5 ms·

not open source. won't install, won't suggest.

by detay 6y ago

jzzskijj 6y ago
Also some other privacy tools have silently broken/disabled domain administrator's access to computers. The tools are not necessarily tested in domain networks at all and for example in work environments that may cause time consuming issues to solve.
LeoNatan25 6y ago
I tend to share this sentiment, or at the very least come from a reputable company such as O&O. I personally tend to modify the Windows install image these days to not include offensive components, as well as disable offending features in group policy.
- nnt38 6y ago
  How can i learn to modify windows install images?
  - LeoNatan25 6y ago
    Look into unattended installs, the WIM format. I use NTLite, which is not free, but worth the money. There are other, free, tools which you can also use.
romanovcode 6y ago
100% true. These kind of applications that you must run as administrator I would never run unless they are not open source. To me this application is useless.
- ubercow13 6y ago
  Almost every Windows software requires administrator privileges to install itself.
  - romanovcode 6y ago
    No, nowadays they install themselves into user AppData and they do not requrie anything. for example slack, dsicord, vscode, most games do not require anything
    - ubercow13 6y ago
      Some do but it's hardly universal. AFAIK that comes with its own security problems like each app having to bundle and update its own dependencies. Games aren't great either. I think Steam for example makes its application folder writeable by all users by default.
      - freeone3000 6y ago
        Each app already had to bundle and update its own dependencies. The WinSxS folder was created solely for programs who tried to install global dependencies -- it serves as a per-program "global" folder so each program can have its own "global" without getting in the way of others.
    - noisem4ker 6y ago
      Add Microsoft's own Teams, anything Google, Dropbox. It's blatant, maddening disrespect of the platform's conventions and security policies.
tastroder 6y ago
Cool, and? Then you're apparently not the target audience. It's an unobfuscated .NET application that a bunch of folks seem to have built in their spare time. Did you use any of the widely available tools to decompile it and find anything egregious in there or is this just a lazy dismissal?
- dancemethis 6y ago
  Well, when proprietary software has a "target" it usually means an actual one against the user.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  This really misses the point. There's a practical point, and a point of principle. If you're making the point that disassembly is at least possible, you've already lost. Sure, maybe they haven't gone as far as they possibly could have in preventing us from inspecting the code's workings. Perhaps the licence is gracious enough not to try to prohibit such study. That's still not good enough. These days it's pretty much the norm to release such freeware as Free and Open Source software. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why then haven't they done so? Why do they choose to deny the rights to study and improve the software? Releasing the source is also a pretty good way of offering assurance of the absence of malware. It's reasonable to be wary with admin privileges. Proprietary freeware comes across as saying You're not allowed to look, just trust me. I'll pass.
  - morganvachon 6y ago
    > It's reasonable to be wary with admin privileges. Proprietary freeware comes across as saying You're not allowed to look, just trust me. I'll pass. I agree with this completely, and I extend it to the operating system itself. I'm at the point (at home) where I no longer need a proprietary, closed source OS for work or for play. Linux and OpenBSD do essentially everything I need in my home office, and at work I've shifted most of my day-to-day over to my Linux workstation. The systems I maintain do of course still run Windows 10 out of necessity for our accounting software, but if we ever switch that over to a hosted solution we will only need one workstation with Windows, and it's not a critical role. The company president has already greenlit working in whatever OS I am most comfortable with, as long as it doesn't hinder my duties, so he's at least open to moving everything over one day.

not open source. won't install, won't suggest.

by detay 6y ago

not open source. won't install, won't suggest.

Also some other privacy tools have silently broken/disabled domain administrator's access to computers. The tools are not necessarily tested in domain networks at all and for example in work environments that may cause time consuming issues to solve.

LeoNatan25 6y ago

I tend to share this sentiment, or at the very least come from a reputable company such as O&O. I personally tend to modify the Windows install image these days to not include offensive components, as well as disable offending features in group policy.

nnt38 6y ago
How can i learn to modify windows install images?
- LeoNatan25 6y ago
  Look into unattended installs, the WIM format. I use NTLite, which is not free, but worth the money. There are other, free, tools which you can also use.

romanovcode 6y ago

100% true. These kind of applications that you must run as administrator I would never run unless they are not open source. To me this application is useless.

ubercow13 6y ago
Almost every Windows software requires administrator privileges to install itself.
- romanovcode 6y ago
  No, nowadays they install themselves into user AppData and they do not requrie anything. for example slack, dsicord, vscode, most games do not require anything
  - ubercow13 6y ago
    Some do but it's hardly universal. AFAIK that comes with its own security problems like each app having to bundle and update its own dependencies. Games aren't great either. I think Steam for example makes its application folder writeable by all users by default.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      Each app already had to bundle and update its own dependencies. The WinSxS folder was created solely for programs who tried to install global dependencies -- it serves as a per-program "global" folder so each program can have its own "global" without getting in the way of others.
  - noisem4ker 6y ago
    Add Microsoft's own Teams, anything Google, Dropbox. It's blatant, maddening disrespect of the platform's conventions and security policies.

tastroder 6y ago

Cool, and? Then you're apparently not the target audience. It's an unobfuscated .NET application that a bunch of folks seem to have built in their spare time. Did you use any of the widely available tools to decompile it and find anything egregious in there or is this just a lazy dismissal?

dancemethis 6y ago
Well, when proprietary software has a "target" it usually means an actual one against the user.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
This really misses the point. There's a practical point, and a point of principle. If you're making the point that disassembly is at least possible, you've already lost. Sure, maybe they haven't gone as far as they possibly could have in preventing us from inspecting the code's workings. Perhaps the licence is gracious enough not to try to prohibit such study. That's still not good enough. These days it's pretty much the norm to release such freeware as Free and Open Source software. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why then haven't they done so? Why do they choose to deny the rights to study and improve the software? Releasing the source is also a pretty good way of offering assurance of the absence of malware. It's reasonable to be wary with admin privileges. Proprietary freeware comes across as saying You're not allowed to look, just trust me. I'll pass.
- morganvachon 6y ago
  > It's reasonable to be wary with admin privileges. Proprietary freeware comes across as saying You're not allowed to look, just trust me. I'll pass. I agree with this completely, and I extend it to the operating system itself. I'm at the point (at home) where I no longer need a proprietary, closed source OS for work or for play. Linux and OpenBSD do essentially everything I need in my home office, and at work I've shifted most of my day-to-day over to my Linux workstation. The systems I maintain do of course still run Windows 10 out of necessity for our accounting software, but if we ever switch that over to a hosted solution we will only need one workstation with Windows, and it's not a critical role. The company president has already greenlit working in whatever OS I am most comfortable with, as long as it doesn't hinder my duties, so he's at least open to moving everything over one day.