New argument against closed-source software.
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
My inspiration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22380603
Closed-source software can mine cryptocurrency at your expense!
Unlike trojans, this is not crime. This is just form of parasitism.
Battery will run out faster. CPU and GPU will heat more. Your bills for electricity will be increasing. You will have to upgrade your PC more frequently. Etc.
I agree; I was going to post this but I did not.
Also, there was another article about a popular manufacturer of smart TV sending data back to HQ even if you opted out.
It's terrible, many people hate it, but do not know the solution...
If everyone wanted to kill the NSA, they would encrypt their emails, and decrypt them with free software.
I wish I could encrypt emails, but I can barely get people to even use email.
An article about the bads of propriatory software appears over once a week on bbc news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25137089
I am a member!
How is that a new argument? Someone on a dev team putting in malicious code is nothing new. And it's not like this couldn't happen in a poorly managed free software project either.
> Someone on a dev team putting in malicious code is nothing new.
No, this is a new trick. Because mining at your expense *isn't crime*. This is the purest form of parasitism. And you can make money without users' awareness. Of course, you could earn money without
users' awareness long years before Bitcoin. But now, THIS IS LEGAL WAY!
I predict epidemy because of Bitcoin rush.
I am a member!
Well legalities are more or less moot with these kinds of things. And as I understand it, this was code inserted by a malicious developer and as such I would assume the users did not agree to having their machines used this way.
I would further assume that the software company in question removes it swiftly and apologizes, which according to that article they did.
Now of course, if the program EULA or whatever explicitly said that this would be done and the user agreed to that, well that's another matter, and I see no issue with that, legal or otherwise.
Either way, this thing is nothing new. I recall an IM program that used spare CPU cycles to do cancer research or something, and I also recall malware doing distrubuted hash bruteforcing.
"And it's not like this couldn't happen in a poorly managed free software project either."
I agree. This is not about certainty but probability.
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben