LG Split Screen Software Compromises System Security 187
jones_supa writes: The Korean electronics company LG ships a split screen tool with their ultra wide displays. It allows users to slice the Windows desktop into multiple segments. However, installing the software seriously compromises security of the particular workstation. The developers required administrator access for the software, but apparently they hacked their way out. The installer silently disables User Account Control, and enables a policy to start all applications as Administrator. In the article there is also a video presentation of the setup procedure. It is safe to say that no one should be running this software in its current form.
UAC - A Double Edged Sword (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize that the software probably shouldn't have disabled UAC out of the box without at least informing the user, but having worked on some out-of-process COM applications (yes, legacy) in Windows Vista/7/8/10, UAC can be extremely frustrating. The biggest issue is that having UAC on creates a different user context between user and admin. If I execute a program as myself with admin privileges, it is not exactly the same as executing the program as myself without admin privileges.
For example, if your user with admin priveleges creates a COM component, that component may not be able to be accessed by a non-admin context even though your user may be in the local administrators group, DCOM Users group, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if LG ran into a COM issue with Windows and decided to make the program for reliable for the user by disabling UAC instead of resolving the problem in a different way.
Re: (Score:1)
No shit, Sherlock. Here's a clue: you're supposed to be writing the program as if the user did not have admin privileges so that sysadmins and home users can properly run a locked down system with your software.
Frankly, I wish M$ had won their anti-trust trial just so they could strong-arm the crapware writers like Adobe, Norton, various extremely shitty HW OEMs th
Re:UAC - A Double Edged Sword (Score:5, Informative)
If you need to use COM components, and you don't want to require admin rights, you register them in HKEY_CURRENT_USER instead of HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT. After that, it just works.
The sad part is, it would have not have taken any more time to Google that than to find how to disable UAC through the installer.
Re: UAC - A Double Edged Sword (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, a component in an admin context may not be accessible to a component used by user in a non-admin context. This is called a "security" model, and prevents the non - admin process manipulating the admin-context process to do things it shouldn't be able to do. You make it sound like a quirk, but the entire design is that "non elevated components can't talk to elevated components". Try starting Notepad as admin and dropping a text file on it from the non - elevated explorer view, it won't work by design.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it works both ways. For example, if a non-admin user has smb://foo/bar mapped to z:, but the admin user does not, attempting to make a scheduled task running as admin that involves data in z: will fail, because admin doesn't have it mapped. If you go to %userprofile% in an elevated command prompt, you go to Administrator's profile folder, not the currently logged in user. "non-elevated being unable to talk to elevated" is the 'by design' situation you speak of. 'elevated being unable to
Re: (Score:2)
The mapped drive situation is working as designed. You're implying that it should work, and that's just opening up for a hack. It's like having non-locked down paths in root's PATH. What happens when the user remaps Z: to point to another drive with specially-crafted data in it?
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of the point. Sudo does the exact same thing.
Running everything as the admin is idiotic, because everything you do is as admin, and the machine is wide open. Back in the bad old days of Windows everybody was always admin ... we keep malware out by not running as admin.
If you need to be logged in as the admin, be logged in as admin to do only do the tasks you need.
Saying "oh noes, teh COM says we ha
Re:UAC - A Double Edged Sword (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That just makes you a shitty Administrator; you shouldn't be updating production without testing for exactly that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if LG ran into a COM issue with Windows and decided to make the program for reliable for the user by disabling UAC instead of resolving the problem in a different way.
There really isn't any reason they needed to do this, besides incompetence or malice. I know, I develop commercial software [maxto.net] that does much the same thing as their software.
I commented further down [slashdot.org] with more details regarding why.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely incompetence.
You have to remember, LG makes money on the monitor, they don't make money on the software. Once you buy the monitor, the software's just a bonus to help you manage the windows more effectively.
The problem is, this makes the software a cost center - so a company like LG would basically say "we need software to do this" and give you $0 to develop it. I.e., get the thing out ASAP and spend no more th
Re:UAC - A Double Edged Sword (Score:5, Insightful)
since most Windows programs are written incorrectly
What a load of garbage. I rarely if ever see UAC prompts other than installing software. This goes for programming tools both well written and poorly hacked together, all manner of internet related things (reads browsers, Acrobat, flash, etc) remote administration tools, games, office productivity applications, even my explorer replacement program doesn't bug me with a UAC prompt.
In fact the only program I've ever used that needed UAC prompts was a custom VPN tool, and it only needed UAC because it had the ability to tie into windows settings and modify the system's own L2TP VPNs on top of providing an OpenVPN client, something that requires elevated privileges to do.
What you're saying I haven't experienced since maybe 2-3 months after Vista was released. So please share some more details on what exactly you are doing that makes a UAC prompt appear every time you move the mouse, and which of the many millions of programs on the PC actually require administrator to run?
Re: (Score:1)
On my wifes computer I have installed about 600 games that I have bought her over the years.
There is maybe 10 or so of those that need UAC. I even run her in a lower privileged standard user account. Those tend to be win9x games. She rarely runs into it. Her biggest issue tends to be the games that do not work with the nvidia chipset or the intel chipset but it is trivial to fix. I run into it a decent amount on her computer when I am installing things for her to use.
On my personal computer I only run
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only times I tend to see UAC prompts are for software installs/update, changing system or privileged settings (e.g. anti-virus settings), running certain older software (games mostly) that need admin rights for some reason or running certain pieces of software that legitimately need admin rights to do their job (e.g. Process Explorer or the tool that I use to log GPU calls for a DirectX app)
Re: (Score:2)
What you're saying I haven't experienced since maybe 2-3 months after Vista was released. So please share some more details on what exactly you are doing that makes a UAC prompt appear every time you move the mouse, and which of the many millions of programs on the PC actually require administrator to run?
It doesn't happen to me either because after the first day of dealing with dozens of popups, I turned it off.
I don't think I am going to bother with listing out the millions of programs which require administrator to run. I'm sure there is a site out there somewhere. I know i see far too many programs that SAY they need administrator, but maybe do not. Many programmers run as administrator on their own machines so they put in the documentation that the programs they develop must run as administrator.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not going to bother because the list is in fact small and the vast VAST majority of people rarely if ever encounter a UAC prompt. It's very rare that standard productivity / consumption software needs administrator privileges.
If on the other hand you've spent the last few years downloading nothing but malware then more power to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Because just about everything in text that is downloaded on the internet these days spits out PDFs. It is now so prolific that each browser vendor actually started to write their own PDF interpretor.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike linux of course, where you only need to sudo anything worthwhile.
Which is why I immediately su every terminal session.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'd tell you why that's a horrible idea, but I think it'll be more fun if it's a surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if "sudo make" won't execute, but "su", then "make" does execute, and I'm the only user, member of root and other needed groups, what else do you suggest? I want to compile and execute a program, not re-write the configuration scripts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'taint my code. I'm trying to set up a simple, open source digital cinema package generator - http://dcinemaforum.com/forum/... [dcinemaforum.com]
I want to make it possible for local independent producers to put together a DCP so it can be projected on our community digital cinema system. The server ONLY accepts DCP, so if you've made a short film and want it shown, I have to do a dance with a DVD player and the projector, instead of being able to use all the nice automation provided by the d-cinema server - things like spons
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We found the last lindows user..
Waste of time (Score:2)
Why don't you do like me, and put "sudo bash" in your .bashrc. A lot more efficient.
Reminds me of Sony's rootkit (Score:5, Insightful)
The installer silently disables User Account Control, and enables a policy to start all applications as Administrator.
Holy fucking incompetence, Batman. This reminds me of Sony's rootkit, the one that tried to hide itself from AV software, but in doing so, opened up a huge hole that any malicious program could exploit. How does shit like this make it past any kind of review? What CIO/CTO says "hmm OK, gutting security on every customer's PC sounds like a great idea!" This approaches criminal levels of negligence.
Re: Reminds me of Sony's rootkit (Score:2, Interesting)
The same CxO that says "hmmmm... I'm gonna leave this company in a vulnerable position, but I will make my bonus!"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they simply don't care. Only that their program "works", regardless of the consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
There is little or no criminal and civil liability for the company.
So, Linux has no security thought? (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, no offense, but you don't know much about Linux, I take it?
There's a bunch of options, ranging from "mark everything setuid and owned by root" (the least efficient, but you could do it in a few lines of shell script) to simply making each user be UID 0 (which is a trivial edit to /etc/users).
Frankly, you kin of sound like you're mouthing off without knowing anything of what you're talking about (Windows or Linux. Windows NT (which everything since XP has been, in kernel and core components) was very muc
Re:So, Linux has no security thought? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh dear, you got modded up, what a surprise.
"There's a bunch of options, ranging from "mark everything setuid and owned by root" (the least efficient, but you could do it in a few lines of shell script)"
Yes, and it would take literally hours on a bit system plus a lot of things would break because they check their user id and won't run if they have superuser permissions for security reasons. As for NFS mounts... Next...
"which is a trivial edit to /etc/users)."
$ ls -l /etc/users /etc/users: No such file or directory
ls: cannot access
Oh 'm sorry, did you mean /etc/passwd ?
Yes you could set all users to uid 0. And nothing would happen except no one would be able to login since in unix users are actually distinguised by their numeric user id, not their name which is merely an attribute thats used for login.
"Frankly, you kin of sound like you're mouthing off without knowing anything of what you're talking about"
Ah, theres nothing like a nice bit of irony in a post :o)
" have mod points, as it happens, but chose to reply instead"
You shouldn't have bothered. You might know ignorance about unix is quite apparent since you don't even realise why ACLs are required in Windows but rarely used in unix due to group permissions and multiple group membership.
Now go away and educate yourself.
I knew! (Score:1)
It is a well-known fact that all Samsung software is utter crap. I have long suspected that this statement should admit a nice elegant generalization, and here it is.
Jokes aside, why third party software should ever be allowed to change UAC settings?
Re: (Score:2)
And why is third-party software allowed to install and run in the SYSTEM context? Even Administrator isn't allowed to terminate them.
If McAfee et al were nearly as good as they like to claim, I wouldn't have to uninstall them to run a decent malware scanner (after they've let ukash in), instead of just stopping them.
Yes, I know they usually have a "suspend protection" option, but I need it out of memory completely, and some of them still start in safe mode.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, Admin isn't "allowed" to terminate SYSTEM processes? Administrator (the user), or members of the Administrators group (after UAC) have exactly the same level of access as SYSTEM; SYSTEM is just a machine/service account, rather than a user account.
There are certain processes on Windows that the OS will prevent you from trying to terminate, but that's because they're critical OS processes, not because they run under SYSTEM. You can run Calc.exe under SYSTEM with a little effort, but killing
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I must be doing something wrong, then. Start, run, taskmgr, right-click, run as administrator, right-click {AVG/Trend Micro/McAfee/Symantec} whatever their core process is called, "end process". "access denied". Check again, the account for said process is SYSTEM. Click start, run, services.msc, right-click, run as administrator, locate service/s, right-click. properties, can't stop 'cause greyed out, select "logon" tab, service uses SYSTEM account.
Start, run, regedit, right-click, run as administrato
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I knew! (Score:5, Funny)
It is a well-known fact that all Samsung software is utter crap.
We're bashing LG here, not Samsung. It's their turn next week, after we do Microsoft on Monday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since /. delay is about a month this doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll run it if I want, thanks (Score:2)
It is safe to say that no one should be running this software in its current form.
I'd say it's safe to say that the software shouldn't have done this without informing the user, but if someone wants to run it while knowing it is less secure than might otherwise reasonably be expected, who are you to tell them they shouldn't?
I disable selinux and in some cases I always log in as root, because I've decided that's the way I want to do things - I'd rather have the extra convenience than the extra security.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not again (Score:1)
UAC is for idiots (Score:2, Insightful)
As what I'd consider a 'power user', one of the first things I do is turn that obnoxious thing off. I understand it's purpose for being there, it's to protect idiots. Though if you've been reading the studies related to 'security popups', they're pretty ineffective anyway.
A program that magically turns it off for you is definitely a bad thing. However, from a power user perspective, its like.. 'um i don't care, it was already off.'
Windows simply wasn't built from the ground up to insulate the user space f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You never heard of "drive-by installs"? And don't reply with "but I don't go to that type of website", because we have often seen that both ordinary websites and ad networks can be compromised to install malware.
Re: (Score:2)
erm correction needed, really need to proof my posts better: WITHOUT me noticing or doing something
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you don't understand seem to understand the pertinent attack vectors for shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really dislike the lack of control I feel when using a Windows box. All my personal machines at home are Linux boxes, except one WinXP system I use for specific tasks that require Windows. And on those Linux boxes, I do damn near everything as an unprivileged user. I only sudo to install packages that come from a verified source, such as the latest GCC.
That's not any different to Windows box. You generally don't need Administrator privileges to do things.
Re: (Score:2)
That attitude in people who don't know better (Score:2)
Yes, you are a "power user", but so are the developers that wrote this stuff in their mind even if they did seriously fuck up. IMHO no developer should have seamless admin/root access on the machine they are testing their software out on and for new developers preferably not on their "daily driver" either.
Not that I wrote seamless and bolded it - they may need full admin/root access but they should know when they are a normal user and w
Re: (Score:1)
That attitude in people who don't know better is part of the problem.
Already said I understand the point of it. Fortunately, I do think i know better, and I do think I do a reasonably good job of monitoring what my computer is doing with itself and what's on it. I've been around these things since the late 80's. Not trying to boast, just say I do think i have a pretty good idea what I'm doing.
I could leave it on, sure. Sure it's a huge red-flag of something amiss. But at the same time I feel confident enough by monitoring the firewall between my desktop PC and the inter
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very good point, but they do at least mark some sort of attempt at separation and the sign
Re: (Score:2)
As a point of random curiosity, are you aware that there's malware that installs into your hard drive controller and/or your motherboard firmware? Reformatting won't help you there. Also, have you heard of cryptolocker (and friends)? If you reformat, you lose just as much data as if the malware has its way with your machine.
Re: (Score:2)
You state that you understand it, but show that you clearly don't understand it, or you wouldn't disable it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are a "power user", but so are the developers that wrote this stuff in their mind even if they did seriously fuck up. IMHO no developer should have seamless admin/root access on the machine they are testing their software out on and for new developers preferably not on their "daily driver" either
I'm not much of a developer. I tinker a little as a hobby, but I generally don't do any development anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I try to do all mundane work on systems that are as close to "stock" as possible so that they resemble a typical environment. That's possibly why Windows7 still pisses me off at times (reboot in the middle of a game on my home system again - yes I could turn off updates, but then I don't get to see how
Re: (Score:2)
I keep mine on. While it could be annoying, if you don't expect it to show up and it does, it is huge red flag for you to start paying attention.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
As what I'd consider a 'power user', one of the first things I do is turn that obnoxious thing off.
And I appreciate that, I really do, although I wish you had less crap on your machine, it's slowing down the warez site I'm running on it. Some of the other guys have been complaining as well.
Oh, and could you at least write or call your mother once a week or so, I'm getting sick of seeing her nagging in your inbox.
Re:UAC is for idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I dont mind UAC. Its just like sudo warning you 'think before you type'. Its a clear sign you are initiating a system level action.
I turn that warning off too. Annoying thing. I don't need to be warned, I do believe I know what I'm doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:UAC is for idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn, you're *STILL* spouting bullshit (Score:3)
You're aware that Windows 1-3.x, Windows 9x, and Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista/7/8.x/10 are each very different systems, right? No, of course you're not, you're a loudmouth who has no idea what he's talking about. Windows NT (which is to say, every version of Windows for PCs or servers since XP) was very much designed with isolation between *all* users, including between Administrators and non-Administrators, as a central feature. Windows NT is not, and never has been, a single-user operating system.
The last ver
Re:UAC is for idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact some program that can change the UAC settings is pretty huge example of why Windows has issues separating userspace from root space. It just simply can't do it right. Who's brilliant idea at Microsoft was it to provide any sort of API that can let any program (besides the control panel widget that lets you adjust UAC settings) adjust UAC settings?
I hope you realize what you are saying here is the equivalent of a Linux user saying "The fact that some program can change permissions after I launched it as root is an example of a huge security hole. Whose brilliant idea was it to provide any sort of mechanism that can let any program I run as root do things a user who is root can do?".
This is an example of why UAC exists, in fact: A program that is not UAC elevated could not change your UAC settings (if you hadn't turned them off already).
Re:UAC is for power users (Score:2)
As what I'd consider a 'power user', one of the first things I do is turn that obnoxious thing off.
I remember during the Vista Beta time frame visiting a website that I'd never been to before and all of a sudden having the browser cause a UAC prompt. Now you can go off on what sort of insecure hole could exist that would allow a website to make admin level privileges on a computer, but that doesn't matter; what matters is that fact that it could. I clicked 'No' on the prompt and felt a sudden rush of power over my computer that I hadn't had before. Previously random crap from anywhere could make admin le
Re:UAC is for idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
A dialog that pretty much only appears when (un)installing software is hardly obnoxious in my opinion. Security popups may well be ineffective for most people, but as a power user I know when UAC prompts should and shouldn't appear; getting a prompt when one shouldn't pop up is a useful warning sign.
Re: (Score:2)
You're part of the problem (Score:3)
Wow, I've rarely seen so much idiocy written in one post! I honestly can't tell if you're trolling just a little too subtly, or are sincerely that clueless. People are modding you up though, which is really unfortunate. Here, let me see if I can correct even a little of that...
If you run as a full Admin, nobody cares what you consider yourself; people who know anything about security (on *any* OS) are going to consider you an idiot. The fact that you think you know anything is just extra pathetic. People wh
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with a lot of what you say, the obvious solution is that installers should *not* run as Admin, but as a user with only the permissions required to install software for a normal user. Certainly not with permissions to do anything it likes on the system, and particularly not to change existing security settings.
This is actually one of the biggest potential advantages of the Windows security model over Unix and Linux. There is no god-like root user with a complete pass to do anything it likes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, the first thing you do as a 'power user' immediate exposes you as incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled “cowboy user”.
remember...... (Score:2)
LG was the bottom end manufacturer GoldStar and they honestly have never changed their ways. LG smart TV's happily spy on you and they will not stop doing that, I have found several times that LG commercial sets will give you a ROOT login via the rs232 port if you reboot the set rapidly.
It is no surprise that LG decided to ship a half baked solution for their new flagship displays.
Re: (Score:2)
It is no surprise that LG decided to ship a half baked solution for their new flagship displays.
It's kind of a surprise they shipped it at all. I didn't know what this thing did without a bit of googling, it appears that it's custom software that allows you to display multiple windows at once on your desktop, like, um, what's that Microsoft OS called that does that too? Not Microsoft Window (aka Windows 8), but the one where you can have multiple windows tiled across your desktop.
Oh yeah, Windows 1.0, that was it.
They didn't have to (Score:3, Interesting)
There are ways to work around UAC without disabling it in this case. I know, because I wrote MaxTo [maxto.net], which does much the same things, and works with software running under UAC.
If you want MaxTo to work with UAC, you'll need to run MaxTo elevated. If you say deny elevation, it simply won't work with elevated software.
I'm pretty sure LG just took the "easy way" out (or they may have nefarious purposes, but I won't speculate), instead of figuring out how to communicate between elevated and non-elevated processes.
To do this sort of thing, you'll need to divide your software into a few parts. First and foremost, you'll need to install a global system hook. That hook has to be written in unmanaged code (meaning C/C++). You'll need software that controls the hook (but it can be written in a managed language). Now, both the controlling software and the hook has to be compiled as both x64 and x86 code. They will probably also have to communicate with eachother across the x86/x64 platform boundary.
Now, to get the software to communicate (using window messages) across the UAC boundary, you have to specifically let Windows know which window messages your app will accept from the other side. This is probably the step they missed. You do this by using ChangeWindowMessageFilter [microsoft.com] or ChangeWindowMessageFilterEx [microsoft.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
Looks pretty good. LG should have just licensed/bought that from you. They'd probably have made it a service that starts (with elevation) automatically, but eh, much better than what they actually did!
Surely its a bug/bad design (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Korean more likely. Software architectures of theirs I have seen are a mess of hacks and patches.
Re:Chinese or Indian Devs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The system I had to deal with: the intranet installed an activex component onto each workstation. The component checked to see if a USB device was mounted and if it was, it refused to connect to the internet. You had to disconnect the USB device, download your file, then reconnect it and copy the file. This was their idea of "security".
Brian Fox is a Black Man (Score:5, Informative)
Brian Fox wrote the GNU Bash shell. If you've ever used Linux or OSX, you've used his software.
Re:Brian Fox is a Black Man (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Brian Fox is a Black Man (Score:5, Insightful)
you're not good at this (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like something a cool kid told you one day back in school, in front of pretty girls. I bet they laughed, and later that day gave him a blowjob duet while you were alone in your room playing with your Magic cards.
United We Stand (Score:2)
Liberal witch hunters are hilarious. They remind me of those pro-life people who bomb abortion clinics.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of Bill O'Reilly accusing the ACLU of being pedophiles because they took NAMBLA's side in a freedom of speech case.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
But you still want to look like an asshole. Only egotistical narcissistic assholes use dual monitors.
I used to use a single monitor back when programs were written such that they didn't hog all available screen real estate while still somehow making it necessary for you to do 5 mouseclicks to get to any of the functions of the program. Back when 17" monitors were relatively new, I had a 17" monitor and I could have 3 or 4 terminal sessions going along with several Windows program and could work seemlessly. Now you are constantly paging because every single Windows program is unusable unless it is in full
Re:For when you're too cheap to buy two monitors! (Score:4, Funny)
Have you tried inverting the colours?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Those who've actually done it know that it's actually more productive than multiple displays because of less eye panning. You can see more in less space. I had a high res 21" crt which, with the software back then, was far more productive for me than having two of today's 1080p monitors and the modern software UI designs he talks about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but typewriters are ANYTHING but computer screens on paper.
With a typewriter, you're looking at the copy you're typing instead of what you're actually typing. If you're looking at what you're typing You Are Doing It Wrong.
The only thing they share is that, hey, QWERTY keyboard!
Re: (Score:2)
With a typewriter, you're looking at the copy you're typing instead of what you're actually typing. If you're looking at what you're typing You Are Doing It Wrong.
I have no idea what this means. I think you have inhaled (or ingested) too much correction fluid during your typewriter days. Also please stop saying "You Are Doing It Wrong" out of context, you are ruining a perfectly good catchphrase.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using a typewriter, you're looking directly at the content you're supposed to be typing. You're not looking at the pieces of paper on the roller that you're actually typing.
Re: (Score:3)
There are some situations where 2 monitors are necessary. I do a little video editing - 1 screen for the controls, and a second screen for the actual video. I can't afford a reference monitor, so I just use a good quality LED/LCD screen calibrated as best I can.
You can't edit video efficiently on a single screen, even a big one. There's just too much else on the screen to allow a decent sized window for the actual footage.
Re: (Score:2)
OSS is following this trend too.. It's the trend that needs fixing. The software will follow. That will happen when today's 'ux designers' are banished to the hellpits they arose from.
Re: (Score:2)