Hacker News Reader

Comment by sirl1on | Hacker News Reader

> I haven't seen a more blatant exposure/confirmation of the deep-seated authoritarian control-freak mindset that has permeated the whole computing industry.

Can I use this as a testimonial? Chill... at least if you want me to discuss this further.

> Yes, back then it was common and expected that users were responsible for their own decisions.

You do not chose and decide to be victim of a scam. At least I presume the "if you wouldn't have downloaded hacker stuff from weird websites you wouldn't have caught malware" was as wrong back then as it is now and is just shifting the blame to the user.

View on HN

If you drive a car down a railway track is it your fault or the sat nav's fault for saying "turn left"

We expect certain minimum skill in operating equipment

Now open an email and have it silently install exploiting a bug in your mail client/browser/network stack, that's one thing. That wasn't this though, this was some software which did exactly what it said on the tin.

So, Back Orifice wasn't hidden in other executables, but passed on by making people download and install it in all awareness?

Didn't know that. Thanks for telling me instead attacking me like OP :/

Oh no, it totally got bundled into different files using other tools with creative names like saranwrap and silkrope whose job it was to disguise the software, and after it was installed silently replace the bundled executable with an ordinary unbundled one to stymie attempts at further analysis.

I'm not certain what GP is on about. There were copious ways to distribute (deliberately payload) infected files back in the day and it was common windows user practice to just download and run executables (especially if they appeared to be installers from reputable-seeming websites) and zero free virus scanning or firewall options were available: all were for pay and all were terrible. None certainly shipped with Windows itself.

Plus as mentioned elsewhere plenty of third party software like ICQ enabled benign-seeming mechanisms to view documents which could be exploited to instead run infected executables.

>You do not chose and decide to be victim of a scam.

You should not be operating a computing device if you don't know how to use it. This was true back then and it continues to be true now.

I find this an incomprehensible position. I've used computers 25 years. I've worked professionally with them for 10+ years. I know more about the runtime and workings of a computer than any of the architects, tech leads, or principal engineers at my company. I don't know how a computing device works fully. 99% of people working in 'tech' don't. So 99% of the professionals aren't to this standard, and we expect end users to be?

What percentage of car drivers are fully qualified vehicle inspectors?

Do you know how to fully use your phone? Would you be aware if pegasus spyware was installed?

> What percentage of car drivers are fully qualified vehicle inspectors?

AFAIK, all car drivers are required to go through specialized training, and pass through periodic skill examinations. You should not be (and are legally forbidden from) operating a car if you don't know how to use it.

> and pass through periodic skill examinations.

Not in the US, at least not anywhere I've lived. The only regular re-examination is an eyesight test. There is no skill testing after the initial license issuance, and there won't be unless the license status is fully lost - waiting too long after expiration, revocation, that sort of thing.

The only regular re-examination is an eyesight test.

And, at least in the state of WA, that "eyesight test" consists of a checkbox on a form that says, "Your eyes aren't shit, are they?". I've checked that box, and I overheard a person well past retirement age tell the same story at a restaurant. I get regular eye exams, but I don't know about the guy at the restaurant.

The last time I took a physical skills test was 40-some years ago. The last time I took a "written" test was...I don't know, ten years? And guess what? I still remember getting a question wrong on that test (despite having lived in WA for over ten years at the time), and what do you know, TIL something about WA road laws. They should test me (and everyone else) more often, and not make half the questions "how much can you drink and still safely drive?"

Oof. In the half dozen states I've lived in, it's an actual vision test. It's not a very good one and I've managed to squint my way through it to keep the corrective lenses required marker of my license...but I did have to correctly report what I saw to renew my license.

There's a difference between knowing how to use a thing and "[knowing] how [it] works fully". Don't conflate them.

>I don't know how a computing device works fully.

You don't need to know how a computing device works fully to know not to execute exe files you find lying around.

This is not how malware is delivered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com