How can a company claim they had no idea this would cause problems when they knew it would HIDE anything system wide that started with $sys$?
Why could they not have used a table or list inside or outside their program to ONLY cloak their directories, files and registry keys?
Their GREED to protect their own product became their single goal.
It is impossible for me to believe that before this mess if you interviewed the average programmer(“making sure you did not tell them it was an International Company installing this”) and asked them what COULD be the ramifications of implementing something that could hide anything system wide that starts with $sys$ on a typical PC owners system and would they consider just the installation of such said software, “malicious”, the vast majority would say yes, and that the ramifications would only be limited to OTHERS creativity to use this.
So for someone (“Programmers”) who have the smarts to create a Root Kit that can hide things attempting to try to convince others that they do NOT know all the uses of “IF THEN ELSE” to hide only their software components, and somehow were forced (“By Operating System Constraints”) to implement their Hiding technique System Wide, well they have at least committed “Programming Malpractice” and maybe even earned the titles of “Malicious Programmers”.
I think in court, this is as clear as a Doctor walking out of Open Heart Surgery, when all that’s left was to close the persons chest, the Dr. knew that’s not RIGHT, and these programmers knew this was not right as well.
If an when I go into SURGERY, I don’t care what papers I sign, if I am going in for Heart Surgery, I am NOT giving permission to remove a LIMB!
EULA agreements need to be limited in SCOPE, we should NOT think that with the right wording, you lose all legal rights, and that your computer can go into surgery for an Ear Operation, and come out of surgery with a “NOSE JOB!” and nothing can be done about it.
Actually, if ANY case made it to the Supreme Court on EULA this one is the one that should.
Does ANYONE actually think that these methods of “System Wide” were anything but PLANNED?
It seems to me that there may have been thought of implementing NEW features and this is why system wide use was used.
It would be very very interesting to get hold of internal EMAILS and MEMOS to see if any discussions where made about possible liability and choices in making this cloaking system wide.
A good law firm could just request such information to show intent, claiming that they need this information to proceed with their case.
Here is another question:
What if by reviewing the original version, it can be determined that OTHER software could have been installed, on the fly, with no EULA displayed?
Would that construe “Malicious Intent”?
Should Forensic review on the original version stop?
I mean not really trying to be political but….
The CIA agent has been OUTED….do we want to know for what purpose? or do we assume it was all an ACCIDENT?
# posted by ZOverLord : 6:26 PM, November 05, 2005