Hacker News Reader

Comment by DoofusOfDeath | Hacker News Reader

Historically I've minimized the use of Windows 10 on my home network, because of Microsoft's history regarding privacy and spyware.

Lately, however, I've considered letting Windows 10 run in a fairly locked down VM, so my family can use some apps and games that don't function well in Wine/Proton. I reckoned that the combination of VM isolation, and limiting Windows 10's internet access to a handful of whitelisted domains, is a reasonable compromise. I.e., I had a technical solution to a technical problem.

But this news story reminds me of another reason to keep Microsoft out of my network: they piss me off. Regardless of whether or not I'm currently ahead of them in the arms race. I don't want to reward Microsoft with even one more installation, and I don't want to be perpetually pissed off about something on my network. I crave Schadenfreude for everyone who conspired on this.

(Yes, I realize this sounds like the backstory for the least-compelling super-villain character ever.)

View on HN

you can pick up VLAN capable switches for a couple of dollars more these days, and then completely isolate them from your network

(my Windows VLAN even has its own separate external IP)

My Windows VLAN simply doesn't have any internet connectivity at all. I use those machines for benchmarking work, and I can't have them installing updates and invalidating previous measurements. Isolating them from the Internet entirely is the only simple way to make sure Windows updates are really not going to happen for any reason.

You are probably safe with your setup, but be aware that windows has peer-to-peer update functionality, so if another more up-to-date windows installation gets within reach of your benchmarking machines, it could potentially update them.

I have considered that, but it seems Windows still needs to phone home to Microsoft to check what updates are available, even if it acquires them locally.

Interesting. I do something similar, for an entirely different reason. Basically, I don't want any information about what I'm working on leaking to Microsoft. Or to anyone, for that matter. So I have a Win10 VM, with apps that I need, but with no sensitive information, and periodically install updates.

Whenever I need to use Win10, I create a clone, remove the network adapter, and attach a VDI containing my data. And once I'm done, I delete the clone.

QEMU + PCI passthrough.

Windows isn't allowed to run on any of my networks, and visitors who bring their own laptops are not allowed to connect if they're running Windows. I give them a bootable USB stick with Linux to use until they leave. Anyone knowledgable about tech (i.e. everyone on HN) is a fool to do otherwise.

Why do you believe Windows running on someone else's computer is a threat to your network? It seems to me that if Windows's telemetry is a threat, it's a threat to that person's computer and not your network. So this strikes me as an extreme overreaction.

Disclosure: I work at Microsoft on the Windows accessibility team. But this is my own opinion, posted on my initiative, and I do try to have nuanced positions even when it comes to my employer.

> Why do you believe Windows running on someone else's computer is a threat to your network?

Not the OP, but given how Windows 10 treats the privacy of its localhost user, I can't rule out it trying to obtain information about other hosts on my network and sending it back to Microsoft.

Can I truly rule out the possibility of it sniffing network traffic to see what DNS queries are posed by other devices on the network? Or telling Microsoft about the count/timing/type of cellphones connected to my network?

I concur. Unfortunately, Microsoft has forfeited a lot of trust in recent years through a series of user-hostile acts it has taken in connection with Windows 10. It's prudent to apply the principle of least privilege with any device on your network, and given those user-hostile measures, a rational response is to consider a Windows 10 machine as potentially hostile and apply similar restrictions to something like a BYOD environment. After all, a device can't compromise information it never has through an external firewall that won't let it phone home.

Can you truly rule that out with any other OS?

There is a difference between something you can't rule out as impossible because it isn't a violation of the laws of physics and something you can't rule out as implausible based on the observed past behavior of the entity responsible.

If I told you that an operating system has just been caught doing that, would your first guess be Windows or Debian?

Debian itself I wouldn't worry about much, but Mac OS would be close to Windows.

And I'd be more worried about malware than the OS. Especially phone malware.

You assume that Microsoft has the presumption of good will. They do not.

For me it's because I just don't trust Microsoft anymore. Whats stopping them from using their broad powers under their EULA from collecting information about any device on my network that will respond to the Windows 10 machine's request? The amount of telemetry they force you to accept just to use Windows 10 is unacceptable. If I want a local user account without the OS phoning home for anything other than Windows Update, I should be able to do that. Instead, on a default install of Windows 10 Pro, which I bought a license for, I get tons of preinstalled crapware / links to install said crapware, a barrage of attempts to convert my local user account to a Microsoft account, an antivirus tool that's so aggressive that some of my software development tools have had to include directions for whitelisting their cache directories, and just this persistent worry that Microsoft will push out the next update and break my PC or start collecting new data, or re-enabling things I've already disabled.

My ideal Windows 10 setup would be basically Windows 7 + a wizard of 'Do you want this feature / telemetry' that actually respects my answers.

Trust is hard to gain and easy to lose.

Rationally any device you allow unisolated on your network is a potential threat. Rationally you'd be more worried about infectious malicious packages or applications the user might have unknowingly installed and active than the base system/OS itself.

Empathically people will tend to tar with a bigger brush, like banning all Windows machines of the network, or not allowing any Huawei devices etc.

While these may not be 100% rational trade-offs, there are underpinnings in some if not all of these cases that can have some merit. The US lenience with regards to surveillance and their gagging laws, same for the Chinese etc.

So once that trust is lost, you will be hard pressed to convince people otherwise. What measures if any they are willing/capable to implement in light of that lack of trust will of course be different from person to person. One person's 'extreme overreaction' is another person's 'healthy caution'. One person's 'Calculated Risk' will be another person's 'Callous Neglect'.

> Why do you believe Windows running on someone else's computer is a threat to your network?

For example because it stores WiFi credentials without explicit permission, and even hides the passwords?

https://superuser.com/questions/1498494/where-does-windows10...

I created a separate, isolated network, which is the only one that guests using Windows can access. Same goes for Android phones running default images from their manufacturers.

That is not reserved only for guests, thought.

My wife is now working from home, and follow best practices when it comes to device separation, so she uses her company given Windows 10 laptop for work. That computer can only connect to the isolated network.

At this point, I would argue anyone should do the same.

How do you do it? Do you manually give them the password of the isolated network or is there an automatic way to connect those devices to it?

Most routers support guest network. You do have to share the password manually.

Any new device on my network other than my own logs on to guest network.

I tell them which network to connect to — the isolated network has a different name than the main one —, and share a link with them containing the password over whatever messaging application we use to communicate.

The password for the isolated network has been randomly created using apg[1], so I just share a self-destruct link from a self-hosted PrivateBin[2] instance. The bin part is totally overkill, as long as you create a typeable password using the diceware technique, but since I have the instance running, why not use it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Using apg to generate the diceware password for you is as simple as:

apg -n 1 -m 12 -l -c /dev/urandom | awk '{print $2}'

Okay, maybe not simple, but you get the idea.

[1] https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/disco/man1/apg.1.html

[2] https://privatebin.net/

Security of your network shouldn’t depend on your visitors not running malware (and/or Windows). I’d suggest putting them in a separate WiFi network isolated from your internal LAN and from each other. Most decent APs support it and call it something like client isolation, on top of that you might want to assign this traffic to a separate VLAN that only routes to WAN.

> malware (and/or Windows)

That would be better phrased as "malware (Windows or otherwise)"; your phrasing makes it sound like you don't know that Windows itself is malware.

But yes, network security that depends on the good behaviour of everything on the network... isn't.

I’m sorry. Can I still be in the cool kids club?

I'm so curious. Why do you care so much about Microsoft telemetry?

What data do you think they will exfiltrate that's so important that you go through the effort of setting of VMs and whitelisting?

Do you ban your family from using social media as well due to data collection?

If it's really not that important then perhaps they could afford to stop doing it?

I am not OP.

But an example that I once used to explain to my wife why I don't trust TikTok and whatnot:

Some time ago (I obviously won't say when) we interacted with a person, that had a bounty on his head, setup by Boko Haram, and people DID tried to kill him before. What if for example we had filmed him and that information leaked or got intercepted?

Me, and my wife, have no enemies, done nothing illegal, and so on, nothing to hide personally, but about other people we interact with? What if some day a friend on internet, maybe a gaming buddy, tells me a important secret out of the blue because he needs urgent help, and that secret gets intercepted?

I want to make a similar point.

Suppose you will forevermore remain a boring person who never has anything to hide. So you knowingly use spyware, because you're an open book.

That enables common software to be spyware. If people are willing to use it knowing full well what it is, it continues to exist and be popular. Then people who do need privacy for legitimate reasons don't realize that, or don't have any good alternatives because the better options are niche and make them stick out like a sore thumb. And then dissidents get killed.

Don't get dissidents killed. Just Say No to The Cloud.

Not OC but for example for me I won't like that a list of all my files,app or urls I visited to be saved and stored somewhere. Telemetry should always be opt-in or ask the user (we had cases where for example people were recorded by mistake and the conversations were send to contractors/developers without the user knowing)

The point is that the family might actually want to upload their stuff to the social network, while using an OS and associated software doesn't and should never translate into surrendering all use and other personal data.

Would you find comfortable if while eating at the restaurant with your SO, a waiter sat at next table constantly staring at you two, and taking notes on what you eat, how you do it, in how much time and how much you appear to have enjoyed it, possibly also by analyzing your words? Stupid example maybe, but that would be just one of the many exact equivalents in real life. Don't tell that to toilet manufacturers:)

Why do you care about some random pickpocket going through your wallet? It is not like they are keeping your wallet...

It's called consent. No one likes being stalked or their will violated. A company that does not think much of your wishes and desires will cause you harm when they have to. What can be used against you, will be used against you.

Why do you have a door on your bathroom?

Rhetorical question I know..., but I cannot resist to add 2 observations I made in the past

- The Finnish army did not have doors at their toilets before they got a female defense minister who obviously shocked by that practice ordered that doors need to be installed.

- In 2008 I visited New York City while suffering from stomach problems (We had bought the tickets months before.) While strolling around near Washington square I urgently needed to visit a toilet. I run to Washington Square and into the public restrooms there, to make the shocking discovery that there were no toilet cabins. It was just a big room with several toilet bowls and of course I was not alone. But there was no choice: It's the pants or the (semi-) public toilet bowl. (It remained unclear whether the setup was a result of vandalism or a prevention of vandalism or what)

I'm neither Finnish nor American and I found both learnings pretty shocking. But obviously it's just a cultural thing what is shocking and what not.

That said I am not happy that spying on users, whether its Android apps or Microsoft telemetry is seen as culturally acceptable instead of shocking by a majority of the public today.

>I'm so curious. Why do you care so much about Microsoft telemetry?

You can be curious, but it's not on the OP to have to argue why he cares. Microsoft should not exfiltrate anything without asking for explicit permission, and honor a blanket refusal without exception. That the OP has to go through extreme countermeasures to prevent this leeching is unacceptable.

>Do you ban your family from using social media as well due to data collection?

This logical fallacy rhetoric is known as a whataboutism [1](an attempt to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Actually, I think it's a reasonable question as to why I care so much.

I'd like to say I have a rational justification based on risk/reward analysis, but I don't have enough information or time to really do that.

Honestly, it's more visceral. They repeatedly try to deceive people to pry away their private information. I want it to stop, and (probably to my discredit) I have strongly vengeful fantasies against the perps.

Reasonable, arguably. Let me throw some shade though:

> "Do you want to eat some cake?"

> "No"

That's a very reasonable question and answer.

> "Why don't you want some cake?"

You might think it's reasonable to ask why someone doesn't want cake. I think it's prying. The first time it's asked, okay, fine.

> "Would you want some cake if it was chocolate?"

You're still asking about cake when the person said no.

> "Do you not like sprinkles?"

Why are you trying to conflate sprinkles with cake?

> "I can help you eat it better if understood why you didn't want it."

Seriously. You're building a pattern of abuse here.

"No" is a complete answer for permission. Trying to get around that "no" is malicious and abusive.

Your answer aligns with pretty much all the others. They have in common reprhasing the original situation or questions in extreme way possible.

Cake is a personal taste. Are technical choices a question of taste. Your arguing against debates and technical discussions.

It's telling that many examples given were using video feed or pickpockets as an analogy to telemetry. These are not interesting explanations. Going to extreme arguments is not illuminating.

Sometimes I too take someone's position to a logical extreme. Not to be a jerk, but to start teasing out which parts of their statement need more nuance. Kind of like doing a binary search to find what they really are trying to say.

I've mostly stopped this approach though, because it makes people doubt that I'm having the discussion in good faith.

> They have in common reprhasing the original situation or questions in extreme way possible.

Nonsense. Using cake instead of privacy is making it less extreme than the original.

I guess I just heard a different tone in @jonax's post.

To me, his/her first question just showed interest in the perspective I'd posted.

I took @jonax's later questions as a kind of Socratic questioning. Which can come across as either a way to help sharpen one's position on a topic, or as an unwelcome display of skepticism, depending on the audience. I assumed the former.

If I had to criticize that post for something, it would be that it made wrong assumptions about how I'd answer that first question. So the subsequent questions weren't really on point.

I think you are coming to this point from the wrong angle: if the OP thinks (like I do) that telemetry itself is an invasion of privacy, which data is sent is irrelevant.

Asking "what data do you think they will exfiltrate?" assumes that the only reason to oppose telemetry is "they might see something I want to keep hidden". But, as it's often said when it comes to other people attempting to cross your personal boundaries, "'No' is a complete answer".

> as it's often said when it comes to other people attempting to cross your personal boundaries, "'No' is a complete answer".

I love that, so important!

Have people seen the Tea consent video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

Hmm. That's a cute way to talk through the ideas. But if someone asked for actual tea, then decided they just didn't want it, it would be okay to be a little pushy. Not hugely pushy, but notably more than with 'tea'.

> be a little pushy

Eh? Why would that be ok? I think it's worth asking them why they don't want it anymore. If they continue to say no, do you really think it is ok to start pouring it down their throat?

Consent can be revoked at any point in time.

For what it's worth I think most cultures today are crap at consent. I think many of us are victim to a pre-#MeToo culture where sexual harrasment was somewhat more socially 'acceptable' or 'accepted' [1][2]. I think of the memes of women who seem uncomfortable when Biden touches them. Dr. Bessel van der Kolk talks about his desire for a 'trauma-conscious' society.

To me there is no denying that often we have been hurt, and that there is not enough support for many people out there. I believe we don't get the support that we would need to heal from these things. Walking around hurt and unhealed is unfortunately the norm.

> That's a cute way to talk through the ideas

Rape and sexual assualt are very common, so I think this video is more than 'cute'; it's essential. I hope we start showing this to kids at a younger age, to help them grow boundaries early on. This also concerns consent for non-sexual contact such as hugs, or just any other type of physical contact with another person.

[1] women: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoP8VpbpYI [2] men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc6QxD2_yQw

Pouring tea down someone's throat is more than "a little pushy".

I mean that "come on, you got me to make this tea, at least have a sip" is perfectly fine to say about actual tea. In the analogy, doing that is not good.

(Assume this is a situation where they don't have a specific reason, so asking why they don't want it is completely nonproductive.)

Yeah fair point, I see what you mean

This is a great way to frame the issue. I like to think of it like this passage from Julius Caesar:

> DECIUS BRUTUS: Most mighty Caesar, let me know some cause, Lest I be laugh'd at when I tell them so.

> CAESAR: The cause is in my will: I will not come; That is enough to satisfy the senate.

how did that end for him again? :)

I love the 'No' is a complete answer". I wished I learned that when I was a teen.

Now that I use "no" though, I still have people that ask "why" after it. Can't really tell them "this is the way" :)

No. Why? Because. All you need :)

Can't argue ^^

Give me an always-on camera in your toilets.

Blur your face if you wish.

There is no danger for you. No data I can use against you.

Will you do it?

Most people would not.

What you decide to be private is, just because you decide it.

MS doesn't get to decide that.

It's not that easy. Take into consideration spreading of sensors like light/water/gas/sewerage meters, which report measurements to a central SCADA. I touched that around a decade ago, I had to build link with the meters with AT commands through GSM with modbus protocol on top of that.

These days it's a grown-ass market with competition and much more advanced toys involved. You turn on water, they know timings and how much you used. You use more electricity, they call you to suggest a different plan. You used drugs and flushed, they find metabolites in sewerage sensors (I heard that on news, dunno maybe bs).

So I think it's basically about bills; cameras in toilets are different market.

I don't know. Plenty of politicians have lost because of their behavior years past turned from normal to unacceptable.

I probably won't run for anything, but just in case.

I completely block access to Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and some other social media outlets on my home network.

I'm sure you leave your car doors unlocked, because you don't mind if people randomly rifle through your glovebox as long as they don't take anything. Right?

And yes, this analogy is admittedly a weak one, because while your particular brand of car does have locks on its doors, the manufacturer didn't give you the key.

Bank passwords.

Personal data.

It's not okay for them to take data like this.

> Do you ban your family from using social media as well due to data collection?

No-one (at least yet) is running FacebookOS.

Not for lack of trying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_First

When you buy a house, do you let the realtors keep a copy of the keys to snoop around whenever they want?

Every TOS update and every windows update (probably also unasked for) means it's a never ending task to stay on top of things, the only winning move is not to play.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com