DECAF Was Just a Stunt, Now Over 206
An anonymous reader writes to tell us of the de-activation of all copies of DECAF. The creators have announced that the DECAF project was nothing more than a "stunt to raise awareness for security and the need for better forensic tools." Originally DECAF was billed as a tool to stop Microsoft's forensic tool "COFEE" and was covered here earlier this week. In addition to their message of security the authors somehow manage to interject a discussion about religion, so who knows what the real goal was.
heh (Score:5, Funny)
0xDECAFBAD
Re:heh (Score:5, Interesting)
"As you probably noticed, your copy of DECAF no longer works. We have disabled every copy of DECAF."
They left the ability in to remotely control how the software behaves. Anyone who installed this let this be a lesson for you.
Re:heh (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also strange that I didn't hear many reports about it not working. I guess then the question becomes, how do you know if it's working or not? Do you have a pirated version of COFEE to test it out with?
It'd be interesting though if someone were to hook up a sniffer on their line, leave DECAF installed, and see what happens.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Plus the whole Hoax angle is totally false itself.
Re: (Score:2)
DECAF l33t
I believe I speak for everybody (Score:5, Funny)
When after reading that I reply with "WTF?"
Re:I believe I speak for everybody (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously. I read the summary. I read the article. I read the discussion on slashdot about the initial news posting. I still don't get what DECAF was exactly supposed to do, what it actually is doing, and what message the author of DECAF thinks he is sending with whatever his software does.
Worst. Story. EVER!
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. I read the summary. I read the article. I read the discussion on slashdot about the initial news posting. I still don't get what DECAF was exactly supposed to do, what it actually is doing, and what message the author of DECAF thinks he is sending with whatever his software does.
COFFEE is an idiotbox collection of tools that Microsoft put together for police to do "forensics" on computers.
DECAF runs on your computer and allegedly checks for/neutralizes/prevents COFFEE.
The author's general message is "don't trust" and "Jesus"
If you couldn't figure any of that out, you may want to consider improving your reading comprehension skills. /.
What's more likely is that you aren't so stupid, but like to pretend you are on
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see what they are getting at but it is a real douche thing for them to be all "shame on you!" for downloading and using software that they themselves created, provided, and handed out. I can't see a whole lot of people taking them seriously, as a result.
The lesson here is that serious security software is not a black box. It's something you can audit and verify. And yes, shame on anyone who thought otherwise and fell for this. They should consider themselves fortunate that this one was rather benign. It could have easily done real damage.
Did they want DECAF to be taken seriously? (Score:2)
Somehow, I get the impression that they didn't want DECAF to be taken seriously.
From the start, even.
As for the thing about salvation and Jesus, well, for example, Jesus said (paraphrased), "You should learn the truth. Learning the truth will make you free." Putting that into context for you, truth is about reality, and COFEE was/is not about reality, and their DECAF was an unreal response to security snake-oil.
Poorly implemented, perhaps, but I read the message as something like, "You're not free if you tr
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you don't speak English well enough to parse the sentence.
"be all shame on you" = "say 'shame on you' empathically"
There's a lot of nuance missing as well, but that's the closest you'll get.
Ummmm... Okay? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you actually downloaded this thing, let this be a valuable lesson. Don't be gullible. This could have been a virus for your computer, instead of one for your mind.
Re:Ummmm... Okay? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. But it's ironic that is the message they -want- you to learn.
Re: (Score:2)
When I saw the original announcement of this program, I was skeptical of what it was actually for. However, I didn't see this type of angle coming! LOL, wow!
Few would have guessed that there was an angel coming. :)
disappointing (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that all but the first paragraph of the article was the religious message its self, I'd say that it is pretty clear what the goal was.
Re:disappointing (Score:5, Funny)
Ha (Score:2)
I think the coffee was spiked with something.
Disabled? How? (Score:2)
How exactly are they going to disable it remotely, when my firewall blocks the connections, and I can always reinstall a cracked download, when it disables itself with a timer?
Clearly this was chicory (Score:2)
Lie, cheat, and steal for Christ! (Score:4, Insightful)
You're doing it wrong.
Re:Lie, cheat, and steal for Christ! (Score:4, Informative)
Gandhi never actually said he did not like Christians, just that they do not act like Christ.
What is it that is bad, exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which of these are bad? And why? I've often heard that getting a personal message out via publicity stunts is a good thing (The Yes Men) and now all the sudden it's bad, and we should pay no attention to these reprehensible people whose only method is deceit?
Re: (Score:2)
Many people will poke fun at the religious angle of it, but frankly I would be critical of this stunt even if it was for a cause I believed in.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people will poke fun at the religious angle of it, but frankly I would be critical of this stunt even if it was for a cause I believed in.
And seeing as it _is_ a cause I believe in, I will chime in with said criticism. It's not unlike those tracts that look like money that people sometimes leave as "tips". Great way to get attention, but in the end it's generally the wrong kind of attention, rather anti-persuasive.
Re: (Score:2)
If they succeed in getting you to download, install, and execute untrusted and unvetted code, that's your fault. I really consider any "threat" that requires my active participation to be a complete and total non-issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that all copies of the software were deactivated remotely. It's a needless act of destruction, only somewhat justified by the fact that they themselves created it.
I See A Beautiful Thing Here (Score:2)
So release a crack (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea, so do you want to sift through countless lines of assembly.
Run, generate a call trace, walk backwards to a suspicious function (one that calls getdatetime() or such), etc. It's easy to find system calls and log the call path with a debugger. This is more a strategy exercise than an exercise in brute force reading and altering raw code, which means it's both fun and actually not much work if you know what you're doing.
Why are we jumping to assembly though...who says a decompiler wont produce good enough code first?
Because there's no such thing. Optimization destroys decompilation. Currently the very best and most awesome decompilers generate a clunk of ga
Phew.. (Score:2)
Countdown to REAL DECAF in 3, 2, 1 .... (Score:2)
you are aware that it wont take long before some party comes up with a working DECAF after this point, right ?
Re: (Score:2)
How many people would be gullible to fall for it twice?
Oh, wait, never mind. I must be new here. Continue with your countdown.
How amazing! (Score:4, Insightful)
In shockingly unexpected news, it turns out that a closed-source alleged anti-malware software was not trustworthy.
Who would have guessed.
So apparently.. (Score:4, Funny)
What DECAF giveth, DECAF taketh away.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to their message of security the authors somehow manage to interject a discussion about religion so who knows what the real goal was.
Is anyone hiring professional trolls? These guys must be rejects from Microsoft's FUD division.
Re:Huh what? (Score:5, Funny)
I think you meant this:
1. Make fake software.
2. Make fake software work like it will outshine proprietary software.
3. ???
4. Prophet
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a Pun AND a Meme.
This deserves to be a Score:6 comment.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have used FTFY, but I figured the convergence of pun and meme would cause a breach in the pun-meme continuum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DECAF was a meta-troll.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being a self-righteous prick
Heh heh. I'm certain that from time to time I am a self-righteous prick, but not this time (not intentionally, anyway). I was pointing out the irony of his conduct vs. his profession of faith, not as evidence that he's a good or bad Christian, but because I think he's carrying out an elaborate troll-on-top-of-a-troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an atheist myself, but you, sir, are begging the question. Religion is only deceptive towards their congregation if you take it as given that God does not exist. If we're wrong and God does, in fact, exist, then you are the one who is lying to everyone who reads your post.
He's got a point. The Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, and Atheists all have their differing views of a higher power. They all can't be right, and the majority will be wrong. I wouldn't label them as deceptive though, as I don't think they are knowingly telling falsehoods. Well, except maybe the Scientology kooks and a few of the other cults out there. I have no problem if someone want's to believe differently than I do, but I do get annoyed when they keep shoving it down my throat and insisting that th
Re:Just wow (Score:4, Insightful)
"deceiving people is against Christian principles. " != "no self-professed Christian has ever deceived anyone"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After the bullshit that was DECAF, do you really believe anything he might have to say about being a Christian? Do you suppose that it just might be another calculated troll?
Re: (Score:2)
Only the most backward now believe in religion
Only the most smug and arrogant sneer at others like that.
On a lighter note,
[vader]
"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
[/vader]
Libertarians (Score:2)
Re:Libertarians (Score:5, Insightful)
But why do you hate the ideas? I'm a weak libertarian myself and find that personal liberty is important. Don't generalize and say all libertarians are extremists. We don't all want to abolish the government. I'm curious about your ideas since I feel a decentralized government that helps those who truly need it, while not having ideas to force upon you about religion and ethics (marriage, alcohol, etc) would be the best deal. This is libertarianism for you.
Libertarianism is one of those few ideas that, if implemented and accepted, really would reverse the current trend of ever-expanding intrusive government and the general decline of personal liberty. For just that reason, it cannot be tolerated by anyone who stants to profit from this status quo. Such people include powerful politicians and influential members of the media. These are people who can influence the society and the prevailing opinions of the day quite a bit more than most people would like to admit.
It's no surprise to me that denigrating Libertarianism is another trendy bandwagon. That bandwagon is intended for people who won't personally investigate it and see what it's about on their own. If they did that, they'd quickly find that the Founding Fathers are some of the truest Libertarians who ever lived, except that back then it did not have such a name. They'd also see that throwing out those freedoms for any reason and with them the traditions of this nation is always a mistake, no matter how tempting.
Such people who form strong opinions and beliefs about things they have not investigated are sometimes called "useful idiots." They are extremely useful anytime you want to deceptively campaign against something. They are so useful because they will accept ideas from others and adopt them as if they independently came up with those ideas on their own. Look at the methods used here. The negative portrayal of Liberterianism is based almost exclusively on pretending like its most extreme form is its only form, and so anyone who calls himself a Libertarian is immediately equated with an anarchist or anarco-capitalist. This is a classic example of straw-man or red-herring demagoguery in the media. It's so easily refuted that there can be nothing accidental about it.
Re:Libertarians (Score:5, Interesting)
Your answer clarifies the problem.
I'm going to do a bit of politics myself and see if I can influence things then. I actually went to a town hall meeting this month for the first time. I know one person who is a municipal councillor and he invited me because of my interests in politics. I suppose we should all do this and slowly nudge the laws towards liberty ourselves. If most politicians want power for power's sake like you say, that would be the only way to change things.
He did tell me that if I was really interested I could become influential with time, but that you had to know people that are already in the game to play it properly...
Sad isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
People who probably won't give you the time of day unless your beliefs are not too different from theirs. Hence the problem with reforming the Democrat/Republican system or otherwise introducing pro-freedom elements into it. Both of them function to get people as helpless and dependent on government as possible. One does this with social
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, on /. you get to see some of the crazy left, and some of the crazy right. But the craziest motherfuckers you see here? All self-professed libertarians.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, on /. you get to see some of the crazy left, and some of the crazy right. But the craziest motherfuckers you see here? All self-professed libertarians.
Honestly I haven't seen too many crazy Libertarians here and I'm no stranger to the site, but for the sake of argument let's assume that many of them fit this description.
It's still up to the reader to determine whether these folks actually represent what they claim to represent. It always was and has always been this way for as long as humans have communicated with one another. If I saw a Christian talking about how much he loves to worship Satan, I have two choices: I can assume all Christians are j
Re: (Score:2)
So would anarchy.
The problem with libertarianism is it professes to draw a distinct line in where government should and should not intervene where none exists.
Even communists and fascists see limits to government. Only anarchists can legitimately claim to objectively hold claim to limiting the scope of government.
Re: (Score:2)
So would anarchy.
The problem with libertarianism is it professes to draw a distinct line in where government should and should not intervene where none exists.
Even communists and fascists see limits to government. Only anarchists can legitimately claim to objectively hold claim to limiting the scope of government.
I'm not sure why you seem to equate Libertarianism to Anarchism in response to my post. Sure, anarchy would reduce the size and power of government, but its ultimate goal would be to eliminate government entirely. With no government of any kind, what you can expect next is that a few warlords would establish local dictatorships. They would protect their territory against other warlords much like street gangs do against rival gangs. A perfect implementation of Anarchism would quickly lead to the average
Re: (Score:2)
Just letting you know that the term you seem to be looking for is "minarchism" (I am not a minarchist or libertarian myself, but knowing the terms helps avoid lengthy summaries of an idea)
Re: (Score:2)
The perfect implementation of Libertarianism would include a government that is at least strong enough to provide effective law enforcement, as this is viewed as a basic and legitimate function of government.
There are a helluva lot of people out there who also consider things like education, firefighting, healthcare, and provision of basic needs like food and shelter as a "basic and legitimate function of government" as well.
The state would only use its law-enforcement powers to curtail activities that
Re: (Score:2)
I know of no tenet of Libertarianism which states that these things are forbidden. Some people who call themselves Libertarians may believe that these have no place in government, but you'd have to take it up with those people, for that is their personal interpretation of the concept. T
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know of no tenet of Libertarianism which states that these things are forbidden. Some people who call themselves Libertarians may believe that these have no place in government, but you'd have to take it up with those people, for that is their personal interpretation of the concept.
I can confidently say I've never met anyone who identified themselves as Libertarian who would even *entertain* the idea of Healthcare being a legitimate service of Government. Heck, you're lucky to even get firefighters ou
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I'm reading all of this and I'm starting to wonder if I'm really a libertarian. I considered myself a weak libertarian, but then I'm from Canada where we have universal healthcare. I wouldn't consider removing that.
But then, our liberals want to have a nanny-state and our conservatives want to impose their morals on us... What am I if I want a really weak nanny-state that doesn't impose morals?
I figured I was a weak libertarian.
If not, what am I?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with libertarianism is it has a very narrow definition of what government services protect liberty and freedom.
Anything two consenting adults do could include slavery and yet we know that even consensual slavery can easily result in a system where the powerful abuse those without influence to put them in a situation where they no longer are free.
We all have our own concepts of what the government's role is and how it can best serve the public good. Libertarians just arbitrary define their view
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not particularly trendy, it's just given the variety of positions people can take, not everyone will choose a particular one. When Libertarians *cough* assert that everyone would be one if only they would look into it, they're being ridiculous.
I was a libertarian for many years. I eventually changed my positions.
You're very ignorant about the founding fathers. They were by no means posessed of any modern political ideologies - they had different issues, different positions, and radically different ways
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not everyone who isn't a libertarian is ignorant or malicious.
Ignoring the possibility that someone could understand your ideas, yet still have sincere, fundamental disagreements with them is one of the ways our brains filter out contradictory information. Don't fall into that trap.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like to hear something interesting? I'm a libertarian socialist - I think the government has a responsibility to do things like transportation, utilities, telecom, and other infrastructure, but that they should have essentially no control over individual people.
In my opinion, libertarians have a collective persecution bias. I don't think libertarians (little L) would know what to do with themselves if they actually became a significant force. Oh the status quo and people profiting and the founding
Re:Libertarians (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarianism is one of those few ideas that, if implemented and accepted, really would reverse the current trend of ever-expanding intrusive government and the general decline of personal liberty.
Your words seem to be an extension of the no true Scotsman [wikipedia.org] fallacy.
You'd have to start by telling us which version of Libertarianism you think will solve America's ills before we can have a learned discussion on the matter.
As a general comment though, history has shown that time and time again, when ideology and reality meet, ideology usually fails.
A more pointed comment is that America tried laissez faire economics (a principle key of most libertarian ideology) and its own excesses earned it a well deserved death.
Agencies like the EPA, FDA, SEC, FTC, etc were all formed as a direct response to libertarian practices.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no surprise to me that denigrating Libertarianism is another trendy bandwagon. That bandwagon is intended for people who won't personally investigate it and see what it's about on their own.
I used to be a libertarian myself in my uni days.
Now? See my sig.
If they did that, they'd quickly find that the Founding Fathers are some of the truest Libertarians who ever lived, except that back then it did not have such a name. They'd also see that throwing out those freedoms for any reason and with them the traditions of this nation is always a mistake, no matter how tempting.
I'm not an American. What are your Founding Fathers to me?
It also makes me wonder - so "truest libertarians who ever lived" considered ending the relatively minor oppression of American colonists by British government more important than ending slavery (since, regardless of their personal opinions on slavery - and not all of them were opponents - they chose to gloss over it when establishing the nation)?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and your post very nicely shows one of the fundamental problems with libertarian movement. As a matter of ideology, it divides all people into two categories:
1) libertarians
2) idiots ("sheeple" [xkcd.com] etc)
Now, do I need to explain why this is a bad idea that doesn't score libertarians any points?
Re: (Score:2)
If you get right down to it, the psiops tricks you are claiming are being used against libertarianism by equating it with anarchy are the ones once used against anarchy (and they evidently worked, at least on you - nothing personal, they have worked on most people). Literally translated from the Latin, anarchy does not mean no laws, but no rulers. A lot of its advocates are simply advocating that there be no ruling class - for example just about everyone in the UK who opposes the institution of the Monarchy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that there's Libertarians with a capital L and libertarians with a lowercase l. It's a subtle but important difference.
Libertarians are, IMO, the nutjobs - the ones that believe in things like aboloshing private property and all social authority systems (governments, etc.).
libertarians just want to be able to smoke up whatever the fuck without the government caring.
But seriously, I consider myself a libertarian with a little L. I am rabidly against any nanny-state sort of laws. The government s
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, libertarians like small businesses, whereas Libertarians hate all businesses.
Re:Just wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I found that last part a little out of place, but then that's their site, so let them post whatever testimonial they want.
It's their site and their right, but in general using a technical discussion to shoehorn in religious promotion is considered bad form, to put it mildly.
religion (Score:2)
Some people think Jesus Christ was the first true libertarian.
There is no word a person motivated by the desire for self-justification can't twist.
Anyway, questions of particular religions aside, when we can find a way to get past the false concept that atheism and agnosticism are somehow morally above religion, we'll discover that there is no way to keep religion out of a conversation.
Refraining from using religion to troll is another matter, but there may even be an appropriate place and time for using re
"REMEMBER TO DRINK YOUR DECAF" (Score:3, Funny)
"REMEMBER TO DRINK YOUR DECAF"
A crummy commercial. Son of a bitch!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who modded this flamebait? The whole frickin story's flamebait, just go with it!
Re: (Score:2)
If you just die and rot then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?
Because you may as well enjoy yourself while you are alive. Many bible-beating christians seem to try their best *not* to enjoy themselves while alive, because they are preparing for a wonderful afterlife.
Yes, yes, I know... -1 flamebait or troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I find that most religious folks are more content with the offerings they're given in their lives compared to the atheists who scramble to find some meaning in their lives.
Then why the obsession with preaching to others and trying to convert them?
I don't know of any atheists who "scramble to find some meaning in their lives."
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. That book, 'The Purpose Driven Life', spawned tons of prayer groups and such focused around finding Jesus' personal plan for you. I guess it's possible that they actually did all find a purpose after that, but from what I can tell most are still 'scrambling' for it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you just die and rot then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?
If when you're 16 someone emails you and arranges to send you millions of dollars from Nigeria what's the point of having an education?
Re: (Score:2)
"All we need now a GNAA Troll."
Given the choice between GNAA and Christianity, the GNAA seem quite a rational bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to karma whore as an AC would be a good example of doing it wrong [urbandictionary.com].
Your post is another good example.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps most of us are Windows users that did not download and install the program?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah but theres no advantage to it. Its sorta like a prostitute doing volunteer work
Would that be pro boner work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ummmm, hello, it's not a sin if it's for JESUS.
Re: (Score:2)
"It certainly wasn't something an honorable Christian would do."
There are no "honorable" Christians, because their superstition exists to empower those who would enslave the rest of us to their social vision.
The only people who speak of honor in conjunction with religion are superstitionists themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
You're suggesting that COFEE is able to distinguish criminal activity from non-criminal, and only allow law enforcement to use it to get forensics for criminal activity? That's some pretty f*&#ing amazing artificial intelligence in there, since the law enforcement officers themselves often have a very hard time making that distinction and it ends up having to be settled by courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Or note your CC number as part of an ongoing investigation.
Then pour COFFEE on your box. Let DECAF be a download reminder about closed source apps, next time it could be heros and white knights harvesting all they can about end users.
Vigilantes at a door they accessed via the 'registered' details in your MS box