Slashdot Log In
IE7 Toolbar Mayhem
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:35 AM
from the bad-ideas-are-fun dept.
from the bad-ideas-are-fun dept.
nikostheater writes "A user called anyweb tried to infect IE7 with as many toolbars as possible and it's interesting to see what happens and how secure IE7 is.." This is funny if only for the screenshot of a browser window with like 80% of the screen covered with toolbars.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Is it really an infection if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The slashdot post here is definately FUD. It gives the impression that IE7 happily installs all kinds of crap. In the article, however, the experimenter says multiple times that IE7 made doing this VERY DIFFICULT to do without noticing you're braking shit.
That's not to say some Typhoid User isn't perfectly capable of doing this anyways, but a Typhoid User should be encouraged very strongly to never ever log in as an admin, and charged through the nose for repair services.
Re:Is it really an infection if... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only FUD to people who decide what it says based on their own biases and an unwillingness to read the article. I clicked through to the article, and even though it renders very badly on my browser for some reason, the parts I could read told me the IE was getting a lot better.
Someone clicking 'yes' to everything is not that far off from a typical user's behavior. Most people have no idea what any of that stuff means and not much of a desire to learn. They just want the computer to do what they think they told it to.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, come on. First of all, the computer should never prevent you from doing something you want to do, regardless of how dangerous or stupid it might be. It should most definitely warn you that it is dangerous and stupid. If the user really does click 'yes' for everything, it should get installed. As long as you get stern warnings about it (and as long as an admin can prevent it from happening to work computers by locking it down), it's plenty secure.
That said, even clicking 'yes' on everything didn't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That only occurs if the toolbar in question disables it. The problem with installing any toolbar is that it is actually executing a binary on your system - meaning that it has full access to your computer, and even interface override control.
I wonder if there's any of those stupid toolbars that automatically clicks 'yeah, fine, do it' on any ActiveX warnings that pop up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
B.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Restore to default state (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fellow said exactly DICK about FireFox or Linux "automatically" installing anything.
Cheater512 is a living example of why we so desperately need a "Linux Bigot" comment moderation label.
Um... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is news?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Um... (Score:5, Interesting)
The real question is how long will this situation persist? Will spyware vendors find means to disable the security features of IE7, or will IE7 continue to be resistant?
Parent
Re:Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
He got repeatedly warned about what he was doing, had to click through an awful lot of 'Yes, I'm sure'-type dialogue boxes to do it, and at the end was able to wipe out pretty much all of the toolbars very easily.
This is indeed news. It looks like Microsoft are actually getting something right this time!
Parent
Re:Um... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Um... (Score:5, Informative)
1. Vista Ultimate Edition's default user has administrative rights.
2. If you choose to accept to install something from the web, IE7's protected mode turns off until you restart the program. This could leave you vulnerable if you install a legitimate program (Google toolbar) and continue to browse the web.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
The bad news is "once you accept ONE UAC prompt in IE7 it disables the protection for subsequent browsing until you completely restart IE7"
Parent
For crying out loud (Score:3, Insightful)
IT'S JUST A HUMOR ARTICLE. IT SAYS RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE THAT HE'S DOING IT ON PURPOSE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS. NOTHING MORE.
Okay? Get it? We know it requires user action to infest IE7 with toolbars. That's not the point of the article, which is just to see what happens and laugh on a Sunday. For crying out loud, why does everyone think they have to leap forward and be some sort of heroic truthbringer to the poor Slashdot masses who won't understand the article? We're not idiots.
What IF (Score:3, Interesting)
Afaik these toolbars add "extra browsing enhancements". If MSFT told it's users that these bars are Teh evil if installed from some random adress I'm sure the "toolbars" will die out soon.
Re:What IF (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Failing by design (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Failing by design" Is Proper? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is it isn't always obvious if something is going to break functionality, making a user aware that it might and giving them the choice is IMHO better than telling them they can only run signed software on their computer.
Parent
You Misunderstand: Feature Good, Process Bad (Score:4, Insightful)
By design or miracle, "warning dialogs" are somewhat minimal in Mac or Linux but in Windows its all over. "Are you sure you want to do this? Yes/No" over and over again causes "fatigue" where users just dismiss it for the sake of making it go away. I've seen users who just click and dismiss things that are clearly warnings and indicators that something is wrong. Why? Because they see it dozens of times and its nonsense as far as they can tell. The reason they never hit "No" is because it stops what they were doing. They would rather be encumbered by a flakey IE than not do what they wanted and frankly these errant users have a point.
The point is worth repeating: Adding a toolbar to IE7 isn't a bad thing. The real problem is the way the process works and it isn't getting better for Vista. For each plugin there should be one and only one confirmation. If it fails **any hard defined requirements** then it the plugin is not installed. They should not be asked to elevate their privilages. They should not be asked if they want to activate secondary controls (Active X). They should not be asked if the install can modify the registry.
Why does any toolbar need 'elevated privilages' at all to install or work? IE is supposed to be an issolated framework that is user dependant. Why does a toolbar need another control hosted outside of itself (violates sandbox)? Why does any toolbar need to access the registry (again violates sandbox)? None of this stuff seems necessary at all for toolbars to function. Why bother asking the user "Yes/No" questions on things that are "violations"?? In most normal cases, when a program violates the rules it doesn't allow it. Why is IE different?
Parent
Host took out Pictures (Score:4, Informative)
(Some were large JPGs.)
Interesting text nonetheless.
There was a video of some guy recording his browse by infection of IE a while back that was very revealing. Just visited a site and his computer was infected, he proceeded to try to pull the stuff out and noted the techniques the spyware authors used to keep a user from being able to uninstall it.
The critical difference in security though is not what the user can do (as he or she is probably running as administrator anyway) but what can be done without their permission. That's where the work needs to go. Not stopping someone from doing something they have to agree to (no matter how nefarious the wording is).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FTA (Score:4, Interesting)
We'll see how well this works a year after release. That said, it's about damn time MS did something about IE.
Reminds me of... (Score:5, Funny)
I go back two weeks later, and now firefox has a mycoolsearch toolbar! Arrg.
Security? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Because I see 5 or 6 every single week. People that just click on whatever button to get it out of their way are everywhere. Their virus/trojan/spyware-laden machines are my bread and butter.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right to criticize. On the other hand, hitting "yes/allow/next/install no matter what it says" sounds like an accurate approximation of what 90% of users will do. So I guess it still asks the question, if "increased security" means that there are a couple more pop-ups that I have to click "yes" on, how effective will that "increased security" be?
Parent
Your Point? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Microsoft didn't allow people to override those controls I can just see a lot of internal applications breaking in a lot of businesses.
There's a lot wrong with Windows (which is why I chose not to use it), but from what I can tell from this article, the security on the upcoming version of IE might not be one of them (for once).
No one chastises Linux for allowing you to "sudo rm -rf
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it doesn't. It saves your ass when the program you are using gets exploited.
"Sure, I wouldn't want to run as root on a physically secure system with critical data, but I know that my term papers and random stuff is not that valuable to people."
Tell that to the people who've been hit by "ransomware" exploits.
"if you're a computer nerd (a real one and not the fake kind who thinks they know things since they can
SlashDotted (Score:5, Informative)
what I'm getting here (Score:3, Insightful)
Truth is, he should have tried to see how much damage he can make as a standard user without providing Administrator credentials. Being and admin and clicking through all the warning dialogs is like running as root in linux and being surprised you can install software...
Hate to whine, but why do these articles make it into slashdot? It seems like often the other technical subjects discussed here are well moderated, and the articles thought provoking. But as soon as someone with a fleeting command of the english language lays down any thoughts that are anti-Microsoft, it immediately makes the front page.
The result is really interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
I did not expect all those applications (where some of them had direct access to file system and registry) could be removed by a single click (and a confirmation).
So we learn three new strong points of IE7 (added to what IE6 already provides):
I'll personally continue to use Firefox, however I'm glad to see IE getting secure, because every now and them I have to use some "bad designed" site which only works on IE. And now I can be more assured about the security of my system.
There is some 'news' in the article (Score:4, Informative)
Missed point ... (Score:3, Informative)
This, I believe is the main point of the article, because this will help EVERYONE keep junk off of IE. Not that it deletes anything, but allows the clutter to be easily fixed.
Re:Missed point ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Yahoo has already figured out a way to defeat the "IE Reset" function, isn't it logical to expect that within a year of IE7/Vista's release, this knowledge will be common to all spyware/malware authors?
A function like "reset browser settings" either works, or it doesn't. There is no middle ground. If there is a way to get it to do anything other than roll back all changes, it doesn't work.
Parent
The world is going to end! (Score:5, Funny)
Mirror. (Score:5, Informative)
Normal behaviour. (Score:4, Insightful)
Gimme a screen shot of Firefox please (Score:3, Interesting)
Sit back and behold... (Score:3, Informative)
Hiding the menu bar below other clutter (Score:3, Insightful)
The first picture is hilariously absurd, but what really shocked me was the second one, and he says
This is the first time I had seen MSIE7, so maybe it's old hat and "standard" to everyone else, but I thought the "clean" picture was provocative. Why? Look at it: the menu bar isn't even at the top of the window; the url and back/forward arrows are. Are they trying to slow down the user and make them hunt for things? Is this normal and default for MSIE and recent Microsoft applications, for the menu bar to be somewhere other than top? Or had this user already diddled with some settings to make MSIE look bad?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In short: No.
Long answer: IE seems to actually have saner defaults now. It still has the occasional buffer overflow that gives full access to the system.
One of my proper security settings, while on Windows, is to use Firefox for all web browsing, only resorting to IE Tab for Windows Update.
Again, it's got to do with IE inevitably having some security hole that doesn