How come the screenshot has the four-letter-word censored out and yet it's printed in the article? Censorship double standards?
You normally need a law degree and the patience of Job to make sense of End User License Agreements (EULAs). These seldom-read legal screeds have a reputation for being both hard to fathom and often one-sided in protecting the rights of software suppliers. So it's refreshing to find an agreement that gets straight to the point …
The EULA is supposed to be a "contract" between the maker of the software and the buyer.
If that is true, then the EULA is the only contract mechanism in the world that does not obey the simple principle of commercial law that the rest of the world abides by, namely that no contract clause can be changed with explicit consent from both parties.
As such, it is indeed a shame that the only software maker to actually write an EULA like it should be is one that actually follows through on it with great diligence.
Seen it before
By Mike Iwan Phillips
Posted Thursday 9th August 2007 12:21 GMT
It just seems to be a summary of the Windows EULA.
Aaaaactually, there's a slight difference.
Windows' EULA says "FuckED you".
IE: Before you even started reading or agreeing the EULA, you were done for.
Because, once you've got your hands on the stupid software (ie bundled with your PC (quite frequent eh?)), GOOD LUCK getting the "if you don't agree, ship this back for a refund" clause to work...
In the Pipex story, the offending word was censored in the headline of the story as El Reg would have no doubt received a lot of complaints about the c-word being displayed proudly on the main page. The image accompanying the story was obviously sent in by the reader and displayed uncensored.
In this story, the image was taken from the Stop Badware website where it was already censored. I don't blame the writer for not wanting to download and install the codec in question just to get an uncensored picture!
The EULA shown here is not the one that an end user would see if he were suckered into installing running the hotelcodec Trojan from an actual affiliate site. It's just the EULA you see if for some reason you go straight to hotelcodec.com and download the dummy file like a newbie. ;)
The "real" hotelcodec.com Trojans are DNSChanger. Zlob is not "aka DNSChanger"; they are different families, although the tactic used to get users to run them is the same.
As for hotelcodec.com being blacklisted, it is already more than halfway through its lifecycle (the Zlob and DNSChanger gangs typically rotate the hosting domains out after just a few days), and SiteAdvisor's glacial 2-4 week reaction time is far too slow to be much use against current "live" Zlob and DNSChanger domains. Too little, too late. I specialize in doing SiteAdvisor reviews on Zlob and DNSChanger, so this is a bit frustrating ;)
The best blanket defense against these Trojans, aside from user education, is the one that's free, doesn't need definiton updates, and is already sitting there waiting to be put into effect: non-Administrator user accounts. http://www.mechbgon.com/security2.html
I would SO love to have non-Administrator user accounts, but unfortunately developers still exist that think "All my user-base are belong to Administrators" (sorry) - especially in the niche market of Healthcare.
I find myself asking every day "why does your crappy little database NEED the user to have God-like power over their desktop?" It's very disillusioning...
You have my sympathies. I relish the thought of those developers finally being forced to face reality someday (or fired). If you haven't already done so, you might see if Software Restriction Policy has something to offer you on WinXP and Vista clients:
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022