Windows Vista tool targeted by virus writers

Ironic...

Uh, this is all vulnerabilities regarding the command shell MONAD. The only reason the article writer includes Vista in the title is to get you to read it this badly conceived hype piece. MONAD is available now, in beta, for Windows XP, etc. so there is no connection to Vista per se.

So this is essentially a troll/misleading posting based on a troll/misleading article.

Sigh.

Ironic...

How? Or are you just flaming the troll here?

Who're you calling a troll?

I didn't post that arbitrarily. I read the article and felt it was interesting enough to post for commentary.

How? Or are you just flaming the troll here?

No I'm not egging anyone on. Far from it. I just think it's ironic or sad that virus writers are already going after Vista or MONAD that's all. You would think there are better things to do then wrote virus codes.

Erm....and that's some big deal? Come on! I've had XP since 2002, with a simple AV (and wise internet-surfing), you're more then well-off enough. So really I don't see what the big deal was. Now please, someone correct me if I'm wrong (as I often seem to be, haha). Also Kona, I second that!

I dont see why these piss-ant peopel do this to begin with....hacking is one thing, it to gain info or any of many purposes....viruses only destroy with no useful gain to anyone..... I hope the law really gets tough on these people....and finds them

So this is essentially a troll/misleading posting based on a troll/misleading article.

I really don't see the 'troll/misleading' factor anywhere on this post, as a matter of fact I think is a good article to read. Whether MS includes MONAD with Vista or as an add-on tool, it is interesting to know that in the long run it can be the cause of a few problems.
Your comment, Excalpius, is way off base.

Your comment, Excalpius, is way off base.

Really? How about if this was about ANY operating system and someone released a BETA of an entirely SEPARATE product. Shouldn't the TITLE of the article be about the problem in the PRODUCT, and not about the potential future beta operating system? That is the generic case of this, so that you might understand the problem as I saw it.

I took the article writer to task for creating FUD.
I took the POSTER to task for the spreading of FUD.
The title of the article and the post are both FUD.

If your point is that I should have said "FUD" instead of "Troll" then that may be valid. But as I see it, anyone who deliberately spreads FUD is probably trolling. That may or may not fit your definition.

WE, as the readers of these articles, and the posters of them on sites like this need to take some responsibility for the dissemination of information here. In my opinion, this article was parrotted without critical consideration by the poster, as his title is misinformation regarding the content of the article and therefore his post.

If he had posted a title such as "Potential Vulnerabilities Found in MONAD beta", then he would have been accurately reflecting the true nature of the story. ZDNet is about MAKING MONEY, not informing anyone about anything. If you don't read their articles, they don't get the ad revenue. So they will title the article anything they can to get you to read it. Since they refuse to title these stories accurately, how are we to know if this is a really useful article to read? After all, by putting Vista in the title, we all read it. How many of us would have read it if it didn't and only mentioned Monad? Clearly, only those ten people using Monad. They make no money that way. So, don't help them spread FUD. Call them on it. I do.

If you post, post accurately. Don't just be a parrot. That's just my OPINION and my two cents. I don't mean to slight the poster personally. I'm sure he/she had the best of intentions. But it did serve as a perfect example of the kind of FUD spreading that "technology sites" seems have turned into these days, so I pointed it out. Hopefully, no one took this personally. My apologies if you did.

Please, don't go off topic.

and quit stereotyping trolls

WC News is vetted for approval....it's up to the site Admins to determine whether a topic is suitable.  If anyone considers it 'FUD'...that's fine....but determining 'trollish behaviour' is up to the admins...

The sad thing here is that these virus writers intent is to cause harm and distress....worse still that total strangers to them are adversely affected, meaning there's not even the element of revenge, say, to at least give it some meaning or reason. It's such a senseless act and virus writers should be castrated with a butter knife....ouch, and deservedly so.

I'm not normally one for violent reprisals, but these parasites make my blood boil

I've never been called a troll before. I had to go look up the meaning. I found several but this one seems to sum up the general concensus:

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

I do take offense to being called a troll, Citizen Excalpius. I also take offense to being called a parrot, and being accused of posting FUD (whatever that is). I posted what I thought was an interesting article on the new Vista OS, still in beta. I honestly thought it was an article of interest to all of us. One of the primary concerns of Windows XP users has been the security. Or the lack thereof. We've been promised better in the way of Vista. I did a search for "Vista news" today just wanting to read up on any new information that was out there on the subject. At the top of the first page on Google, was a link to this article. I read it, thought it was interesting, and decided I wanted to share the information to provide commentary on the issue.

I'm a contributing member of Wincustomize. Why would I post an article on this site if the sole purpose was to "troll?"

'FUD'...'Fear Uncertainty and Doubt'....

ZDNet is about MAKING MONEY, not informing anyone about anything. If you don't read their articles, they don't get the ad revenue. So they will title the article anything they can to get you to read it.

It seems to me that you are more bothered/upset with the ways and intentions of the site that posted the article than with the content of the article it self.
Just as 47songs did, I could've been the one that read the article and linked it because I think is an interesting piece of information. Does that make me a troll?
The fact that you view this as a trolling/misleading/FUD post (an opinion shared by you alone) doesn’t render the person that posted/linked the article a troll or any similar label.

Now getting back on topic, the article remains a good piece of information.

As one who knows the difference between troll and Troll - you are not the former 47songs (but you may have a little of the latter that's a good thing { The word "Troll" is possibly derived from an old norse word meaning magic} nor would I say you are a parrot. You keep posting lady, I'll keep reading.


psst... y'all ever heard the expression: Guilty dog barks first...?

y'all ever heard the expression: Guilty dog barks first...?

Yep.

Thanks, Bichur, Apocalypse, Jafo, Pic. I appreciate it.

I don't regret posting the article, but I will take responsibility for not making any more of a comment on the initial post. I posted it to get commentary, more thoughts and opinions. Honestly, I didn't consider the source. But whether it is a blog or a national news item, I still believe the written word should be considered debatable. Any written word. Blog or no.

Who are we to believe to tell the whole truth? Or even the partial truth? Bill Gates/Steve Jobs? The Washington Post/Fox News? President Richard Nixon/Bob Woodward? Jark/Spyed? At one time or another all have been debated on their versions of the truth.

I hope the article remains a consideration for further discussion. One of my first reactions to the article was much like Kona and starkers. I find it hard to believe that people sit around trying to think of ways to infect our computers with viruses. Microsoft is declaring war, but it's a battle I'm not sure they can win.

I have already taken responsibility for apparently using the term "troll" too loosely and apparently inaccurately. And my post above apologizes as well for any unintended offense due to that. So I repeat here again (for those who haven't read until the end of any of these, hehe). My bad.

Peace.

PS And yes, you are 100% correct...I think ZDNet is one of the biggest FUD sites online today.

hope the article remains a consideration for further discussion. One of my first reactions to the article was much like Kona and starkers. I find it hard to believe that people sit around trying to think of ways to infect our computers with viruses. Microsoft is declaring war, but it's a battle I'm not sure they can win.

Another good reason to use Linux. But in all respects if you protect yourself chances are you will not get infected by a virus.

The sad thing here is that these virus writers intent is to cause harm and distress....worse still that total strangers to them are adversely affected, meaning there's not even the element of revenge, say, to at least give it some meaning or reason. It's such a senseless act and virus writers should be castrated with a butter knife....ouch, and deservedly so. I'm not normally one for violent reprisals, but these parasites make my blood boil

I agree they (virus writers) should be shot


The thread sounds like it turned into "Trolling" to me

I don't know about FUD but the article is indeed misleading. At least its title is. And I am sure that 47songs isn't trolling either, maybe she just got mislead by the title. In truth the title has nothing to do with the rest of the article. Actually, there are many wrong things about the title and its subtitle. First, it warns about a virus outbreak, when later in the article it says that it will do very little damage. And second it says it will affect Vista when it finally ships, when in reality it won't since the virus attacks Monad and Vista won't ship with Monad, as it's also stated later in the article. And most important of all is that the virus may attack only a specific technology (Monad) that will be available for both XP and Vista, later when it (Monad) ships, and that's over than a year from now, maybe even two years. And the truth is that even if these vulnerabilities aren't fixed by then, it will mainly affect XP users who have it installed, and not Vista. What the article fails to mention is that Vista will always run in restricted mode, meaning that a dialog will popup asking for the administrator password, even if Vista is running under an administrator account. A lot like Linux and OS X do. And that's mainly why Vista will be a lot more secure. Nothing can be installed and no system command can be executed without your knowledge and permission.
So, even is Monad is vulnerable under Vista, it won't matter much since nobody will be able to access it without the administrator password.