|
Once I paid it's mine.
However it should be notify to the user about the malicious application, and should proceed through user's permission. User has to take there own risk.
I appreciate your help all the time...
CodingLover 
|
|
|
|
|
No no no. Any such kind of operation will be treated as Hacker attack and I love my PC. So, I will keep them out.
Regards - Kunal Chowdhury | Microsoft MVP (Silverlight) | CodeProject MVP | Software Engineer
|
|
|
|
|
That the OS maker ask you for permission to remove malicious software.
It also seems to me that almost everyone have missed out on the fact that Microsoft have been doing exactly that for many years. You get it via Windows Update and is called "Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool".
|
|
|
|
|
But you have the option of not installing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Not really. In the case of most people here, the answer would be yes. But, your typical end user likely still has the machine running on default. Which, we all know, will blindly install the critical patches and ignore everything else.
How many of you have worked on your family-whoever's system and found 2-3 years worth of non-critical patches awaiting install?
No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
-irresponsibility@Despair.com
|
|
|
|
|
Way to often.
The person that "managed" their machine before me turned off everything on the machines he installed, including updates and the firewall.
I didn’t mind, I got a nice little extra when he became unable to work on other people's machines, and I gained some loyal customers.
saru mo ki kara ochiru (even monkeys fall from trees)
Usualy i'm that monkey.
If you want an intelligent answer, Don't ask me.
To understand Recursion, you must first understand Recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
quinton1969 wrote: How many of you have worked on your family-whoever's system and found 2-3 years worth of non-critical patches awaiting install?
This is why the malware removal tool should be opt-out instead of opt-in.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
That was kind of my point, even if I might have been a bit unclear on that, as usual. 
|
|
|
|
|
I ALWAYS turn off automatic updates. I don't trust Microsoft to know what's best for me or my family. If they release a service pack, I may install it, but I don't like letting anyone come inside and rearrange the furniture. Who knows what they'll walk away with?
Douglas Jensen
douglas.jensen@maxgaming.com.au
|
|
|
|
|
I'm having it on automatic download, but I select what to install myself.
I don't find it a bad system I might add, but I also prefer to choose myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like an Apple or Sony move. 
|
|
|
|
|
They say nothing is impossible. Yes, maybe nothing physical is impossible. But social?
It is impossible to draw a line that makes everybody happy. Consider similar dilemmas we have faced in the past 6000 years:
1 Don't eat pork. It can give you deadly parasites.
2 Don't drink alcohol. It can kill, especially at high speeds.
3 Don't play games in casinos. Gambling has ruined many a life.
4 Don't have sex with more than one partner. Too many reasons to list here!
Now my son, search within your self. You know it to be true. Your level of sensitivity on each of the above is based on your life experiences and will therefore be different to others. Some of us feel sick to the stomach even thinking of eating pork and some (like me) just love bacon.
Some don't drink (alcohol) and some couldn't go without one.
Some have multiple sexual partners and the rest of just wish we had!
In such cases, we are facing a social impossibility. Under the best of circumstances, the most numerous votes shall win, no matter how limited their source of knowledge and how ludicrous their line of reasoning and how suspicious their point of influence. We call this democracy. I still prefer it to God telling us what to do and big brother watching to make sure it is done.
|
|
|
|
|
And just for good measure !!!!
It is my computer. It is my software, malicious or not.
The short answer is NO.
The long answer is NOOOOOOOOOO!
Henry Minute
Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus!
When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
|
|
|
|
|
What if a cyber-terrorism squad was able to push out some crazy DDoS attack through a security hole in the OS, that, say, effectively crippled commerce in your country?
If that had a prolonged, sustained and profound affect on financial markets and retail operations, even just over the course of several days, it could cost billions of dollars and have significant repercussions on your economy. If the OS vendor was able to use the same backdoor to disable the virus and remove it, I think I'd be in favor of that.
I'd probably say the same for other infrastructure-type problems. Could you imagine an iPhone virus that crippled traffic systems? An Android virus that messed up mass transit electronics? Some kind of bluetooth payload that on some specific date during rush hour crippled vehicle electronics systems?
Btw, I'm not saying that given today's tech any of those are possible, but I'm just trying to think through scenarios that wouldn't offend me.
|
|
|
|
|
You mean like the SQL Slammer virus was doing in 2003? The answer to that was that our ISP cut us off, told us about our problem and what needed to be done to fix it. When we said we had it fixed they reconnected us and doubled checked. In other words, there's ways of stopping a DDOS attack without allowing automatic removal of malware.
That being said, I think it would be absolutely awesome if an OS prompted me to say "Hey this app running on your machine appears to be sending an unholy number of emails, is tracking your keystrokes and monitoring all of your movements, would you like to uninstall this? Yes, Remind me later, Don't talk to me about this app ever again"
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot the third option: "Help me improve it so you can't detect it next time". 
I like your option, but I think with SQL Slammer the distribution was limited to a specific set of computers and ISPs had the ability to do this (perhaps). If it was every residential customer on an ISP I worked for and I worked help desk, I'd be phonin' that one in and moving to Cuba.
|
|
|
|
|
True. I think SQL Slammer required a SQL Server with no password on SA exposed to the internet. Basically you had to be an idiots running IT, and we did.
|
|
|
|
|
As long as they inform you up front, absolutely. It's their work.
That being said, if you don't like it, don't use it. I think such an OS would not be a viable product to base a business on.
Of course, I've been wrong many times before. Which explains why I'm still working for others.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care if its their work, I don't care if they inform up front, and I don't care if they put some clauses in some license, I paid for it, it is mine.
|
|
|
|
|
PedroMC wrote: I don't care if they put some clauses in some license, I paid for it, it is mine.
it's not yours if those "clauses" say it isn't. read before you sign.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote: it's not yours if those "clauses" say it isn't. read before you sign.
Sign what?! When I bought my Android phone I did not sign anything, but I did paid for it.
|
|
|
|
|
i bet you clicked something that said you agreed with the Android OS terms of service the first time you started it up. and if you got an app from the Android Marketplace, you agreed to the marketplace terms of service. and those marketplace terms of service include giving Google the right to kill whatever apps they want to kill.
http://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-tos.html[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote: i bet you clicked something that said you agreed with the Android OS terms of service the first time you started it up.
Nothing in there about removing apps. Mostly a basic we are not responsible if this device/OS kills you or your family disclaimer.
Chris Losinger wrote: if you got an app from the Android Marketplace, you agreed to the marketplace terms of service. and those marketplace terms of service include giving Google the right to kill whatever apps they want to kill.
There is no reference to Google removing (killing) apps from my device in the Android Market ToS and I don't see why there should be. The Android Market ToS should regulate the use of the Android Market and not my particular device usage. Google (or anyone else) has no right to dictate how I use my device, except when I'm using their services/sites/whatevers.
|
|
|
|
|
PedroMC wrote: Nothing in there about removing apps.
2.4 From time to time, Google may discover a Product on the Market that violates the Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. You agree that in such an instance Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your Device at its sole discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be a mistake to think that such clauses give corporations a legal blank cheque to do as they please. In most countries, consumers have rights relating to fair business practice and implied warranties including warranty of merchantability.
If corporations like Google removed applications unfairly and without permission, they would find quickly themselves in court. Users have rights too.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
