<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: US rootkit spyware legislation?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7950/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7950</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7950/comment-page-1#comment-34606</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:16:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-34606</guid>
		<description>Someone answer a question for me.

From what I understand, many &quot;rootkits&quot; as they appear on Windows attach themselves and then clear their existence from the list of running process information so they aren&#039;t viewable, but are still queued in the task scheduler for execution.  Why doesn&#039;t Windows check the list of running process data against the processes/threads set for execution periodically and throw errors when a queued task has no associated process information?

I know very little about how Windows handles these things, but from what I&#039;ve read about how a rootkit hides itself from things like Task Manager et al, this would effectively make the rootkit very noisy unless it relied explicitly on hooking into the kernel or something.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someone answer a question for me.</p>
<p>From what I understand, many &#8220;rootkits&#8221; as they appear on Windows attach themselves and then clear their existence from the list of running process information so they aren&#8217;t viewable, but are still queued in the task scheduler for execution.  Why doesn&#8217;t Windows check the list of running process data against the processes/threads set for execution periodically and throw errors when a queued task has no associated process information?</p>
<p>I know very little about how Windows handles these things, but from what I&#8217;ve read about how a rootkit hides itself from things like Task Manager et al, this would effectively make the rootkit very noisy unless it relied explicitly on hooking into the kernel or something.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7950/comment-page-1#comment-34490</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2006 06:25:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-34490</guid>
		<description>The same thing could be said about copyright infringement.  If you want to play libertarian, don&#039;t you think there would be a race to the top in terms of effective access control if the government stopped enforcing copyright law, since the only way to protect profit would be to develop strong self-help measures?

Of course, it also would lead to cybervigilanteism would companies would destroy end user systems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The same thing could be said about copyright infringement.  If you want to play libertarian, don&#8217;t you think there would be a race to the top in terms of effective access control if the government stopped enforcing copyright law, since the only way to protect profit would be to develop strong self-help measures?</p>
<p>Of course, it also would lead to cybervigilanteism would companies would destroy end user systems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7950/comment-page-1#comment-34467</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:33:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-34467</guid>
		<description>Sure and if people didn&#039;t own stuff we wouldn&#039;t need to outlaw robbery either. But people do own stuff, so we outlawed theft. 

Likewise people do purchase software/music/etc that goes in their computers, and many end users/customers would never know what they installed is actually doing to their computers.  So yes a law to ensure that the customer is protect from Malware/DRM is needed.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sure and if people didn&#8217;t own stuff we wouldn&#8217;t need to outlaw robbery either. But people do own stuff, so we outlawed theft. </p>
<p>Likewise people do purchase software/music/etc that goes in their computers, and many end users/customers would never know what they installed is actually doing to their computers.  So yes a law to ensure that the customer is protect from Malware/DRM is needed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7950/comment-page-1#comment-34447</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:09:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-34447</guid>
		<description>First off, there are more important things for our gov&#039;t to worry about than regulating copy protection software. Bad CPS can be easily fixed... don&#039;t buy the infected product. No gov&#039;t regulation needed</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First off, there are more important things for our gov&#8217;t to worry about than regulating copy protection software. Bad CPS can be easily fixed&#8230; don&#8217;t buy the infected product. No gov&#8217;t regulation needed</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


