Wow, well I already knew ubisoft were fisting me, but two hands? cmon.
More like two feet.
AFAIK Sony never installed backdoors, and I thought they were the worst of the DRM crowd.
Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit
51–60 of 148 posts
Re: Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate the hoop jumping in modern games. I was playing Street Fighter 4 recently and it comes up with "oh, you want to save your single player game? You have to create a MicrosoftWindowsBingGamesPhone8ForXboxLive.Net account" . Then of course you have to wait for the damn thing to sign in every time you want to play the game "Connection failed, do you want to retry?"
Short of doing extensive background research on a title, Steam has no indication of a game's dependence on some third party launcher or cloud service, so every time I run a new game for the first time I have to clench and pray the Windows Live overlay doesn't drop down. Meaning: I feel your pain, brother.
You sure about that? Section 8: Prejudice [1] (the only GFWL game I own) lists Games for Windows Live under 3rd party DRM.
On the other hand, the Batman: Arkham Noun games [2,3] list SecuROM in 3rd party DRM but not GFWL. I'm told that these games are both GFWL titles.
I don't know what's going on there, but it looks inconsistent.
[1] http://store.steampowered.com/app/97100/
Re: Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit
#53Original source: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2012/Jul/375
For people who are only skimming that message, note that this is not limited to ActiveX. In fact, the mention of ActiveX in the message's subject is regarding an unrelated topic that Ormandy happened to reply to.
Re: Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit
#54Add Anno 2070 to the list
Re: Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit
#55Re: Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Short of doing extensive background research on a title, Steam has no indication of a game's dependence on some third party launcher or cloud service, so every time I run a new game for the first time I have to clench and pray the Windows Live overlay doesn't drop down. Meaning: I feel your pain, brother.
You sure about that? Section 8: Prejudice [1] (the only GFWL game I own) lists Games for Windows Live under 3rd party DRM. On the other hand, the Batman: Arkham Noun games [2,3] list SecuROM in 3rd party DRM but not GFWL. I'm told that these games are both GFWL titles. I don't know what's going on there, but it looks inconsistent. [1] http://store.steampowered.com/app/97100/ [2] http://store.steampowered.com/app/3514…
Batman: Arkham Asylum requires a Windows Live account, not sure about the new one.
Perhaps it is not listed if it is only used to enable "social gaming" but DRM is done by some other software.
Re: Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the company wasn't acting in good faith? IMHO they put that there on purpose and they deserve to be exposed as evil bastards that they are.
What makes you believe they put it there on purpose? It appears to have a genuine (if insecure) purpose. Even the researcher's message on seclists implies he thought of it as a bug.
it's completely unneeded.
I can launch Steam games from my browser without any plugins.
https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Steam_browser_proto...
Re: Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit
#58So much for the "Master Race"
Re: Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit
#59This does not 'install a backdoor that allows any website to take over your computer', right? It just makes it possible to launch any previously installed executable if you know the path.
Re: Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any evidence they put that here on purpose or are you just spreading rumors? It could as well be shoddy programming.
I don't subscribe to "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I'm not citing sources - hence it's just my opinion. Reminds me of google wifi slurping and hundreds of other cases where everyone plays dumb and swears it was all a misunderstanding. It never is. Until you get caught. And if not that it's a rogue trader, rogue reporter, rogue programmer, rogue scapegoat.
Since we have no additional evidence to select between the two options, do you really think that malice is simpler than stupidity?