Re: [Full-Disclosure] AV companies better hire good lawyers soon.

From: James Tucker (jftucker_at_gmail.com)
Date: 09/14/04

  • Next message: Florian Weimer: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] AV companies better hire good lawyers soon."
    To: gruneberg@absamail.co.za
    Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:51:42 +0100
    
    

    Um, I might suggest one thing, USE YOUR EXCLUSIONS! almost all of the
    anti-virus programs support exclusions, although this is not a best
    case solution, it should work.

    Anyone who does not know why you should be required to submit every
    program you ever make to AV companies needs to think about this a
    little more.
    1. How is a submitted program to be veto'd as safe? (what if a virus
    is submitted?)
    2. How are the AV companies to fund checking every application ever submitted?
    3. What is it that your programs are doing which is showing up in the
    heuristics?!?!?!

    As far as a writer checking to see that their software is compatible
    across all possible local system configurations, that is an
    intractable problem, don't be so silly. Obviously within reason you
    need to ensure that it does not replace anything, does not rely upon
    libraries which are often changed / removed (or that are only
    installed on the development system), does not change system
    configurations unless absolutely required. Meanwhile, configurations
    and libraries which are standard to the platform (say, JVM SDK or OS
    SDK for examples) should be re-used wherever possible, to create
    standardised software where common points of failure can be fixed
    resulting in common fixes. It is important that consideration is taken
    to respecting the documentation when using built in libraries. (This
    is not always a good rule for security, the whole single points of
    failure problem). Doing contrary to any of the prior rules will create
    software which may suffer issues caused by some outside influence,
    furthermore it may become an outside influence for some other
    software, this is not required functionality and is bad software
    design. Applications should clearly be designed to be either static,
    or dynamic as appropriate (i.e. if the OS can just be configured to do
    it on its own, then just configure the OS to do it), not half casts in
    between produced with poor specifications.

    AV companies obviously don't follow all the rules, but they never
    could by purpose could they? (how are you supposed to not affect other
    software when that is your purpose?) AV programs are designed to
    protect your data, false positives are not common but are not
    practically possible to prevent in all cases. At the end of the day,
    binary code only has so many possible permutations and combinations
    (very very many, but so many), furthermore faster heuristic checking
    partially relies on shorter (and thus normally more generic) rules; as
    with many things IT this results in a trade off between accuracy and
    performance.

    I am sympathetic to any developer who comes up against this problem,
    and we are all probably aware of the business damage that can be done
    by such an event; however as a developer you should be capable of
    realising the size of the problems involved here. The only true
    resolution is to get hold of someone (preferably high on the ladder)
    in real life (phone / physical).

    What I am not sympathetic about is the fact that the story about the
    ISP dialler which is blocked by McAffee interests me purely because,
    if the system could no longer dial as a result of this false
    identification; the software had placed itself in a point of reliance
    somewhere between ppp, tcp/ip, and the drivers. This is non-conformist
    (does not just configure the OS, which is how it should be done), not
    recommended by Microsoft, or any other major software development
    company. Use what is available but reliable first, then build your own
    stuff. Of course I might have a completely wrong handle on why the
    connections stopped working after this software was removed.
    Personally I hate customised dialer applications and frequently remove
    them by hand; from the sounds of it the quoted application is such a
    piece of software. In terms of provided functionality for the cost of
    a running program (and sometimes a service too) vs. the (lack of)
    increased functionality over the OS itself; many of these applications
    I would consider malware anyway.

    I showed the ISPWizard site and software to several other
    professionals and the reaction is always the same... "eeeewwww!".
    Whilst such a program might work really well (and arguably had good
    purpose back when it was "hard" to connect to an ISP, on win95 or some
    derivation of), its not exactly "good" software. It provides 2
    features over the normal Microsoft wizard (which you can add this
    functionality to anyway, and the dialer partially just does this), 1.
    Provides a selectable list of service numbers, 2. Automagically sets
    up a pile of ISP abuse on your system (branding pasted everywhere).
    "Setup programs created are very small and self contained (Around
    300k)" this is not a feature, 300k is a huge amount of data to front
    an Internet dial up wizard IMO, especially as it is essentially
    carrying how-to-configure-a-system scripts. At least the price point
    is very reasonable, but I would still just distribute DUN configs
    (which aren't even binaries, so no more worries here).

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


  • Next message: Florian Weimer: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] AV companies better hire good lawyers soon."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Outlook Express
      ... >I have checked the configurations and all seems ok. ... Also checked with ISP ... >> most likely candidates for lost mail. ... >>> an efficient email set up desperately. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)
    • Re: Outlook Express
      ... I have checked the configurations and all seems ok. ... Also checked with ISP ok. ... "Bill Ridgeway" wrote: ... >> an efficient email set up desperately. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)
    • Re: If Only ...
      ... If your ISP has a webmail interface, you could set up a test ... Assuming your POP situation is stable on the ISP end, ... losing any mail with the POP connector. ... > configurations using actual email accounts without risking loss of ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
    • text-only email
      ... with a POP3 and SMTP connector to transfer mail to our ISP. ... HTML mail comes in as HTML code only. ... Both the ISP and Microsoft say that there is no problem with the ... configurations, yet I am going to have a riot here if I can't get this ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
    • text only email
      ... POP3 and SMTP connector to transfer mail to our ISP. ... HTML mail comes in as HTML code only. ... configurations, yet I am going to have a riot here if I can't get this ...
      (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)