Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

4 New "Extremely Critical" IE Vulnerabilities

CmdrTaco posted about 10 years ago | from the are-you-ready-for-fun-and-excitement dept.

Internet Explorer 1081

TopherTG writes "Buckle your seat belts folks. On what is looking to be the next Black Tuesday, with rumors of 9 new Windows security patches being released, Secunia is reporting on 4 new vulnerabilities in IE that allow for arbitrary code execution and placing content over other windows. Combined with the new Windows patches, it is likely more Download.Ject and Sasser like viruses will be emerging in the coming months."

cancel ×


At what point... (4, Funny)

D-Cypell (446534) | about 10 years ago | (#9686754)

At what point do we need to shift the focus here and start posting slashdot stories when they find some code in IE that actually works?

Re:At what point... (5, Funny)

slash-tard (689130) | about 10 years ago | (#9686786)

Im just glad I use AOL to get my interweb.

Re:At what point... (4, Informative)

Short Circuit (52384) | about 10 years ago | (#9686870)

AOL has, in the past, been both Netscape and Internet Explorer based. Not sure which one it is currently, though.

Re:At what point... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686789)

I guess we will have to wait until it happens to find out ;o)!

Re:At what point... (1, Insightful)

ViolentGreen (704134) | about 10 years ago | (#9686846)

This is seriously gotten rediculous. This is a web browser. It's not the most complicated thing in the world.

Built one of these, have you? (5, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | about 10 years ago | (#9686926)

This is a web browser. It's not the most complicated thing in the world.

Built one of these, have you? Do tell, do tell.

Re:At what point... (1)

iomanip (775663) | about 10 years ago | (#9686891)

Good to see the boys at Redmond still don't know how to code, yet they are making all the money. Strange how that works really.

Re:At what point... (5, Funny)

Grey Ninja (739021) | about 10 years ago | (#9686906)

Well, we know for sure at this point that ActiveX works. And the code for creating popups is working quite nicely. Of course, there is the odd time that when autoinstalling some ActiveX controls to autospawn more popups, and creating some more popups at the same time, it can go into an infinite loop and crash, but on the whole, it works quite nicely. =)

Re:At what point... (1)

iomanip (775663) | about 10 years ago | (#9686979)

Yes, they do have those facets working rather nicely, now if only my computer wouldn't bluescreen while zooming in for a sweet shot with my sniper rifle....I dream for the day.

Black Tuesday? wth? (1, Interesting)

Karth (14680) | about 10 years ago | (#9686755)

What does "Black tuesday" Refer to?

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (1)

techfilespt (724734) | about 10 years ago | (#9686788)

I think blacktuesday has something to do with a stock market crash back in the day. 1987 maybe? I am not sure.

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686790)

Um, google?

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (4, Informative)

Thrakkerzog (7580) | about 10 years ago | (#9686802)

The day the stock market crashed in 1929, beginning the great depression.

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (5, Funny)

Synesthesiatic (679680) | about 10 years ago | (#9686899)

When all the sysadmins start jumping out of windows, you'll understand.

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (5, Funny)

chris_mahan (256577) | about 10 years ago | (#9686952)

There are no windows in the basement.

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (0)

koi_fish (778106) | about 10 years ago | (#9686976)

Which makes it especially painful

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (0, Offtopic)

howardjp (5458) | about 10 years ago | (#9686805)

October 29th, 1929.

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (1)

ErichTheRed (39327) | about 10 years ago | (#9686818)

Microsoft now releases their security patches on Tuesdays, so that might have something to do with it...

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (3, Funny)

lachlan76 (770870) | about 10 years ago | (#9686820)

From what I hear, it's when Microsoft release patches. Many Patches. In one day. Imagine rushing around, trying to patch all of your computers. *THAT* is Black Tuesday.

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686826)

Wasn't it the peak of the Nimda attacks on IIS?

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686829) [] ... honestly... search before you ask...

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686837)

It's the day the GNAA holds its meetings. /ducks

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (0)

Walt Dismal (534799) | about 10 years ago | (#9686886)

...Bill Gate's birthday.

Re:Black Tuesday? wth? (3, Informative)

octaene (171858) | about 10 years ago | (#9686961)

It refers to the Microsoft policy [] of releasing security vulnerabilities on the second Tuesday of each month instead of the time they become available.

First Troll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686756)

"Trusted Computing" (5, Interesting)

KevinKnSC (744603) | about 10 years ago | (#9686758)

I especially liked this part:

An additional issue allowing malicious sites to inject script into the Local Security Zone using anchor references has also been reported to affect Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP SP2 (release candidate / beta). This issue could not be confirmed on a fully patched Windows XP SP1 system.

So SP2, which is supposed to make Windows super-safe (even at the expense of backwards-compatibility in some case) may have actually introduced an IE bug.

Re:"Trusted Computing" (5, Funny)

The-Bus (138060) | about 10 years ago | (#9686832)

Well at least it's nice of the virus/exploit writers to find flaws now as opposed to during its official release in August...

Re:"Trusted Computing" (1)

Ari_Haviv (796424) | about 10 years ago | (#9686893)

then again, with this new exploit perhaps SP2 will be pushed back even further than august

Re:"Trusted Computing" (1, Funny)

Threni (635302) | about 10 years ago | (#9686944)

naah....that'll just push back the release date of some exploits until september...

Re:"Trusted Computing" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686851)

That's how I read it. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.....I switched to FireFox last week. Don't regret a thing.

Re:"Trusted Computing" (3, Funny)

supersnail (106701) | about 10 years ago | (#9686959)

Buy from "Honest" Bill.

Nearly original operating systems loved by hackers everywhere at LOW LOW prices!

Trust Bill! The "Gates Guarentee" will ensure your OS against absolutly nothing for NO EXTRA COST!

"Fair Play" Bill also GIVING AWAY a range of pre-hacked browsers at low lwo prices.

Simpsons comment... etc... oblig.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686759)


surprise (5, Funny)

birdwax2k (787311) | about 10 years ago | (#9686764)

surprise, surprise...all i want to know is why you need 9 patches for 4 holes. maybe the first patch fixes 1 and creates 5 more?

The /. Pool (5, Funny)

CommanderData (782739) | about 10 years ago | (#9686766)

Sorry Funkdid [] , your bet [] of Wednesday for the next IE exploit was incorrect. However according to Price is Right rules your bet is the closest without going over, so you win!

Your prize today is 9 shiny new windows patches! And a new car!

Re:The /. Pool (0)

Thrakkerzog (7580) | about 10 years ago | (#9686857)

His bet did go over.

Sorry, no new car for Funkdid!

wrong (0, Redundant)

kewsh (655090) | about 10 years ago | (#9686767)

coming minutes.

Breaking News (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686771)

A spokesman for Microsoft said, "These are the last 4, we swear!"

IE is deprecated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686772)

does anyone still uses IE?

Re:IE is deprecated (1)

ZeroGuard (602061) | about 10 years ago | (#9686858)

I sure the hell don't I am a huge fan of Opera.

Re:IE is deprecated (1)

kandimar (88323) | about 10 years ago | (#9686910)

Well, one of our web sites has around 300,000 visitors a month and about 93% of them use IE

Re:IE is deprecated (1)

kasperd (592156) | about 10 years ago | (#9686973)

does anyone still uses IE?

It was never installed on any of my computers. But some surveys says it is about 95% of the users. Of course those surveys are not 100% reliable. Anybody still using IE should seriously consider switching now.

Oh, for god's sake! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686776)

I'm switching to Lynx.

Shocking! (0, Redundant)

pelirojatica (533396) | about 10 years ago | (#9686778)

Shocked! I'm shocked, I tell you!

Re:Shocking! (0, Offtopic)

gumpish (682245) | about 10 years ago | (#9686960)

Shocked! I'm shocked, I tell you!

This is why I browse with a -1 modifier to so-called "Funny" comments. /Not That Funny

Solution: (2, Insightful)

SimplexO (537908) | about 10 years ago | (#9686783)

Disable Active Scripting.

Use another product.

Re:Solution: (5, Insightful)

headblur (692256) | about 10 years ago | (#9686850)

but if i disable active scripting, i won't be able to access the windows update site! what's a girl to do?? ;)

Interesting... (2, Informative)

NEOtaku17 (679902) | about 10 years ago | (#9686799)

"Solution: Disable Active Scripting. Use another product."

Re:Interesting... (2, Insightful)

ViolentGreen (704134) | about 10 years ago | (#9686887)

Won't disabling active scripting disable windowsupdate? How then are the OSs supposed to stay up to date?

Great! (1)

netvoid (793226) | about 10 years ago | (#9686801)

I can't wait to see the next 'hilarious' virus names that come out next. My favourite is and has always been the "Kak.Worm". Short and to the point!

Why don't... (5, Insightful)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | about 10 years ago | (#9686803)

... all the antivirus companies like Symantec, Sophos, etc. just start classifying IE as a virus. Get rid of IE and most of these viruses/worms will have nowhere to go.

Re:Why don't... (1)

Ari_Haviv (796424) | about 10 years ago | (#9686946)

maybe they will once Microsoft comes out with its own anti-virus "solution"

simple answer (5, Insightful)

MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) | about 10 years ago | (#9686951)

because thousands of very large companies (you know, the ones which actually pay for symantec software?) standardised all of their internal applications on IE -- basically meaning they invested millions (billions?) of dollars writing internal web applications which work in IE but no other web browsers. a huge mistake, yes, but you're talking about re-write work on the order of a hundred or so million dollars.

Re:Why don't... (4, Interesting)

Unnngh! (731758) | about 10 years ago | (#9686962)

Nowhere to go except, of course, for the next weakest link on the internet-based software chain. You will never be able to create a product that is immune to this type of attack. Using another product will only spell disaster for that product somewhere down the road.

IE is lacking in functionality compared to Mozilla, and the MS development cycle is inadequate to respond to this type of problem, IMO--but the only way to stop the malware is to stop the malware authors. Bounties work, but to really stop them, we would have to sacrifice a lot of privacy which the internet still (sort of) affords.

Re:Why don't... (2, Funny)

betelgeuse-4 (745816) | about 10 years ago | (#9686963)

Because IE is tightly integrated into Windows, so that would mean that Symantec etc.. would be classifying Windows as a ... oh wait, good idea!

aaaaarrgggggggghhhhhhhhh......... (1)

rokzy (687636) | about 10 years ago | (#9686808)

so... many... holes...

is MS trying to buffer overflow our minds in order to run arbitrary advertising in our brains?!?!?!?!

Re:aaaaarrgggggggghhhhhhhhh......... (2, Funny)

KevinKnSC (744603) | about 10 years ago | (#9686847)

Been reading Snow Crash again, have we?

Re:aaaaarrgggggggghhhhhhhhh......... (0)

cuzality (696718) | about 10 years ago | (#9686967)

"This Snow Crash [] thing-- is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?"

Mainstream Media (5, Interesting)

aghorne (583388) | about 10 years ago | (#9686812)

How long is it going to be before some big mainstream press picks these recursive stories up and starts recommending people try another web browser?

And is there anything we can do to get this in the press?

Re:Mainstream Media (1)

Frit Mock (708952) | about 10 years ago | (#9686924)

Big mainstream press won't help much ...

Not even M$ offering one or more of the other browsers in Windows Update would help much, most people are just too lazy to upgrade/change software.

Obligatory FireFox Boosterism (5, Insightful)

diagnosis (38691) | about 10 years ago | (#9686814)

Obviously anyone who hasn't made all their Windows 'friends' switch to FireFox needs to do so now. Just point them to the download site and send them this article, which nicely explains the benefits of FireFox, and why you have nothing to lose by trying it:

Re:Obligatory FireFox Boosterism (2, Informative)

diagnosis (38691) | about 10 years ago | (#9686853)

IE Developers (5, Interesting)

thenextpresident (559469) | about 10 years ago | (#9686815)

You know, for some reason, I feel bad for the IE Developers, who are probably a bunch of well meaning people that are hampered by upper-management decisions.

This is not something you want to wake up to as a developer, whether it's proprietary or open source. It's just that they can't make decisions based on solving the problem alone, they have so much red tape to go through to make changes, that even though they might want to solve this problem, someone on the top is making it difficult.

yeah, yeah. (2, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | about 10 years ago | (#9686877)

Cry me a river for the people who developed Spyglass. Netscape too.

I don't feel sorry for people who work at Microsoft. They are well compensated for the suffering they inflict.

Hmmm.... (1)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | about 10 years ago | (#9686823)

I guess this makes all the bitching about Moz/Firefox in the other story a bit mute...

Re:Hmmm.... (2, Informative)

The Angry Mick (632931) | about 10 years ago | (#9686882)

Mute? Dontcha mean "moot"?

Re:Hmmm.... (1, Funny)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | about 10 years ago | (#9686947)

Your right. "moot" was what I was going for, "mute" came out.

Re:Hmmm.... (-1, Offtopic)

the-matt-mobile (621817) | about 10 years ago | (#9686981)

Your? Dontcha mean "you're"?

Sorry, I couldn't resist :)

Re:Hmmm.... (0, Offtopic)

rokzy (687636) | about 10 years ago | (#9686971)

for all intensive purposes I could care less about the difference between "mute" and "moot" so try and impress someone else

IE SP2 RC2 is not vulnerable (1, Informative)

figleaf (672550) | about 10 years ago | (#9686827)

Internet Explorer in Windows XP SP2 Releae candidate is not vulnerable to any of these exploits.

Re:IE SP2 RC2 is not vulnerable (4, Informative)

mopslik (688435) | about 10 years ago | (#9686902)

Internet Explorer in Windows XP SP2 Releae candidate is not vulnerable to any of these exploits.


An additional issue allowing malicious sites to inject script into the Local Security Zone using anchor references has also been reported to affect Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP SP2 (release candidate / beta).

No, a new one - RTFA (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 years ago | (#9686917)

"An additional issue allowing malicious sites to inject script into the Local Security Zone using anchor references has also been reported to affect Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP SP2 (release candidate / beta). This issue could not be confirmed on a fully patched Windows XP SP1 system."

Damned either way. Run Mozilla, if you aren't already.

At this point you really have to be a 100% Grade-A idiot to run IE.

Re:IE SP2 RC2 is not vulnerable (2, Funny)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | about 10 years ago | (#9686928)

So everybody should just run out and upgrade to Win XP? (And install SP2 even though it hasn't been released yet?)

News Alert: Microsoft forces users to upgrade to Windows XP by releasing viruses/worms that only target earlier versions of Windows and IE.

Re:IE SP2 RC2 is not vulnerable (1)

yarisbandit (608829) | about 10 years ago | (#9686953)

An additional issue allowing malicious sites to inject script into the Local Security Zone using anchor references has also been reported to affect Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP SP2 (release candidate / beta). This issue could not be confirmed on a fully patched Windows XP SP1 system

Yes it is ;)

Poor Microsofties... (1)

Bedouin X (254404) | about 10 years ago | (#9686838)

As soon as the IE apologists had a reason [] - a fleeting one, but a reason still - to act like IE wasn't so bad... the floodgates open.

Internal MS Memo (5, Funny)

ccoder (468480) | about 10 years ago | (#9686848)

Dear Staff,

IE has a vew unsolved vulnerabilities to say the least. Download the latest version of Firefox or Mozilla from

Bill G

Is it bone-idleness or Ignorance? (1)

reality-bytes (119275) | about 10 years ago | (#9686868)

Not meaning to sound too ruff on Windows users (I know their IE browser is psuedo-integrated) but I find it hard to see why you'd want to continue using IE when there are so many other lovely browsers available that don't suffer as many vulnerabilities/ get patched so much faster.

Just one example: Firefox [] . Admittedly I don't use Firefox myself but a number of my Windows using friends have switched to this in recent months and they absolutely love it; even to the point of raving about it to me :)

So what is the real reason that so many Windows users don't find an alternative? Are they bone-idle or are they ignorant to the range of alternatives?

Excuse me while I cry... (4, Interesting)

tekiegreg (674773) | about 10 years ago | (#9686872)

Yes I know Mozilla/Firefox is better and I use regularly. However I have to develop applications in, basically Internet explorer as mandated as mandated for this application. Granted windows runs the majority of desktops here). Why cant Microsoft just build code that is at least semi-secure puhleeeeaaaaassseee....maybe it's time to pitch for a full out work switch to Mozilla/Open Source. Especially when it's a new vulnerability (or multiple vulnerabilities) once a week. *sigh*

Ok I'm through crying now Microsoft hear my pleas....

Re:Excuse me while I cry... (4, Insightful)

Bedouin X (254404) | about 10 years ago | (#9686925)

ASP.NET in and of itself does not require IE. I develop ASP.NET apps using Mozilla as the primary browser. Sure there are ways to capitalize on IE but it is by no means a requirement unless you choose to make it one.

Re:Excuse me while I cry... (1)

tekiegreg (674773) | about 10 years ago | (#9686935)

mandated as mandated

*slaps self* - No posting until the third cup of coffee Greg...tho I hafta admit this one goes kinda cool with my sig :-)

Re:Excuse me while I cry... (1)

The Angry Mick (632931) | about 10 years ago | (#9686941)

I feel your pain, brother. Looks like my upcoming vacation is going to be shot to hell . . . the wife's gonna be pissed.

No Surprise (4, Interesting)

SadPenguin (776485) | about 10 years ago | (#9686876)

This is absolutely no surprise, and seems at this point almost un-newsworthy. There are so many holes in the virtual screen door that we call IE, its becoming moot to mention them. Why not solve the problem at its base, and switch to Mozilla. I am director of IT at the company that I work for, and we all use Mozilla now, and I feel a lot better about this. I am waiting for 2 things though:

1.IE to not be a part of the actual operating system (not going to happen, they've already committed)
2.Web Developers to write code that is compatible with all browsers (i.e.: not written just for IE, such that if another browser is noticed, service rendered unusable).

when this happens, i will be pleased.... until then, i guess we're going to be fighting off more exploits than one can shake a stick at.

Re:No Surprise (5, Interesting)

man_ls (248470) | about 10 years ago | (#9686934)

If the Mozilla Foundation came up with an open-source replacement for shdoclc.dll (the Internet Explorer Rendering Engine) you could replace the IE application backend with the Firefox application backend.

If you ask me, that's something people should be working towards.

But - (2, Insightful)

Dark Paladin (116525) | about 10 years ago | (#9686889)

[sarcasm]Secunia tells us that OS X, OpenBSD, and Linux are a cracker's dream compared to Windows! They have the statistics to prove it![/sarcasm]

Re:But - (-1, Offtopic)

SadPenguin (776485) | about 10 years ago | (#9686915)

On the topic of [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags, me and my co-workers have adopted the messaging convention of |sarcastic remark goes here| to indicate sarcasm in text.
Works for us, thought i'd spread the good word.

Isn't it time you switched? (1)

RichCorb (795888) | about 10 years ago | (#9686892)

Firefox [] . The Browser reloaded.

Seriously, it is even more of a security risk to use IE now. Please try Firefox, and encourage your friends and family to do so too. You will be pleasantly surprised.

23 months left and counting... (1)

heironymouscoward (683461) | about 10 years ago | (#9686901)

...before a majority of Windows users have decided to give up and switch to a safer platform for their browsing, email, chat, and p2p.

Windows has a terminal parasitical infestation, the only way to keep a Windows box safe these days is to keep it off the net.

So, I predict: one box for the net, running a Linux disc, and another box for games and photos and all those Windows-only toys.

It's becoming clear that Windows and the Internet simply do not mix.

Security as a selling point (4, Interesting)

Infonaut (96956) | about 10 years ago | (#9686905)

Sure, Linux, OS X, et. al. aren't completely secure. But I often wonder why Linux vendors and Apple don't directly attack the numerous security shortfalls of Microsoft products. I understand the inherent danger in such an approach (launch an ad campaign, crackers launch their own initiative to exploit your OS), but security is Microsoft's Achilles Heel.

Yes, Microsoft gets attacked because they're the biggest target. No, I don't buy the argument that all OSes are inherently just as secure or insecure as other OSes. Just compare Windows 98 to Windows XP, or OpenBSD to Windows ME. All OSes are not the same, and marketshare is not the only factor.

It is time that..... (-1, Troll)

tiger99 (725715) | about 10 years ago | (#9686914)

.... governments acted to outlaw this vile security threat. The Department of Homeland Security has made a clear recommendation, and now we have even more holes...... People will not do the sensible thing until it is made law, and even then, it will have to be blocked by ISPs before certain elements of society will bother do do anything about their own security and that of others.

To be credible, the DHS recommendation needs the unambiguous backing of governments, whether democratically elected, or like Dubya, otherwise.... Hopefully someone somewhere will start the trend to do the sensible thing, or is that impossible for a politician?

If it weren't for IE, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9686919)

how would aspiring worm coders practice their craft?

Running as Admin (2, Insightful)

alanbs (784491) | about 10 years ago | (#9686921)

If people running windows were not so used to running as admin, this would not be a fundemental problem. If Windows was more friendly to being used as a multi user system, then only the os would be the bottleneck (although still a significant one) in making a system secure. I mean, running a browser should be a fairly secure activity, after all, it is such a basic part of every day computer use.

No more!!! (1)

lunarscape (704562) | about 10 years ago | (#9686930)

::Pulls out Ethernet cable::

That's it! I give up! (Though I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they find a way to hijack my computer without me even being connected to the Internet.)

Is it just me? (5, Funny)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 10 years ago | (#9686936)

Or does the very name of IE sound like a scream?

Will the masses heed the warnings? (5, Insightful)

chia_monkey (593501) | about 10 years ago | (#9686939)

We've been hearing about these vulnerabilities for a while. I for one have switched to using Firefox and Safari for my main browsers as soon as Safari was launched. I use IE only when I come across sites (why can't developers follow the standards that have been set by W3C?) that were coded specifically for IE and don't render properly in the other browsers. Many people in my circle, and in the Slashdot circle have been doing the same thing. But what about the masses? What about the average Joe, the average corporate user? I don't think these people understand the severity of the situation here or that they even care. Hence, we still have roughly 90% of the users out there just moving along with these secure-as-swiss-cheese browsers and not moving to more secure solutions. What major industry, company, government agency, etc has to go down in a giant ball of fire to get people to do something about this and not continue to use a sub-standard product?

Just imagine if cars were sold with this many problems. Or home security systems...

who uses IE anymore? (1)

proxima centauri (577007) | about 10 years ago | (#9686954)

who uses IE anymore?

With Mozzilla and Opera, the only reason one would use IE is to go on non-standard compliant web sites.

That's where people should hit the nail. If we want a real alternative to IE, email website owners and tell them their site need to support other browsers.

Or better, but tricky, support Microsoft technology... but then, you run into the vicious cirlce that that technology is exactly the reason why IE is not secure.

At what point... (1)

GillBates0 (664202) | about 10 years ago | (#9686969)

does a piece of code qualify to be classified as "malware"?

Really, is the malice of the programmer the only premise for calling the software malware? I think software that does enough damage, albeit due to stupidity/bad_coding rather than malice should qualify too.

Either that, or we need a new term called "el_stupidoware" (or variations thereof).

Cached Version? (2)

Plake (568139) | about 10 years ago | (#9686970)

Anyone have a cached link for this?

Their site is getting hammered.

Nihil Novi Sub Sole (1) (643709) | about 10 years ago | (#9686978)

Nihil Novi Sub Sole
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account