it if they like, there is nothing to stop them.

I agree, this whole thread reeks of FUD, but I think he's just a little overzealous in his championing of Open Source.

I agree it is - my qualm is not with open source (as I've said I have released my own small open source software before), but with the way in which he is presenting it. His insinuations are dishonest at best and self-serving at worst.


You've probably read my reply to myrkul - it also applies to this post. It is illegal to install malicious software on a machine or otherwise gain unnecessary access without the owner's consent - this is usually through a EULA or some other terms of use agreement. As a result, you can, under the protection of law (at least in the US) feel reasonably comfortable that any corporation is going to think twice...or three or four times before abusing their trust. Moreover, even without the laws protecting you, the backlash against the company would be enormous and would hurt them financially. It should go without saying that it would be a very poor business decision if the abuse were ever to come to light.

and people know this, and are scared of it. look at facebook, people are crying and screaming about privacy issues.
but they don't know what microsoft or apple can do with their computers. people are just ignoring/unknowing the fact that they can have access to their computers.

on this forum some people are paranoid that the governements or corporations are gonna rape them in the ass, but they still use windows or mac, not knowing what they can do if they like.

open source are not suspicious, you can read the source, and verify that it is not malicious. you can't do that with closed source.

His issue is not with the autoupdate, but with the closed source nature of everything it downloads. Antivirus programs have numerous times caught and considered actual system files as virii. With no way of looking into the source for those binaries, there's no way to be sure that the program wasn't right. (note, this is just my tin hat speaking, I hate windows for completely different reasons)

Open source is inherently safer, due to the fact that you can examine the source, and see what it's actually doing.

Any software in general can be malicious - but the fact that something includes an updater does not make it any more malware than it makes me a criminal for running tor. It can be used for good or bad purposes - I have yet to see any evidence from your camp that would even remotely persuade me that Microsoft intends to use this tool for illegal or malicious purposes.


Lots of things can happen through all kinds of mediums - Apple could decide to collect and redistribute personal information on iPhone users through an implicit agreement, Sun could, effective immediately, charge royalty for all Java programs produced henceforth, and the operators of Deepbit could decide to capitalize on their pool monopoly by doubling their use fee. Furthermore, the world could end tomorrow.

However...there is no evidence to suggest any of these hypothetical situations will actually occur. To insinuate that they will with no evidence for my stance would be alarmist and irrational.


You can hide behind the banner of "that's not what I said" all you like - but anybody reading your posts knows you are trying to persuade people through fear to switch systems, based on an unfounded and implicit claim that Microsoft would have some strange reason to completely destroy their own business. You are a propagandist - and a very poor representation of the linux community.

any closed source autoupdater can by default be malicious. do you disagree?

none! but they can do it. please see what words i use. i do not say that they do, only that they can.

i did not write any false information, please read my posts again.

So anything that has an autoupdater is by default malicious? What evidence do you have that Microsoft is installing spyware, viruses, or other forms of malware on customer operating systems that you so strongly insinuate?

I use closed source operating systems because it's hardly any different from using other closed source software - or do you not use any of that either? Open source is nice, but I'm not going to expect everybody to follow through with that standard (I have published my own open source software on sourceforge, if that helps to back up my own credentials on discussing this topic). You certainly have the right to despise any operating system you choose - but that isn't a justification for spreading hearsay or other false information.

http://ultimateedition.info/ultimate-edition/ultimate-edition-2-6/#download

by torrent i think.

linux ultimate edition 2.8

to DL what?