5 ms·

Will have to wait and see if the extra security measures actually improve anything or not. However regarding it being opt out… what would prevent a virus from

Will have to wait and see if the extra security measures actually improve anything or not. However regarding it being opt out… what would prevent a virus from just enabling it on a bunch of machines silently. Sure it would be caught but the damage done and most won’t be bothered to go in and disable it after. Or Microsoft just decides they need to really market the hell out of AI and it gets turned on my default anyways.

cybrox 2y ago
It will be re-enabled accidentally by an update anyways.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  Please stop with these kinds of made up fantasy scenarios. There's no such thing as "accidental enablement" for stuff like this, as if it's a switch every employee at Microsoft has access to, and one of them one day can end up flipping by accident with their elbow and it ends up in production without anyone else noticing. Either they decide to intentionally enable it or not. There are no accidents , when stuff like this needs to go through a committee of people for approval before it makes it into production.
  - i_s 2y ago
    I'm not sure the use of 'accidentally' was sincere. But I like this choice of words in your post in your first version: > unmercenary assumptions
  - Tool_of_Society 2y ago
    Yet despite all that I've witnessed accidents still make it in production...
  - meowster 2y ago
    I think OP forgot the quotes around "accidentally". You're right it won't be a true accident; it will be intentional and just called an "accident".
  - tetha 2y ago
    > Either they decide to intentionally enable it or not. There are no accidents , when stuff like this needs to go through a committee of people for approval before it makes it into production. Absolutely. And all of them decided to screw largely defenseless non-technical consumer to make short-term profits. That's not a fantasy, that's our reality.
    - Rinzler89 2y ago
      Yeah, but like I said, that's by intention, not by accident. How does your comment disprove my point which is exactly yours?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dv_dt 2y ago
  Or by intent - it seems I was reading about an early proof of concept attack that turned Recall on and hid a systray indicator that it was on.
- ragnese 2y ago
  "accidentally"
paxys 2y ago
What would prevent a virus from directly stealing the data it wants without going through this feature?
- djmips 2y ago
  Just like in biology a virus can be simpler if it can co-opt existing machinery.
  - buildbot 2y ago
    I agree, the ability to take screenshots is unsafe and should be removed. A virus is just a PRT SCRN away from stealing everything! (/s)
    - genevra 2y ago
      You realize sneaking in code to arbitrarily exfiltrate user data is much simpler if a trusted source (in this case Recall), is doing the collecting
- ndiddy 2y ago
  Without Recall, an attacker needs to get a program to stay resident in memory to log keystrokes, screen contents, etc. for an extended period of time without getting detected. With Recall, they can get the same end effect by exfiltrating the Recall database file whenever it's convenient (i.e. an infected version of a text editor could send it while pretending to check for updates). This significantly lowers the barrier to entry for getting a victim's data, while also making it much easier to avoid detection.
  - drexlspivey 2y ago
    > Without Recall, an attacker needs to get a program to stay resident in memory to log keystrokes, screen contents, etc Or it could just steal your cookies which are out there in the open.
    - 2y ago
strictnein 2y ago
> what would prevent a virus from just enabling it If that occurs, the malware won't have access to months or years of data to sift through.
- sqeaky 2y ago
  Yet. Malware that scrapes it and malware that turn it don't need to be the same.
ragnese 2y ago
> Or Microsoft just decides they need to really market the hell out of AI and it gets turned on my default anyways. This is what will happen. And when you turn it off again, it'll be turned back on by the next update. Enjoy.
downrightmike 2y ago
They can't even do their own infra securely, or did you forget a advanced persistent threat entity was in their system and minting certs to access all of azure recently?

cybrox 2y ago

It will be re-enabled accidentally by an update anyways.

Rinzler89 2y ago
Please stop with these kinds of made up fantasy scenarios. There's no such thing as "accidental enablement" for stuff like this, as if it's a switch every employee at Microsoft has access to, and one of them one day can end up flipping by accident with their elbow and it ends up in production without anyone else noticing. Either they decide to intentionally enable it or not. There are no accidents , when stuff like this needs to go through a committee of people for approval before it makes it into production.
- i_s 2y ago
  I'm not sure the use of 'accidentally' was sincere. But I like this choice of words in your post in your first version: > unmercenary assumptions
- Tool_of_Society 2y ago
  Yet despite all that I've witnessed accidents still make it in production...
- meowster 2y ago
  I think OP forgot the quotes around "accidentally". You're right it won't be a true accident; it will be intentional and just called an "accident".
- tetha 2y ago
  > Either they decide to intentionally enable it or not. There are no accidents , when stuff like this needs to go through a committee of people for approval before it makes it into production. Absolutely. And all of them decided to screw largely defenseless non-technical consumer to make short-term profits. That's not a fantasy, that's our reality.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Yeah, but like I said, that's by intention, not by accident. How does your comment disprove my point which is exactly yours?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dv_dt 2y ago
Or by intent - it seems I was reading about an early proof of concept attack that turned Recall on and hid a systray indicator that it was on.
ragnese 2y ago
"accidentally"

paxys 2y ago

What would prevent a virus from directly stealing the data it wants without going through this feature?

djmips 2y ago
Just like in biology a virus can be simpler if it can co-opt existing machinery.
- buildbot 2y ago
  I agree, the ability to take screenshots is unsafe and should be removed. A virus is just a PRT SCRN away from stealing everything! (/s)
  - genevra 2y ago
    You realize sneaking in code to arbitrarily exfiltrate user data is much simpler if a trusted source (in this case Recall), is doing the collecting
ndiddy 2y ago
Without Recall, an attacker needs to get a program to stay resident in memory to log keystrokes, screen contents, etc. for an extended period of time without getting detected. With Recall, they can get the same end effect by exfiltrating the Recall database file whenever it's convenient (i.e. an infected version of a text editor could send it while pretending to check for updates). This significantly lowers the barrier to entry for getting a victim's data, while also making it much easier to avoid detection.
- drexlspivey 2y ago
  > Without Recall, an attacker needs to get a program to stay resident in memory to log keystrokes, screen contents, etc Or it could just steal your cookies which are out there in the open.
  - 2y ago

strictnein 2y ago

> what would prevent a virus from just enabling it If that occurs, the malware won't have access to months or years of data to sift through.

sqeaky 2y ago
Yet. Malware that scrapes it and malware that turn it don't need to be the same.

ragnese 2y ago

> Or Microsoft just decides they need to really market the hell out of AI and it gets turned on my default anyways. This is what will happen. And when you turn it off again, it'll be turned back on by the next update. Enjoy.

downrightmike 2y ago

They can't even do their own infra securely, or did you forget a advanced persistent threat entity was in their system and minting certs to access all of azure recently?