Google, Anyone?

I could also call this "Why I don't use Windows, Part 414". Apparently, anyone foolhardy enough to deploy a Microsoft OS on the Internet can now get his computer infected simply by browsing the wrong website. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of the Internet, doesn't it?

The flaw, which allows hackers to infect computers using programs maliciously inserted into seemingly innocuous image files, was first discovered last week. But the potential for damaging attacks increased dramatically at the weekend after a group of computer hackers published the source code they used to exploit it. Unlike most attacks, which require victims to download or execute a suspect file, the new vulnerability makes it possible for users to infect their computers with spyware or a virus simply by viewing a web page, e-mail or instant message that contains a contaminated image. [bold added]

I first read about this last week while I was in Chicago. Apparently, even Firefox won't save you this time, unless you've recently updated it.

Users can infect their computers by visiting certain Web sites that are able to exploit some Windows-based applications, Internet security company Panda Software said Friday. It called the discovery "one of the most serious vulnerabilities recently detected."

The flaw to the world's most popular software leaves PCs open to adware and spyware as well as Trojans that can hide damaging programs. Internet Explorer, Outlook and the Windows Picture and Fax viewer are used to insert the potentially harmful code, said Patrick Hinojosa, chief technology officer of Panda.

"Because this exploits particular programs on Windows, rather than Windows itself, your machine can get infected simply by visiting a Web site that's set up to exploit the flaw," he said.

...

Because the vulnerability exists within a faulty Windows component, security experts warn that Windows users who eschew Internet Explorer in favor of alternative Web browsers, such as older versions of Firefox and Opera, can still get their PCs infected if they agree to download a file from a site taking advantage of the flaw. [bold added]

In the meantime, another big player in information technology, Google, stands to clean up big time. The Internet powerhouse might be on the verge of offering PC's at Wal-Mart for a couple of hundred bucks.

Google will unveil its own low-price personal computer or other device that connects to the Internet.

Sources say Google has been in negotiations with Wal-Mart Stores Inc., among other retailers, to sell a Google PC. The machine would run an operating system created by Google, not Microsoft's Windows, which is one reason it would be so cheap perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars.

Bear Stearns analysts speculated in a research report last month that consumers would soon see something called "Google Cubes" a small hardware box that could allow users to move songs, videos and other digital files between their computers and TV sets. [bold added]

I intentionally echo the title to an earlier post, in which I noted that for anyone who wishes to protest Microsoft's toadying to Chinese dictators, Linux (which I have used for years for other reasons) provides a means to boycott them. Unfortunately, Google seems just as bad as Microsoft on that score.

Nevertheless, for technophobes reluctant to give Linux a whirl, the desire to have some form of assurance that they won't pay for simple web browsing with the likes of identity theft, there is now an alternative.

See also: $200 Computers? at Myrhaf, and Meanwhile, back in Redmond... at Classical Values. In the latter, Eric Scheie says:

Why is it that Microsoft isn't too busy to censor Chinese bloggers, but still can't find the time to fix Windows' worst security horror yet, affecting all Windows operating systems? (The flaw allows computers to be infected by merely viewing a web site, and the only patch available had to be written by a Russian programmer.)

Heh! I've often wondered the same thing. That also reminds me of something I said in my "Linux, Anyone?" post:

Bill "Armand Hammer" Gates used to merely annoy me when I thought he was just a gun-grabber who insisted on making it nearly impossible to get that silly, politically-correct recycle bin off my desktop. But apparently, he's also so eager to do business with China that he'll stoop to censorship. I guess he has decided to "upgrade" himself from "annoying control freak" to "abettor of tyranny."

Now that I think about this again.... It it just me, or don't control freaks tend to kiss up to those whom they regard as the powerful and treat those they think they control with contempt, such as the willingness to aid Chinese censorship, coupled with the indifference Microsoft shows to its customers?

I am beginning to realize why, depsite my vehement disapproval of our government's repeated persecution of Microsoft via antitrust law, I have such a hard time sympathizing with Bill Gates. In fact, I can't stand the man. I really, really wish I could admire this captain of industry. I marvel at his accomplishments, and yet his behavior in other respects completely undermines that sense of awe.

Arguably, I am being unjust in using Gates as a proxy for the corporation he created. But on the other hand, I have never heard of Gates complaining about his company's subservience to dictators, or the poor security of its operating systems.

-- CAV

Updates

1-4-06: As it turns out, Google will not be marketing ultra-cheap PC's. HT: Vigilis.
1-9-06: Corrected another typo.