4 ms·

Downvoted for most blatant use of "malware" to mean "stuff someone doesn't like" as opposed to software that runs without the computer owner's permission or doe

Downvoted for most blatant use of "malware" to mean "stuff someone doesn't like" as opposed to software that runs without the computer owner's permission or does things other than it claims.

jbigelow76 14y ago
Would that mean that a user that installs software that you would normally consider malware would not be able to claim it as such if they blew past the TOS or didn't uderstand the legalese wall of text they had click OK at the bottom of to make it go away? Or would you consider the user lazy and/or dumb and got what they deserved, but you still find the software to conform to your perception as malware? If they agreed to it, then either it's not malware or malware is a subjective term. This debate seems to rest on the perception of the "perfectly informed user" but that is a very small percentage of internet users and most assuredly not who Dotcom would see as his most profitable users. EDIT: kevinpet, below I asked lowboy and I'd be interested in your take as well. Would a user that willingly and knowingly installed software that participated as part of a DDOS bot net in exchange for some functionality have software on their computer that you would consider malware? Is it malware only if something bad happens to the end user?
- lowboy 14y ago
  What about ad-supported installs that have a screen in the installation process with "Would you like to install ______" with a checkbox? Although I disagree with that practice, I wouldn't consider that malware because it does inform the user of the installation and gives them a way to opt out.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Security scanners like nmap or Nessus were never considered malware, even if they can be used to exploit other servers. I don't see why would a DOSer, much less something like Megabox (which doesn't attack anything in any way) be considered malware.
  - jbigelow76 14y ago
    I was trying to take "advertising" out of the equation because we were no longer talking about the ethics of the megabox business model but rather what constituted "malware".
    - icebraining 14y ago
      I know. As I said, Nessus can and is used to attack third-party servers, but it's not considered malware, and it's in fact a commercial product openly used by companies and governments (like the US gov). I've never seen a definition of malware that includes hack or DOS tools.
      - jbigelow76 14y ago
        "I've never seen a definition of malware that includes hack or DOS tools." I did a quick search on "stuxnet malware" and the articles linked to in the third and fourth results (by Computer World, and Christian Science Monitor respectively) both call stuxnet malware. It's not a very old word, I don't see why its definition can't evolve or change over time.
        lowboy 14y ago
        AFAIK, stux did replicate on the computers of users without their knowledge, which is a key component of malware from my understanding of the term. So stux is malware.
        icebraining 14y ago
        Stuxnet is a worm, which have always been considered malware. And while the definition can change, of course, I don't see why it would.
- kevinpet 14y ago
  The distinction of malware is about who is being deceived. If a user willing installs on their own computer A some software to attack someone else's computer B, that's not malware. If a user installs something on their computer that allows someone else, without their knowledge, to gain control of their computer, then that's malware. If someone breaks into a computer which they are not supposed to access and installs a rootkit that is designed to hide itself, that is malware. Obviously, this leaves some gray areas if a user is to go out and intentionally copy some botnet worm on their own computer -- since that software is primarily propagates surreptitiously, we'd still call it malware, regardless of whether someone once happened to install it intentionally. To your specific question, it depends entirely on whether the user is informed of what the software will do. If the user is aware that it's going to participate in a DDOS, or show pop-ups when browsing the web, or send their browsing history to Alexa, that's not malware. If, on the other hand, the user is told that they are installing a "nature photos screensaver" and its doing any of the above, then that's malware. And here we get into the debates about things like browser toolbars that were not very good at communicating what sort of spying they do when the user installed them. And it's clear to me that people rarely agree on where exactly to draw the line (and worse, usually argue adamantly that some borderline case either definitely is or definitely isn't malware). But nowhere in any evaluation of whether something is malware do I consider the effect on other people relevant, which was the original claim -- that this software was malware because it was abusive towards the web site owners who were having their ads blocked. Malware is entirely about software that intentionally causes the computer to do something other than what the owner or user intended it to do.

Downvoted for most blatant use of "malware" to mean "stuff someone doesn't like" as opposed to software that runs without the computer owner's permission or does things other than it claims.

jbigelow76 14y ago

Would that mean that a user that installs software that you would normally consider malware would not be able to claim it as such if they blew past the TOS or didn't uderstand the legalese wall of text they had click OK at the bottom of to make it go away? Or would you consider the user lazy and/or dumb and got what they deserved, but you still find the software to conform to your perception as malware? If they agreed to it, then either it's not malware or malware is a subjective term. This debate seems to rest on the perception of the "perfectly informed user" but that is a very small percentage of internet users and most assuredly not who Dotcom would see as his most profitable users. EDIT: kevinpet, below I asked lowboy and I'd be interested in your take as well. Would a user that willingly and knowingly installed software that participated as part of a DDOS bot net in exchange for some functionality have software on their computer that you would consider malware? Is it malware only if something bad happens to the end user?

lowboy 14y ago
What about ad-supported installs that have a screen in the installation process with "Would you like to install ______" with a checkbox? Although I disagree with that practice, I wouldn't consider that malware because it does inform the user of the installation and gives them a way to opt out.
icebraining 14y ago
Security scanners like nmap or Nessus were never considered malware, even if they can be used to exploit other servers. I don't see why would a DOSer, much less something like Megabox (which doesn't attack anything in any way) be considered malware.
- jbigelow76 14y ago
  I was trying to take "advertising" out of the equation because we were no longer talking about the ethics of the megabox business model but rather what constituted "malware".
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I know. As I said, Nessus can and is used to attack third-party servers, but it's not considered malware, and it's in fact a commercial product openly used by companies and governments (like the US gov). I've never seen a definition of malware that includes hack or DOS tools.
    - jbigelow76 14y ago
      "I've never seen a definition of malware that includes hack or DOS tools." I did a quick search on "stuxnet malware" and the articles linked to in the third and fourth results (by Computer World, and Christian Science Monitor respectively) both call stuxnet malware. It's not a very old word, I don't see why its definition can't evolve or change over time.
      - lowboy 14y ago
        AFAIK, stux did replicate on the computers of users without their knowledge, which is a key component of malware from my understanding of the term. So stux is malware.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        Stuxnet is a worm, which have always been considered malware. And while the definition can change, of course, I don't see why it would.
kevinpet 14y ago
The distinction of malware is about who is being deceived. If a user willing installs on their own computer A some software to attack someone else's computer B, that's not malware. If a user installs something on their computer that allows someone else, without their knowledge, to gain control of their computer, then that's malware. If someone breaks into a computer which they are not supposed to access and installs a rootkit that is designed to hide itself, that is malware. Obviously, this leaves some gray areas if a user is to go out and intentionally copy some botnet worm on their own computer -- since that software is primarily propagates surreptitiously, we'd still call it malware, regardless of whether someone once happened to install it intentionally. To your specific question, it depends entirely on whether the user is informed of what the software will do. If the user is aware that it's going to participate in a DDOS, or show pop-ups when browsing the web, or send their browsing history to Alexa, that's not malware. If, on the other hand, the user is told that they are installing a "nature photos screensaver" and its doing any of the above, then that's malware. And here we get into the debates about things like browser toolbars that were not very good at communicating what sort of spying they do when the user installed them. And it's clear to me that people rarely agree on where exactly to draw the line (and worse, usually argue adamantly that some borderline case either definitely is or definitely isn't malware). But nowhere in any evaluation of whether something is malware do I consider the effect on other people relevant, which was the original claim -- that this software was malware because it was abusive towards the web site owners who were having their ads blocked. Malware is entirely about software that intentionally causes the computer to do something other than what the owner or user intended it to do.