First Worm with a EULA? 800
ErikRed1488 writes "There is a new virtual postcard from Friend Greetings, owned by Permissioned Media that prompts you to install their software to view the card. You are then presented with a EULA granting them permission to e-mail all the Contacts in your Outlook Address Book. Those people are presented with an e-mail from you telling them they have a greeting card to pick up. So, this thing spreads like a worm, but includes a EULA that 95% of users won't take the time to read. Symantec isn't detecting this as a virus, but does have information about it on their site. In addition to the worm-like way it spreads, it also installs spyware designed to deliver ads to your computer. You also give them permission to install further software any time they want. In my opinion this is completely nasty, but it's all clearly in the EULA that you must agree to before it installs the software."
The First Worm Written By a Microsoft Lawyer... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
too bad online legislation moves so slowly... i think i'm going to register for every spam list i can with my representatives' email addresses, and see if that gets things moving along... umm.. just kidding, secret service guy reading this over my shoulder.
a
Re:For perspective... (Score:5, Informative)
- The parties must give the appearance that they're serious about signing a contract (one party can't be obviously joking).
- The parties must be competant (old enough, sane enough, sober enough).
- There must be consideration (both parties must gain something or force some new obligation on the other party).
- The purpose of the contract must be legal.
The third element doesn't matter if one doesn't get past the second: In your average software purchase, what does the EULA give you that you wouldn't otherwise have, or restrict the other party from doing that they otherwise could?
Now, if it's a free download, and you're only offered the download if you click through the EULA, that's an entirely different matter: there's clear consideration in that you're being allowed the download at all. On the other hand, if you purchase the software without the EULA being a condition of the purchase, unless the EULA offers some further consideration it may not be binding at all.
Another question raised: What if you aren't competant to agree to the EULA for a piece of software (due to being drunk, or insane, or a minor, etc)? Well, if the situation is such that you really have no right to use the software without agreeing to the EULA (which is likely the case with a free download conditional on clicking through the EULA, but unlikely to be the case if you purchased the software from a 3rd-party vendor who didn't make you agree to the EULA before the purchase), then you're using it illegally. If, on the other hand, you had the right to use the software even without agreeing to the EULA (say, because you purchased it from a 3rd-party vendor who didn't force you to agree to the EULA beforehand) then the EULA is invalid in any case because of the lack of consideration (unless, of course, the EULA gives you some other rights you didn't have before agreeing to it, or some obligations to the vendor which they didn't have beforehand) and you can still use the software even if you don't agree to the EULA -- and even if the EULA is legally binding (say because it obligates the software manufacturer to provide phone support which they wouldn't otherwise be obligated to provide), if you have the right to use the software without agreeing you can legally skip the EULA (say, by tricking the installer) and go your merry way -- but don't try to pretend you agreed to the EULA when calling for that phone support! That's the theory, anyhow. Before relying on it working that way in practice, talk to a real IP lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction, and hope you get a reeeal friendly judge.
Coming back to this particular case: Is sending email to everyone in your address book illegal? Probably not (though of course this may vary on your jurisdiction). Hence, is this EULA invalid due to the illegal-purpose clause? Once again, probably not.
Re:For perspective... (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL - Have taken some business law classes. Not legal advice - Not FDIC Insured - May Lose Value.
It's for this same reason that EULAs on free-of-charge software cannot be enforced, unless you are giving them some consideration (like agreeing to look at their ads).
This makes this case even more complicated, since the spam company could argue that "in exchange for the good and valuable consideration of the right to run the program, you agree to let us use your good and valuable consideration of the right to use the contacts in your address book for marketing purposes" A clear exchange of consideration!
This may even apply to some free-speech software licenses that include restrictions above and beyond simply terms of copyright licensure, i.e. restrictions on non-distribution related use. Most free-speech licenses don't have such clauses, but a couple do.
In any case, this isn't simple, but I hope to god it is illegal somehow, or becomes so in the near future.
New kind of LAN party... (Score:5, Funny)
Problem solved, you were boisterously drunk at the time of install.
Re:For perspective... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. Neither are "shrink wrap" contracts (you know, the kinds that are kept inside the sealed plastic covering that start "By breaking this seal you agree to..." , and continues "...Microsoft does not garantue the usefuleness of this software for any purpose what-so-ever, even including purposes stated by Microsoft or Microsoft employees."
Yes, that's more-or-less an actual "shrink wrap" "agreement" I once had with Microsoft. Anyway, it's all illegal, if you live in Sweden, or any European country, or come to think of it most any country in the world except the US.
<simpsons>Haha!</simpsons>
Re:The First Worm Written By a Microsoft Lawyer... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The First Worm Written By a Microsoft Lawyer... (Score:5, Funny)
It's also common knowledge that EULA's aren't read (by gurus and newbies alike). They might as well put the warning in a locked filing cabinet stored in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door that says "beware of the leopard".
You're missing the point (Score:3, Interesting)
It is the brazen sickness that brings reference to Microsoft. Of course, the fact that it employs a signed application to access the Microsoft designed email resource is probably because they are ubiquitous and easy to give up all of their information.
AOL? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:AOL? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it is. People need to take the time to read things before double click-installing them.
Ignorance never counted as an excuse, it shouldn't be different online.
Re:AOL? (Score:4, Interesting)
If I find one of these on our network (and I know I will, our l-users being what they are), I will have them sent to HR for fiolation of their terms of employment, namely, agreeing to violate their confidentiality clause, which states that they will not under any circumstances provide any company information to a third-party without prior approval from management.
They might even get fired for clicking on the EULA.
And that's what we really want.
Re:AOL? (Score:5, Funny)
It's free, does what it says and it won't kill your system?
Re:AOL? (Score:5, Funny)
Then why does my collection of disks keep piling up? I don't bring any more into the house, yet there are always a couple more around. The damn things are breeding, I tell ya!
LOL... (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you really count it as a virus if it preys on people's lack of regard for Internet safety precautions? :P
I'd call it darwinistic, if Apple [apple.com] weren't so letigious.
Re:LOL... (Score:5, Insightful)
What, you mean like every-other-worm-out-there?
Re:LOL... (Score:5, Funny)
No. This one is opt-in.
Re:LOL... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL... (Score:4, Insightful)
Beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)
This can only be good for Open Source.
Re:Beautiful (Score:4, Interesting)
EULAs, and karma (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words:
This can only be good for Open Source.
Re:EULAs, and karma (Score:4, Informative)
The GPL has nothing to say about how you can use the software. It places _no_ restrictions on your right to use the software or how you plan on using the software.
The GPL _does_ have something to say on how you might redistribute the software. That is it. It is a copyright notice which _grants_ you the right to redistribute after meeting a few requirements. Once again, it does not restrict what you can _do_ with the software.
Re:EULAs, and karma (Score:4, Informative)
The GPL does not require an end user to agree to a license before using the software. It is a copyright license. That is it. It _grants_ the abillity to copy and redistribute once certain criteria are met. The two are fundamentally different.
The EULA is a matter of contract law.
The GPL is a matter of copyright law.
Understand?
Re:what if it also installed it's source? (Score:4, Informative)
Additionally, last time I read the GPL, I don't recall it saying anything about e-mailing itself to everyone in my ~/.mailrc.
Re:what if it also installed it's source? (Score:5, Informative)
The EULA is a matter of contract law.
while
The GPL is a matter of copyright law
The two are fundamentally different. The EULA places _restrictions_ on what you can _do_ with the software.
The GPL _grants_ you the right to redistribute (which would normally not be there, because of copyright law) once certain criteria are met. The GPL does not impose any restrictions on what you can _do_ with the software.
In the absence of the EULA you would be allowed to do anything you saw fit with the software (short of illegal acts and within the copyright clause).
Re:what if it also installed it's source? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, if the contract is null and void, you are still bound to the standard law regarding copyrighted material with respect to a GPL work. In other words, you can look at it, but you don't have any right to redistribute, modify, etc. etc. etc., all the nice rights that the GPL grants you THROUGH your acceptance of a contract, IN EXCHANGE FOR consideration. So it is clearly only possible as a result of BOTH copyright law and contract law that the GPL can exist. An EULA generally refers to a consumer good (a piece of binary software), that is also admittedly under copyright protection, and there is generally no "contract" that I think should be legally acceptable, because, as you point out, it restricts what you can do and offers you no consideration in return (though click-through licenses apparently offer you the consideration of being able to use software you already paid for - ROFL).
Summary: GPL depends on a combination of contract law and copyright law. Shrinkwrap EULAs depend on a serious misinterpretation of contract law to restrict rights that you have as a result of common law and copyright law (i.e. first sale doctrine, etc.). Clearly we can all agree that EULAs restrict freedoms, and most Free/Open Source Licenses, GPL included, grant rights you wouldn't otherwise have.
Re:Beautiful (Score:3, Funny)
I can see Bill Gates now: "We TOLD you the GPL was a viral license, but nooooooooo! You didn't listen!"
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Funny)
It all leads to more and more bad press, and eventually makes an impression on the legal system, as EULAs are still unproven. Imagine if someone at Microsoft slipped in an extra requirement into the next version of windows right as the CD was about to be mastered.
By agreeing to the terms of this software you are also bound to slaughter your
first born son, drain his blood, and send it to:
The Master of all Evil
c/o Bill Gates
One Microsoft Way
Redmond WA, 98052
so that the lord of the underworld may feast on your childs soul.
It would obviously be caught by someone, but how many people will not read it and click "accept" before that happens? Probably hundreds of thousands. Will that hold up in court? Unlikely. But why not... where is the line?
There is no line. It hasn't been set yet. As we are a democracy, public opinion (currently uneducated in this area) has an effect on where the line is drawn. This only helps our side, in the long war.
Re:I disagree (Score:3, Informative)
According to here, at least in England and Wales, contract law (EULA) cannot overrule statue law. In other words any clause in a contract that requires either party to do something that violates statute law (murder for example), is void. This may or may not break the rest of the contract.
No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
I would remark "How could the makers of such a thing sleep at night?" - but I already know the answer: they sleep just fine. People like that don't believe that they're doing anything wrong.
This may be the type of thing we need (Score:5, Insightful)
I would rather say "There shouldn't exist any such licensing format. And we as the people should not allow it to ever exist."
Re:This may be the type of thing we need (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This may be the type of thing we need (Score:3)
check the statuates and wear a groin guard.
That's rich... (Score:5, Funny)
GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this should actually shield the virus-writer from any sort of prosecution, shouldn't it? I suppose you could do all sorts of nasty stuff and be completely protected so long as you could prove the user clicked "ok" to the license.
Maybe this will be the tool which turns the tide on the EULA.
RIP: Senator Paul Wellstone.
Re:All hail the all powerful republicans! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that people assume that censorship and the shutting down of the internet at the request of the industry is a liberal idea? Wellstone was the most liberal man in Washington, and he was against the above. Censorship does not fly along partisan lines, but if it did, it would not be a liberal idea.
The death of a senator probably won't affect the outcome of a national election two years down the road. The only way Bush gets elected in 2004 is if he is successful in keeping the voting public blind to the fact that the economy is more important than foreign policy, and that his failing policies both at home and overseas are, well, failing. Thus far he has been successful in keeping his blatant domestic failures a secret by focusing on foreign policy, and it is very ominous for the future of the republic if he is able to do it for an entire term and into another.
Either way, the death of Wellstone is not a political issue, and it should be looked at as the tragedy that it is. If anyone criticizes Wellstone as a man, they don't know who he was and are not qualified to talk about him. You can disagree with his views, but if you dislike him as a man, you are simply wrong.
Good could come from this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good could come from this (Score:4, Interesting)
IMO, if you click "yes", you deserve exactly what you get.
Re:Options? (Score:3, Insightful)
And, if you don't read the warning labels/user manual on a product, and are injured as a result of its use, you certainly deserve what you get. I bet you read the manual next time. Or not.
As long as a reasonable effort was made to warn you (be it a warning label, or a license for which you have to click "I AGREE" before installation), it is your fault for not taking precautions.
Do I feel these people are doing wrong? Absolutely. Do I think it should be regulated/outlawed? Hell no.
complete control (Score:5, Funny)
I am workin on a EULA that gives me power of attorney over for the user.
subterfuge (Score:5, Funny)
Re:subterfuge (Score:3, Interesting)
Good idea (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good idea (Score:3, Informative)
You being slashdot user #4015 and most likely a real geeky guy, let me explain that making kids for free is not very difficult.
Cum to think of it, it's more difficult NOT to make free kids.
I was reprimanded... (Score:5, Funny)
I got in trouble for saying the following to one of our users (after he installed it, agreeing to all of the nasty terms):
Apparently that's not a valid response, at least according to my boss.
Re:I was reprimanded... (Score:5, Funny)
The correct response is: What the fuck were you thinking, mister glue-sniffing moron?
Re:I was reprimanded... (Score:5, Funny)
"I see you're trying to email a program to every member of your Outlook Address book. DON'T DO THAT YOU FUCKING MORON!"
This should be regulated (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti Virus Dectection. (Score:2, Insightful)
two thumbs up! (Score:2, Interesting)
besides, it's about time someone taught us a lesson about clicking 'accept' on EULAs of everything and anything we use.
Hopefully this will do people some good, the whole story just needs to get decent exposure in the media.
Read the EULAs then (Score:5, Funny)
- the right to borrow your car at any time -
- the right to sleep with your spouse at our discretion -
- the right to submit and enforce decorating standards in your home -
- the right to reduce you and your pets to a dissarrayed, sub-atomic goo-
Re:Read the EULAs then (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Read the Illegal Art EULAs then (Score:5, Funny)
Absence of Eula = Real worm/virus ? (Score:2)
So the virus companies ignore this on what grounds ? are they saying that if a virus/worm has a EULA its not hostile/malicious code and therefore immune from detection/removal
what exactly constitues a virus/worm and why should the virus companies ignore this yet still target [insert worm without eula name here] ?
95% of users? (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't you know that 48% of all statistics are completely made up?
Legal vs. Ethical (Score:5, Insightful)
Is what these business professionals done legal? Probably.
Is it ethical? Absolutely not. Otherwise, why hide the email's worm nature in the EULA?
I know there are those that are going to say, "Hey, you had the opportunity to read the EULA, you didn't, and you clicked it anyway."
But caveat emptor, though a fact of life, does not exempt the screwer from his reponsibility of what he did to the screwee.
May be legal. But in my mind, definitely not ethical.
Who controls your machine? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who controls your machine? (Score:3, Insightful)
New geek mantra (Score:5, Funny)
a good legal test (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought of doing this quite a few times myself, but have always lacked the resources. This is pure genius, really. You get people to propigate the virus willingly, all the while having them agree to transmit it without their knowledge - despite the fact that they agreed.
This brings forth some fairly serious implications and issues involving EULAs. I'm not exactly sure what they are, but I'm sure they're there, and have probably already have been discussed in this or that post concerning MS's dastardly EULA garbage.
Reminds me of Bonzi Buddy... and other spyware. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bonzi Buddy and some global time (spywayre) thing does almost the same thing. It sends your personal info to companies and sells it.
The only diffence I can see here is that this is not done by a major company....
Yes, a worm is a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Some may scream that the law should enforce morality, but then you must wonder "Who's Morality?".
I read a very interesting book recently, called Human Action, by a lovely looking grey haired man called Ludwig von Mises. It was left by my old boyfriend in the bathroom, and I picked it up and smelled it unhappily one evening, but before long found myself readin Mises' interesting take on the fundamental sovereignty of man.
Mises [mises.org] would warn us all against enforcing a common morality, for that is a sure way to tyranny, in the end. This company should not be legislated against. We should instead encourage people to read EULAs and to take responsibility over themselves, over their own bodies, over their computers. Anything else is slavery to government.
I thought I had left slavery to the state behind in my native Scotland. As a Catholic girl, I understand only too well the attractions of worshipping an idol like the state. But we are better to resist laws that seem fair and moral, and instead trust in common deceny and responsibility.
Thanks,
Margot. XXX
Re:Yes, a worm is a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite a tricky situation. The laws of any land should be willing to flex for cultural differences (NYS allows marriage as young as age 12 with four-parent consent) while still protecting its citizens (ritual sacrafice and blood killings given no more leniance than a cold-blooded killing.)
And given that your morality is not the same as mine, and given that there is no absolute morality, we can then see that there are many problems with seeking to use the state to solve these problems.
But there is an abolute, common morality. Murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Infidelity is wrong. Where we run into problems is on the exceptions (when is killing a person not murder?) and the items that our common moral heritage doesn't cover (Should we go to the moon? Should we allow homosexuality?)
Our legal problems arise when people take their personal bias, call it "moral", and try and legislate it into existance--which isn't the right way to work at all.
Also, I am sorry you found my use of "Who's" offensive, but English is not quite my native language, gaelic is, and I foten make mistakes even now. I can speak it far better than I write it. I'm almost-native, I suppose. Bye
I'm not offended; you did not insult me. I was simply correcting an all-too-common error. It's like if you said that Albany's north of Schenecteady, and I corrected you that it was south.
As for gaelic--coolness! My wife always wanted to learn Gaelic.
Admit it (Score:5, Insightful)
of course it's not a worm (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, given that the GPL'd software that's touted so often on this site is propogated through a similar device, villainizing this program borders on hypocricy. I don't even understand why traditional "worms" are given that name. Someone sends you an unknown executable that happens to distribute itself to your contact list, and you run it without Googling first to find out what it is...who's to blame here? The program's function is well-known, so the informed user won't be surprised when he fires it up and it does exactly what it's supposed to do.
Let's use some common sense here, please.
Idiocy (Score:3, Insightful)
I have yet to see ANY GPL software that is distributed this way.
Write up I sent to the office (Score:5, Informative)
And the removal instructions [mcafee.com]
Google has a newsgroup post on the sucker [google.com]
And here are some sample infection URLS for those who wish to catch the sucker or download the files for analysis:
Infect Me 1 [friendgreetings.com]
Infect Me 2 [friendgreetings.com]
A similar worm is described by Symantec here [symantec.com]
It works in IE, but not Phoenix (Mozilla based browser)
You have to download the installer and the MSI file, which takes a while.
I went so far as to download the files, but didn't go past the first EULA to see the really bad one that's supposed to come during the second install, so I didn't see the text in a live install myself, just in the McAfee
writeup.
So I downloaded the Microsoft Installer SDK and decided to crack open the MSI install file. Accroding to Servant Salamander, the word "Outlook" was in "Friend Greetings.msi."
Then I decided, "To hell with it, it's in there as clear text anyway" and opened the install File with VIM. Here is the offending text:
1. Consent to E-Mail Your Contacts. As part of the installation process,
Permissioned Media will access your MicroSoft Outlook(r) Contacts list and
send an e-mail to persons on your Contacts list inviting them to download
FriendGreetings or related products. By downloading, installing,accessing
or using the FriendGreetings, you authorize Permissioned Media to access
your MicroSoft(r) Outlook(r) Contacts list and to send a personalized e-mail
message to persons on your Contact list. IF YOU DO NOT WANT US TO ACCESS
YOUR CONTACT LIST AND SEND AN E-MAIL MESSAGE TO PERSONS ON THAT LIST, DO
NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, ACCESS OR USE FRIENDGREETINGS.
If anyone is interested, I'll e-mail out both EULAs. There's some rude stuff in there. (You agree to receive pop-up and pop-under ads and HTML e-mail for example)
Below is the original e-mail from Cheryl, for the sake of reference and forwarding:
--- Forwarded Message Follows-----
FYI...
It's not so much a virus as it is a potential worm. And it's an interesting one at that because it's a "permissive" worm. It banks on the fact that people install products without reading their EULAs. If you read the EULA they include, it specifically says that by accepting the EULA, you are giving them permission to send email to everyone in your MS Outlook Contact list!!!!! (I included the pics they sent us, but I'm not sure how many of you will actually see them).
Pretty fascinating, actually. And smart. Because people don't read EULAs! (Er, for Dad: EULA is "End User License Agreement" - and I'm guessing you and Steve read them because you are lawyers...
Ilene
-----Original Message-----
From: Kronos Norton AntiVirus
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:51 AM
To: All Kronos Employees
Subject: Please read about a potential virus....
Importance: High
Potential virus as a Greeting Card ~ Please be aware of this
potential threat via a web link.
Friendgreetings
iscovered on: October 24, 2002
Last Updated on: October 24, 2002 03:20:23 PM PDT
Symantec Security Response is aware of a widespread E-card which appears to have the characteristics of a worm. Security Response does not classify this as a malicious threat and as such will not detect any files associated with the E-card. The installation of software associated with the E-card requires the user's permission in order to perform it's mass-mailing capabilities. By cancelling the installation of the software, no worm-like activities will be performed. The recipient would recieve an email with the following characteristics:
Subject: %recipient% you have an E-Card from %sender%.
Message:
Greetings!
%sender% has sent you an E-Card -- a virtual postcard from FriendGreetings.com. You
can pickup your E-Card at the FriendGreetings.com by clicking on the link below.
http://www.friendgreetings.com/pickup/pickup.as
Message:
%recipient%
I sent you a greeting card. Please pick it up.
%sender%
When the link is followed, the recipient is asked to download some software in order to view the E-card.
The installer package will require the user to accept 2 End User License Agreements in order to complete the installation. The second EULA (see below) explicitly states that by accepting the agreement the end user is authorizing the software to send an email to all contacts in the Microsoft Outlook Contacts List. The email is formatted as displayed above.
If this agreement is not accepted, the installation is not complete and the software will not send a link to the www.friendgreetings.com website via email.
Re:Write up I sent to the office (Score:4, Informative)
"Applicable Law. The laws of the Republic of Panama will govern this Agreement, without reference to conflicts of law principles. The parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction of, and waive any venue objections against, the courts in the Republic of Panama. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the Sale of Goods does not apply to this Agreement."
Isn't that nice. The link to their main EULA is here [permissionedmedia.com].
Re:Write up I sent to the office (Score:5, Funny)
That's a long way to walk to pick up a fax. ;)
This is not exactly a "license" (Score:4, Insightful)
This just describes what the program does, and by placing it in the license, they hope that you don't read it. Kinda like saying something in 4pt-font fine print: ("note: Happy Fun Toy will explode into sharp shards, killing your child"). Shady practice, but not directly related to the real problems with EULAs ("you may not use this program unless...").
Just nitpicking.. But it's true, you should always read your EULAs (prounounced EWWWWWWW-lahz).
Saves some people a lot of time (Score:3, Insightful)
Never: EVER, have I recieved an email which read "Forward to everyone you know" that should actually have been forwarded to anyone.
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER send to everyone you know! How many times must I say this? There is *NOTHING* that needs to be sent to everyoen you know.
Execpt this excellent cookie recipie...
M@
reminds me of a spam i got a while back (Score:5, Interesting)
basically, here's the scheme:
a person likes another, but is too shy to ask him/her. this site allows a way to anonymously email that person. the message essentially says "guess who"
i was expected to guess the admirer by giving the site every email i could think of that might be the admirer. if there's a match, each party is informed. for all those non-hits, an email identical to the first was sent out; spam.
i happen to use unique email addresses and handed this address to only four people, two of whom were female, so i knew it was one of them or a friend
this type of ponzi-style scheme with unforseen problems seems to be getting popular now; EULAs often take complete advantage: people blindly give permission to have third-party software downloaded and installed, to become the source of spamming and/or propogation, or to allow use of spyware.
Beautifully evil (Score:3, Funny)
Yay for evil! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's unfortunate that it has to be this way, but unless people get burned by EULAs they're not going to take EULA's seriously. Discovering that they've agreed to let this software spam their boss, coworkers, and business contacts will hopefully encourage people to seriously read EULAs in the future. I expect that when people start seriously reading EULAs, they'll discover they don't actually agree with many of the terms. (Or at least they'll discover that they can't make heads or tails over the thing.) A little backlash would be help restore balance to EULAs and make the work a more fair place.
Anyone have a kid? (Score:5, Interesting)
-
Under US law, storing personally identifiable information about children is [largely] illegal.
-
The EULA, as far as I can tell, makes NO mention about this product not being allowed for under 13s.
-
With its infection (uh, I mean, transmission) mechanism, it makes no attempt to discover the age of the user before beginning to log their personal information.
So, as soon as you discover your child has installed this program, sue them for failing to make any attempt to avoid violating their rights. Their EULA get out clauses don't work either as, being a child, they couldn't legally agree to the EULA anyway.Hopefully it'll spread better than they ever hoped. A class action lawsuit for every child in America would probably make a fairly clear point to anyone else trying this.
Problem Solved. (Score:5, Funny)
Who knew reading /. could be a public service?
Actually WANTing MS to change their EULA (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hi, could you add the following term to your EULA?..."
Third parties: You agree not to reverse engineer or exploit Microsoft Outlook in such a way as to create "worms" [define to your lawyers hearts' content] on penalty of $1trillion US, to be paid to [add deserving fund].
Now they can make their worms as legal as they like and, by expecting others to live to their EULA, they have to abide by Microsoft's and file for bankruptcy.
Never thought I'd like Microsoft having EULAs.
Virus scanning companies have dropped the ball (Score:4, Interesting)
This worm is no worse than the sites that have javascript to prompt you to install Cometcursor, Gator, Download accelerator, Bonzi Buddy and other spyware apps. I've already seen quite a few shockwave greeting card sites (with a Gator or other spyware install attempt) that ask you to "Send this card to a friend" and I've been sent links to these by my less computer-savvy friends. What's worse, you end up on more spam lists too...
Sooner or later, EVERYONE online ends up being prompted to install some kind of spyware. The companies that produce antivirus software need to include features to actively scan and disable spyware (with a default setting enabling scanning for spyware/adware, but an option to disable it if for some reason you want to). I've personally become sick of explaining to people that NO, their Norton or McAfee isn't going to catch the program that's been giving them all these popups and that they need some free program they've never heard of before (AdAware) to get rid of them.
While AdAware is great for power users, for the average population of PC users, automatic background protection like virus scanners provide for viruses is what is required. When a worm like this or a web page tries to install some new spyware, the user won't even be prompted - the antivirus software just says NO.
Many sneaky 'EULA's' (Score:3, Interesting)
Enter to win a "Free Trip" at the mall, (and have your long distance service switched), for one example.
I know it's hard, but you have to read (and attempt to understand) what they are actually asking you to do. But, I guess the result of that will be ever more obfuscated wording, so that no real human could get the true meaning of what it is doing.
Legalese could expand a common, two line description into many, many pages. NO ONE would read and understand its true meaning.
Store files on my computer? Oh, that must mean the graphics that come with the card.
No, Virginia, they mean they will store whatever they feel like putting there.
Send emails to my friends? COOL!
No, send anything they want, any time they want. And possibly have their interface hacked by some OTHER fool next month.
"Oh, we reserve the right to change this EULA at any time. The new one will be posted on our website." (Way back 7 levels deep, at the bottom of the page in a font no human can read).
What might a new EULA do? Again, Virginia, anything they want.
95%? Incredible! (Score:3, Insightful)
-Waldo Jaquith
Cracks also has EULA's (Score:4, Funny)
DAMN
Electronic End-User Software License Agreement
THIS PROGRAM IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. BREAKING THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT WILL RESULT IN SEVERE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE UNDER LAW.
THIS AGREEMENT IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT. READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE SOFTWARE. IT PROVIDES A LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE. BY CLICKING ON THE "YES" BUTTON AND USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE CONFIRMING ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND AGREEING TO BECOME BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO DO SO, DO NOT RUN THE SOFTWARE AND PRESS "NO" BUTTON.
1. Definitions
"Software" means the programs supplied by DAMN herewith.
2. License Restrictions
You MAY NOT use this Software AT ALL. Using the Software will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under law. You also may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network. You may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form. You may not rent, lease or sublicense the Software. You may not modify the Software or create derivative works based upon the Software.
3. Ownership
This license gives you NO rights to use the Software. Although you own the media on which the Software is recorded, you do not become the owner of, and DAMN retains title to the Software. All rights including Federal and International Copyrights, are reserved by DAMN.
4. Limitations of Damages
DAMN SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF DAMN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND EVEN IF A REMEDY SET FORTH HEREIN IS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
Funny points of their EULA (Score:3, Interesting)
3. Updates/New Information. Permissioned Media reserves the right to add additional features or functions to the version of PerMedia you install, or to add new applications to PerMedia, at any time. As more fully disclosed in our Privacy Statement, PerMedia is designed to regularly communicate and provide information regarding your Internet use to Permissioned Media. Accordingly, Permissioned Media has the right and you hereby authorize it to update or automatically install a new version of PerMedia on your computer when a new version is released to the general public and/or when new features are available. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Permissioned Media and its business associates have no obligation to make available to you any subsequent versions of PerMedia. You may not distribute or copy PerMedia (r)other than for backup purposes).
So you can't distribute their program in any way? Isn't that the whole point of the program? These guys really are a bunch of idiots!
Taking it one step further (Score:3, Funny)
I can create a virus and then sue anti-virus companies for distributing my virus "signature" in their software, which is obviously a derivative work.
Another idea is to apply for a patent and then sue for patent infringement. Does anyone know if the buffer overflow technique has been patented yet?
What? No /. effect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank god for Trend Micro (Score:5, Informative)
I knew there was a reason I migrated us from Symantec to Trend at the office here.
I've said it before. (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the user has no legitimate reason to WANT to install this software, he/she has to be coerced into doing so with false pretenses. If this is legal to do, it would be no less legal to install a dangerous payload, so long as the EULA explains it and gives the user an option to cancel.
Perhaps this would be a good time to try to challenge the validity of the EULA. Can't have it both ways. Either it's a binding contract and therefore if you agree to spam your contacts and have your harddrive formmated, you can't hold the author liable. Or EULA's will have to NOT be considered contracts and therefore this will apply to ALL EULA's. Or we can hope.
-Restil
EULAs (Score:3, Insightful)
- important items in the EULA are often hidden or hard to find. EULAs should be ordered in chronological order of what will happen when the software is installed. also, items should be ordered in order of probability of happening, i.e. any actions the program is written to do (like spam your mailbox's email addies) would have to come before the 15 pages of lawyer-speak about how we can't sue the developer in the case that the software malfunctions (which, hopefully, it wasn't programmed to do) and your house burns down.
- 90% of EULA content is the same. when software is released under the GPL or Apache or Artistic licenses, the user (assuming they've reviewed the license once before) has a reasonable idea of what they can or cannot do. common EULA sections, such as "you can't sue us, even if our program blows your machine up" (and the pages of related wording afterwards) can be summarized, or pointed to hyperlink-style. i.e. "this software is covered under the 'You Cannot Sue Us' clause, which could be a link to a standardized, common document that explains all the ugly details. the actual EULA could contain this statement, as well as any modifications the developers have made... that way, there's hopefully less to look at ("ah, they support the 'We Won't Ever Touch Any Non-Directly-Related Files on Your Computer', but they do take a snapshot of my entire filesystem and send it back to the mothership every night. *clicks 'NO'*
i think there are alot of very reasonable ways to standardize and govern EULAs. of course, I'm just a programmer, so what do i know.Want to complain? (Score:3, Informative)
Permissioned Media Inc.
Sun Towers, 1st Floor, Office #39
Ave. Ricardo J. Alfaro
Panama City, El Dorado Zona 6
PA
Registrar: Dotster (http://www.dotster.com)
Domain Name: PERMISSIONEDMEDIA.COM
Created on: 18-JUL-02
Expires on: 18-JUL-07
Last Updated on: 18-JUL-02
Administrative Contact:
Alfaro, Jay alfaro@hushmail.com
Permissioned Media Inc.
Sun Towers, 1st Floor, Office #39
Ave. Ricardo J. Alfaro
Panama City, El Dorado Zona 6
PA
571-628-5535
571-628-5535
Technical Contact:
Alfaro, Jay alfaro@hushmail.com
Permissioned Media Inc.
Sun Towers, 1st Floor, Office #39
Ave. Ricardo J. Alfaro
Panama City, El Dorado Zona 6
PA
571-628-5535
571-628-5535
They are not the only ones... (Score:5, Interesting)
It also contains some social engineering.. "Upgrade outlook - add COLOR to your Emails" link...
bah..
just had to remove these from about a gazillion corp machines... and the virus scanners dont see it as a virus...
even though it KILLS the systems efficency....
Don't forget GoHip! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the oldest piece of scumware like that that I'm aware of (perhaps Bonzi buddy is similar age).
Well, perhaps we ought to do something (Score:3, Interesting)
So I've registered:
badlicense.org (and badlicence.org)
I'd be happy to let that be used for a site dedicated to explaining the EULAs of software. Perhaps an overview, and details on particular products.
Reasonably carefully worded it wouldn't even matter if the EULA had been interepreted in detail by a lawyer. Just highlighting the apparent detail should be enough to raise eyebrows and invite some clarification (perhaps, even, modification) from those issuing the EULA.
So, anyone interested?
Too late to the party, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
...okay, so no one will read this at this late point, but for any and all software developers who are hunting for a useful product to build, why not create an EULA-distiller? Let it run in the background, and watch for installations. When it sees an EULA appear, it can display 2 or 3 bullet points that succinctly explain what the hell all the legal text means.
To get really tricky, you could create a Web site that allows users to upload the text of each EULA, and a distilled summary. Perhaps other people could even vote on the most accurate, most understandable summaries. Then your app could be constantly up-to-date. Perhaps by doing this, people who blindly click through these things will be made aware of what the real consequences will be.
Too hard on Symantec? (Score:5, Insightful)
By clicking "I agree" on the EULA you are telling your computer "I want to do X". If you tell your computer you want to do X and Symantec's software tells your computer "he can't" how is that any different from all the DRM crap like Paladium?
I know the intention in this case would be to protect the user, but then again isn't that the tack that Microsoft is taking as well?
mysql port open on www.permissionedmedia.com (Score:3, Informative)
Guess we know where all those email addresses are being fed into.
Might make a great project for someone to pull the login/passwd from the executable, and start force feeding that thing.
But dont let me give you any ideas.
Re:mysql port open on www.permissionedmedia.com (Score:3, Interesting)
Trying 207.250.191.48...
Connected to www.permissionmedia.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
_Host 'a.b.c.d' is not allowed to connect to this MySQL serverConnection closed by foreign host.
Re:Unenforcable (Score:3, Informative)
And one more thing... (Score:4, Funny)
End users should have the leisure of clicking through software liscense agreements without reading them. These agreements were designed to protect the software companies from legal action by end users.
If this intent is to remain intact, end users need to be able to click through EULAs with the mental summary of, "Yeah, Yeah, whatever, I promise not to abuse your software or sue you frivolously", instead of "I wonder if I just allowed a software company to use my computer and my data any way they see fit".
Re:Domains/netblocks (Score:3, Informative)
ARIN information:
Search results for: ! NET-65-89-168-0-1
CustName: Free Yankee
Address: 11778 Election Draper UT 84020
Country: US
RegDate: 2002-10-17
Updated: 2002-10-17
NetRange: 65.89.168.0 - 65.89.168.255
CIDR: 65.89.168.0/24
NetName: BRW-9924-FREEYANKEE
NetHandle: NET-65-89-168-0-1
Parent: NET-65-88-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
Comment:
RegDate: 2002-10-17
Updated: 2002-10-17
# ARIN Whois database, last updated 2002-10-24 19:05
We threw this thing on a test box and sniffed it, and decided to blackhole the entire Class C. Following the install process we noted communications with 65.89.168.4, 65.89.168.14, 12.107.125.99 (an AT&T Worldnet address, also blackholed now).
We also saw comms with 207.46.230.220, a Microsoft address; we didn't blackhole this one, figuring it might be in the mix due to certificate revocation list checking during the install or something.