The Spyware Weekly Newsletter is distributed every week to 20,000 subscribers and read online by hundreds of thousands of visitors. Please read our Terms of Use for quoting guidelines. http://www.spywareinfoforum.info/newlsetter/nov25,2003.

Permlink | Top

What if I said the FBI could order your bank, ISP and telephone company to turn over all records and logs relating to you without a valid warrant, then force everyone involved to cover it up?

That doesn't sound right because the Fourth Amendment should prevent that sort of thing. Let's say the FBI does an end run around the Constitution by issuing itself a so-called "national security letter" which states that the records they want are relevant to an investigation into terrorism. The FBI wouldn't need to show probable cause, have any evidence of this or even consult a judge first.

The organization that is forced to turn these records over is issued a gag order and kept from revealing the subpoena's existence to anyone, including the subject of the investigation. Violating that gag order would be worth a trip to federal prison for the offender.

If I were to tell you that, would you think I had lost my mind? Or would you think I needed to loosen my tin foil hat? Certainly someone has gone mad, but unfortunately it isn't me. The outrageous scenario above is exactly what can happen now.

The Justice Department, unable to have the so-called "PATRIOT II Act" passed in the face of public opposition, has performed an end run around the legislative process. Congress is infamous for inserting unpopular legislation into bills that are totally unrelated in order to sneak them through with a minimum of opposition and debate. That is exactly what has just occurred in the United States.

This article at Wired explains it better than I ever could. When I read it, all the blood drained from my face and I thought I was going to faint and wake up thirty years in the past, in the good old U.S.S.R.

Wired.com Article: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61341,00.html

If you would like to know if your congressional representative voted for or against this.... insanity.... the voting record is located at http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=649. The voting records are still a matter of public record, at least until they decide to do away with that as well.

Permlink | Top

Since I'm on the subject of legislative insanity, why not a little more?

If you live in Ohio, your state house has just passed a law that will send you to jail for taking photographs or recording video near a retail store that happens to be showing a movie inside.

You don't actually have to record any of the movie to break this law, nor do you actually have to be inside the store. If a store employee decides you have broken this law, then you have.

Oh, and the janitor will be authorized to place you in custody.

Nice to see our tax dollars at work, eh?

You might want to have a word with your governor while he decides whether or not to sign this bill (House Bill #179) into law. Remember, a written letter or a fax usually is taken more seriously than an email.

And just in case you are still holding out hope of some sanity in our (more or less) elected officials.... well... ummm.... *cough* http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/master.asp

Links:

http://ohio.gov/gov/contactinfopage.asp :: Contact Governor's Page
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/24/123209 :: MPAA Close to Another "Stealth Victory" in Ohio

Permlink | Top

Program: Mailwasher Pro
Author: Firetrust
Platform: Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000 and XP
License: $29.95 (See below for amazing discount information)

Email can be dangerous. I had a scare today when Catherine forwarded a fake PayPal email that contained a virus. She wanted to show me what "the pond scum" (her term) were doing and how they were using the PayPal scam. When I saw the email and what was attached, I was afraid she might have infected herself (she didn't).

I can't imagine how on Earth someone can use email without something to filter out the spam and viruses. It is especially bad for me because several of my email addresses are published on the internet.

I have been a loyal user of Mailwasher since shortly after it was released. I love this program. Even when it still was distributed for free, I made a donation to the developer so he would keep working on it. It's that good.

This leads me to what Spywareinfo is going to do for the rest of the year. Catherine has contacted some of our suppliers and asked for huge discounts for bulk purchases. You still can buy one version of the program, at a discount. However, the discount increases as you buy more.

You can use these bulk purchases to serve as gifts for your friends and family. We all have friends or family members who constantly gripe about all the spam they receive. Mailwasher is the perfect gift for these people.

Here's the deal. The more copies you buy, the higher the discount you receive. And Catherine outdid herself with these discounts. I'm starting to think she's blackmailing these people.

Here are the coupon codes below (in bold) along with the discount that applies to them. Use these coupon codes while you are making your purchase.

SPYWARE1 - 1 copy, 34% discount
SPYWARE2 - 2 to 4 copies ... 37% discount
SPYWARE3 - 5 to 6 copies ... 40% discount
SPYWARE4 - 6 to 10 copies ... 45% discount

If you would like to buy more than 10 copies, that is a 50% discount. Send an email to Catherine and she can set that up for you.

Click here to purchase

Links:

http://www.spywareinfoforum.info/rd/mailwasher/ More information on Mailwasher
http://www.spywareinfoforum.info/email2.php Email Catherine

Permlink | Top

Last July, an English credit card and financial company was targeted by hackers in an attempt to install spyware on employee workstations. The spyware installers were attached to emails sent to many employees with the subject line "Wedding Invitation".

I haven't been able to determine if the attack worked or if the company's security consultants caught it before anyone installed the spyware. From what I have read, it looks like it was caught before any workstations were infected.

Security consultants at Clearswift identified the installer as iSpyNOW, a professional surveillance spyware that is sold commercially. iSpyNOW provides a controversial feature known commonly as "remote deployment". A marketer's explanation of this feature is that it allows you to deploy the software on a PC, even if you do not have physical access to that PC.

In practical use, it means that you can email the installer to someone and hope that they are foolish enough to infect themselves with it. Considering the phenomenal numbers of people who become infected every time a new email worm starts to spread, there is a good possibility that the victim obligingly will install the spyware without realizing what they are doing.

Installing spyware on someone else's computer should be illegal. In many jurisdictions, it already is illegal. If you do not have physical access to a computer, so that you can install software on it normally, then you are almost certainly not the owner of that machine and have no business installing anything on it.

The FBI already is investigating the company behind Lover Spy for violating US federal wiretapping laws. Lover Spy is a spyware program advertised last month in a massive spamming campaign. The company not only uses remote deployment, it also markets this feature as a way to install it on unsuspecting victims.

The developer of TrueActive spyware (formerly WinWhatWhere) voluntarily removed that same feature from his own software citing ethical concerns and technical support issues. Several other companies continue to use this type of installer, including iSpyNOW, Spectorsoft and e-Blaster.

This "remote deployment" installation method needs to be outlawed where monitoring software is concerned. There are no legitimate uses for an installer program that mimics an email worm to install surveillance spyware and there should be criminal sanctions for providing one. Congresswoman Bono, Congressman Towns, are you reading this?

Links:

http://www.spywareinfoforum.info/newlsetter/aug12,2003#framed :: Framed by a Browser Hijacker
http://www.spywareinfoforum.info/newlsetter/oct7,2003#loverspy :: Spy On Your Lover, Go To Jail
http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5108965.html :: 'Spyware' steps out of the shadows
http://www.spywareguide.com/product_show.php?SPY=13 :: iSpyNOW Description
http://www.spywareinfoforum.info/articles/spyware/spotlight.php :: Malicious Software in the Spotlight

Permlink | Top

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the FBI cannot tap into an automobile's built-in emergency roadside assistance device if doing so disables that device's functionality.

The best known of these services is OnStar. At the push of a button, a driver can use the service to ask for directions, a tow truck, emergency assistance from police or paramedics or even ask how far it is to the nearest Chinese restaurant. Also, it will send an alert to a monitoring station if the automobile's air bag deploys, a sure sign that a collision has just occurred.

In 2001, the FBI obtained a court order directing the operator of one such service to activate the microphone of the device installed in a suspect's automobile. The device was broadcasting all conversation in the vehicle directly to the FBI. In the process, the device was rendered inoperable to the vehicle's owner because activating it used up the sole cellular telephone line allocated to it.

After 30 days of this, the company involved (rumored to be Texas-based ATX Technologies) asked the court to block the original order. The request was denied, but the company appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court has ruled that the FBI cannot compel the company to cooperate with the eavesdropping if it means they are forced to interrupt normal service to their customer.

Privacy activists are cautioning that this ruling has nothing to do with privacy. The court did not tell the FBI that they could not use these roadside assistance devices to eavesdrop on vehicle owners. The court's ruling says that the FBI's eavesdropping activity cannot interfere with that devices normal function if the driver chooses to make use of it.

Futher, the judges were careful to point out that the FBI cannot force the industry to design their systems to facilitate surveillance by law enforcement. This is something that has been required of the telephone industry by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.

So, what's the moral of this story? Think twice before you swear to kill the moron who cuts you off in traffic. You never know who might be listening to you rant.

Links:

http://www.onstar.com/ :: OnStar
http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html :: Court to FBI: No spying on in-car computers
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/34100.html :: Court limits in-car FBI spying
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/20/1413237 :: Roadside Assistance System Used for Eavesdropping

Permlink | Top

ZoneLabs has shot itself in the foot again. ZoneLabs produces the popular software firewall, ZoneAlarm.

There are a number of people who are upset over the "check for updates" feature in the newest update to ZoneAlarm. The feature in question works in one of two ways. Either it checks for updates automatically or it will pop up a nag box asking for permission to check every time the program is started.

There is no way to stop the prompt and users report that it is extremely annoying. Many users prefer to check for updates manually and are very angry at this unwanted behavior.

If this sounds familiar, that is because ZoneLabs has done something like this previously. Several months ago, ZoneLabs released an update that removed completely the option to turn off update checking from the free version.

Many users preferred to turn off the updater because "updates" frequently amounted to no more than a pitch for the Pro version of ZoneAlarm. The removal of the option to disable the updater was viewed as converting the freeware program to nagware.

ZoneLabs restored the option and apologized for what they had done after angry users complained publicly for several days. Most users were willing to forgive ZoneLabs and move on.

Now ZoneLabs again have betrayed the trust of their users by doing nearly the same thing.

In the face of these complaints, a ZoneLabs representative says the company will restore the option that turns off the updater, without the nag, and apologizes for the inconvenience.

ZoneLabs just doesn't get it. They can't keep doing this, then apologizing when they're called on it. They are like an unfaithful spouse or a child that won't stay out of the cookie jar. This company has proven that it cannot be trusted.

The purpose of a firewall is to give the user control over when and if their computer interacts with the internet. If ZoneLabs cannot be trusted to give users control of how ZoneAlarm itself accesses the internet, then their software will not be recommended here.

From this point forward, I recommend either Kerio (my choice) or Sygate. These are proper firewalls that obey the wishes of their users.

This is something I don't understand about software companies. Why do they hold the misconception that it is acceptable to force an updater on their users? 

A very large and very significant number of people do not like automatic updaters, particularly if the updater actually installs software instead of just checking for updates. Those people, myself included, will not tolerate a program that installs other software without explicit permission.

It is not acceptable to install software on someone's computer without their permission. What part of this concept confuses these software developers? Why would they remove the user's ability to disable the updater? Why treat the people using their software with such contempt and disrespect?

Software developers, you need to understand that your software is not more important than someone's property rights. Sorry if that pokes a hole in your ego, but this point needs to be drilled into your head. If you want to disagree with this, then give me ten minutes of unrestricted access to your own personal computer. Until you do that, you don't have the right to argue about this.

Links:

http://www.sygate.com :: Sygate
http://www.broadbandreports.com :: Broad Band Reports
http://www.kerio.com/us/kpf_home.html :: Kerio
http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/updates/cfu.html :: ZoneLabs Updater Info
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8538052~root=security,1~mode=flat :: BBR discussion