Intel Demos McAfee Social Protection 183
MojoKid writes "During the Day Two keynote address at Intel Developer's Forum, Renee James, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Intel's Software & Services Group, talked about software development, security and services in an 'age of transparent computing.' During the security-centric portion of the keynote, James brought out a rep from Intel's McAfee division to show off a beta release of their McAfee Social Protection app. If you're unfamiliar, McAfee Social Protection is a soon to be released app and browser plug-in for Facebook that gives users the ability to securely share their photos. As it stands today, if you upload a photo to Facebook, anyone viewing that photo can simply download it or take a screen capture and alter or share it wherever they want, however they want. With McAfee Social Protection installed though, users viewing your images will not be able to copy or capture them. In quick testing, various attempts with utilities like Hypersnap, Snagit or a simple print screen operation to circumvent the technology only resulted in a black screen appearing in the grab. Poking around at browser image caches resulted in finding stored images that were watermarked with the McAfee Security logo."
Analog hole (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Analog hole (Score:5, Interesting)
Even better: running it in a virtual machine and taking a screenshot of the VM console.
Re:Analog hole (Score:5, Interesting)
Precisely, it's a borderline useless idea that requires too much integration with a single company for it to catch on. I gather this works by requiring the app to even view the photos, so this makes it incredibly restrictive. I personally have a zero-app policy on Facebook, but I suppose a lot of people are almost tricked into installing apps - "Click here to see friend X's exciting breakfast pic!".
Next, a Facebook app by itself is insufficient. Pure HTML/JavaScript is sandboxed, so it requires you also install a McAffee toolbar so it can hook into the OS. They are unlikely to have a Linux version and, if they do, there are plenty of ways around it. You could hack the kernel if you really had to.
Of course they're not trying to secure an online banking system, just tap into any internet privacy fears that have trickled into the minds of the technically uninclined.
Re:Analog hole (Score:5, Insightful)
But its on Facebook, so they've already got the perfect target audience for borderline useless ideas that require too much integration with a single company to catch on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Analog hole (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just an app, it's a browser plug-in. This is still-born.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly!
I've seen other "copy protection" approaches that blocked printers, screen-capture capabilities and such. It seems none of them ever heard of virtualization.
As usual, copy protection makes things harder for average people, but will do nothing of any significance for anyone who has some degree of skill and more than an hours' worth of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's uninstall? What's a browser? What's this url you speak of? The majority of FaceBook users have no idea what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of FaceBook users have no idea what you are talking about.
Therefore the majority of FaceBook users won't be publishing their images in this format.
This app will do more harm than good if it ever makes it out there. The only possible use is for the sort of photos which only get published when the owner thinks they'll have control over them. Every single one of them will get burned (and I might be OK with this...they're exactly the sort of people who need to be burned a few times).
...uhhh (Score:1)
But you can take a photo of it with your high-res 8mp iPhone camera.
Re: (Score:2)
If you do that, you end up with a photo of higher resolution than the original! It's a win-win!
Pointless (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You'll have to explain to me how a web browser can disable basic OS functionality like print screen.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.
Why would anyone install this software, all it does is limit the installer, not anyone else.
So everyone who gets saddled with this software on their computer, saves the images with an Android phone, or Linux, or Mac computer.
Problem solved. And a hack for removing the watermark ought to be possible about 37 minutes after the images find their way onto the net.
I can see why your mom might buy you a computer infected with this technology, but I can't see why any any adult would buy one for themselves
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Funny)
Presumably the """only""" way to view the images at all will be with this plug-in installed, for definitions of "only" so loose I had to put sarcasm quotes around my sarcasm quotes.
And knowing Facebook's userbase, they'll probably just use the analog hole - take a photo of their screen. Hell, some of them do it already, being too stupid to operate PrtScrn or even the snipping tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
VM? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if you run everything in a virtual machine and take a screenshot of the VM window?
Sounds like snake-oil to me.
Re:VM? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are determined to defeat these types of systems, there will always be ways to do so. The point is to make the undesired behavior inconvenient enough to deter casual transgressors.
Consider the locks on most doors and windows. It is trivial to defeat them, yet the combination of the minor inconvenience and reminder that you are locked out for a reason keeps a sufficient percentage of potential intruders at bay.
But the transgessors are NOT casual (Score:2)
There was a bit of a tiff about photobucket private account images being available for download and people collecting nude images from there and publishing them.
It was nothing new, just this particular site made it very easy. There are TONS of rather sad people who know plenty about computers and have nothing better to do then to try and find images other people don't want the entire world to share.
And stuff like this by McImpotent? Just a small challenge until someone writes a script to not just circumvent
Re: (Score:2)
" you are locked out for a reason keeps a sufficient percentage of potential intruders at bay."
no it doesn't. It makes people feel good, but the VAST majority of people would never be robbed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Silly unix user, GP was talking about something like VMware Workstation.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but no. VMs typically run with an emulated screen, typically redirected to a VNC server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I mean linux server VMs running with either Xen or ESX. The fact that neither the host or the guest run in graphics mode has nothing to do with it. The host will still emulate a screen and graphics adapter for each guest.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Windows VMs. Do they constitute the majority of VM instances then? That's certainly not been my experience, and I'm smack in the middle of the industry.
KVM running under libvirtd (i.e. the standard thing shipped with RHEL) gives you a VNC session to an emulated screen.
Xen can trivially be configured to do the same (I tend to do this for installing the OS, since the text-only version of Anaconda is quite crippled compared to the GUI version these days).
VirtualBox gives you an emulated screen in a window by default.
VMWare gives you an emulated screen in a window (I assume it still does anyway - certainly did the last time I played with VMWare, which was a co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like snake-oil to me.
Client-side security always is. There has never been a client-side security device, model, or system that hasn't been broken when given professional resources. The only systems out there that haven't been broken like this are ones either too small to attract attention or resources, or carry legal punishments so severe nobody subject to said laws will try to circumvent them -- ie "violate the DMCA and get 30 years in the electric chair and an 8 quintillion dollar fine".
Re: (Score:2)
What if you run everything in a virtual machine and take a screenshot of the VM window?
Hell, what if you hold your cell phone up to your monitor and snap a photo of the screen, then email the photo to your computer?
Re:VM? (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in this space and have never understood the appeal...
We who know what is going on rarely grasp the appeal for things like this. I thought two seconds about most of my semi-computer able friends and realized this could easily take off:
Friend1: OMG, Friend2 your photos are insecure!
Friend2: WTF?
Friend1: Yeah, you didn't digitally protect them! Your just asking for internet baddies to steal all your images, stalkers to download them, and spammers to use you for their advertisements! Securing your photos is more important than anti-virus!
Friend2: OMG! OMG! I'm going to get digital protection right now!
I sure hope this dies before friends 1 and 2 start trying to convince me to secure my photos. I already know what they'll say: "As someone who knows computers you should know better! Your setting a bad example for Friend2." and "Why didn't you warn me how vulnerable my photos were?!" respectively.
Re: (Score:2)
And should we really post pictures to Facebook in the first place? Or even use that steaming pile of shit?
No.
I don't understand... (Score:2)
Intel: Dumber every year (Score:1)
Hi, we're Intel McAfee. Our NEW built-into-the-hardware tech DISABLES photo downloading!
With this new tech, nobody except yourself can download your pics! If your friends also bought Intel, then you cannot download their pics either!
So, wanted to check out hot pics of your classmates? Yup, can't download them? What's that? We defeated the point of facebook and many purposes of the internet? Noooo, please don't buy AMD instead! Noooo, don't buy ARM please !!!
Intel Inside: can't download pictures !
Computers work by COPYING data (Score:2)
The latest example of managers who don't get that computers work by copying data.
Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
Is it April already?
Dump the Framebuffer? (Score:2, Interesting)
FRAPS (a game recording tool) can take screenshots of the raw framebuffer contents.
They really haven't thought this through, but I spose it would stop causal copying.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. Just as with most DRM, it is not unbeatable. It simply imposes a barrier that is too high for most to overcome.
And, in the process, it imposes a smaller barrier on what it considers "authorized" use. In this case, viewing the images at all requires installing a plugin, which a) takes time, b) may not be compatible with your browser/os/hardware/favorite shade of blue, c) you may not be allowed to install, and d) may confuse the less tech-savvy users, particularly the ones who actually paid attenti
That is all well and good.. until... (Score:2)
...someone uses Noscript or turns off javascript manually.
Then all bets are off. Right click to save. Bam. Where is your god now?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
How will the image load without Javascript?
Facebook displays photos without javascript just fine.
Try it.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well, that was written before I read more about the app in the thread and the person I was talking to I assumed was talking more in generalities to have to use javascript to even see pictures these days.
I looked at it and yes, pictures are actually hosted @McAfee.
But you know what? I've already done my job on FB to tell the people around me to not bother installing this app, and that if they do, I will merely ignore any and all pics posted with the app (the post is far longer than this description).
I
Downside: requires app/plug-in (Score:2)
The downside is that viewing those images at all requires the plug-in and the FB app. The only way for it to work reliably is to store the image on McAfee's servers and only serve up the unblurred image if the browser is running the plug-in and isn't interfering with it's operation and they have the FB app allowed on their account. If they do otherwise, then someone can get at the image without the protection present and save it. So it's going to be a fight between friends who're having problems with the pl
Re:Downside: requires app/plug-in (Score:5, Insightful)
* The photos are hosted on a McAfee server
Oh, won't that be enteraining when the central DB eventually gets hacked and all the photos are released.
Re: (Score:3)
* The photos are hosted on a McAfee server
Oh, won't that be enteraining when the central DB eventually gets hacked and all the photos are released.
Dunno about you, but I stuck a bag of Insta-Pop in the m-wave as soon as I read the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, won't that be enteraining when the central DB eventually gets hacked and all the photos are released.
... or when the central DB eventually will be raided by the FBI due to all that kiddy-and-lego porn that will inevitably end up being hosted there...
Already Broken (Score:5, Informative)
Start
Magnifier
100% Zoom
Views > Full screen
Print Screen
Start
Paint
Paste
Re:Already Broken (Score:4, Informative)
I haven't tried IE or firefox, but magnifier doesn't work on Chrome windows. The magnified view just shows an empty page.
I'm guessing that whatever chrome is doing - openGL, or whatever it is using to composite the pages, bypasses whatever layer magnifier hooks into.
Similarly, the mcafee tool probably works by using graphics hardware overlays, and rendering the image directly into the graphics buffer, and then using hardware compositing. This works quite well to defeat low-end screen capture software. The better software, such as FRAPS, is capable of capturing the overlays, and then re-compositing the final image in software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's better than my solution:
1. Take camera
2. Point at screen
3. Take photo
4. Upload to Facebook
Lack of clue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lack of clue (Score:4, Insightful)
Selling security doesn't require that the product being sold actually work.
Re: (Score:2)
How does a project like this even ship without at least one person involved saying "Hey, wait..."?
Nobody will say "Hey, wait..." because everybody wants to keep their job and get the occasional promotion...
Re: (Score:2)
How about real social protection? (Score:2)
When I saw the name McAfee Social Protection I thought it was going to be an app that helped prevent me from exposing my social data more widely than I wanted to -- something that monitors Facebook (and other) security settings and warns me if something changes in how public any of my data is. Something like that would be truly useful because I don't want to have to keep up with the changing privacy policies and security settings of every site I put my data on.
I have a simpler and more effective way to keep
Re: (Score:2)
When I saw the name McAfee Social Protection I thought it was going to be an app that helped prevent me from exposing my social data more widely than I wanted to -- something that monitors Facebook (and other) security settings and warns me if something changes in how public any of my data is. Something like that would be truly useful because I don't want to have to keep up with the changing privacy policies and security settings of every site I put my data on.
Same here.
This lasted about 5 seconds until I'd read enough to register extreme disappointment that it's just another No-Right-Click thingo (that didn't work in 1997, and ain't gonna work today).
Re: (Score:2)
analog hole [wikipedia.org]
Do I really trust the og enough to click on that link?
That should eat up 1-2 cores on the cpu (Score:2)
That should eat up 1-2 cores on the cpu good thing that intel cpus have 4+ of them.
I can't believe nobody's said it yet.... (Score:2)
Will it keep you from getting a social disease?
<rimshot badjoke="true"/>
Comment removed (Score:3)
Intel acquired McAfee 2 years ago for $7.68B (Score:3)
and this idiocy is what they've got out of it so far? Where's all the "security-built-right-into-the-hardware" goodness they've been using to justify the acquisition?
Don't post it in the first place? (Score:2)
If you don't want people to have a copy your photo, then don't share it in the first place. It's that simple. Once you publish, it's out, simple as that.
Why don't people understand these simple concepts?
No different than "Hey, Robert told me a secret--it's supposed to be just for me, so don't tell anyone else!..."
Snake oil, right up until Hollywood hears about it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when we can keep an eyeball alive as part of a machine indefinitely? That one I can answer; it involves a black market and a melon baller.
Re: (Score:2)
durr (Score:2)
Even if you were able to secure it against VM's,Printscreens, cache, or any other computer aided means, there's still not going to be able to stop someone taking out their camera of choice (either cell phone or dedicated) and taking a picture of the screen.
Sure, it's not a perfect screengrab, but it will work every time.
Just broke their plugin (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up please.
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to write a witty remark regarding how long it would be until someone breaks it. You beat me even to that, kudos.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I am going to bother trying it, but I figure it would also work if I run Windows in VmWare on my Mac and use the very useful Mac utility Grab, or even just the standard Cmd-# screenshot command. In which case this is just a masochistic way for Windows users to hurt themselves while feeling superior?
WTF? (Score:3)
You want a photo to NOT be shared around the internet, so obviously the logical thing to do is to upload it to Facebook?
No, the logical thing to do is to not share it, rather than trusting it to a poor cousin of DRM when pretty much all DRM schemes have been cracked within days.
This one? Took someone a few minutes: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3113117&cid=41320371 [slashdot.org]
Security companies are becoming pathetic cash grabbing monsters. The contracting PC industry is hurting them because they can't peddle more and more antivirus licenses. Microsoft security essentials, windows firewall, and tools like Malwarebytes are hurting them because they are free and work better than their bloated expensive 'security' programs.
So now they're using weird FUD to try and break new markets, releasing 'antivirus' apps for mobile operating systems that do absolutely nothing: http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/android-security-apps-are-mostly-useless-says-report-50007252/ [cnet.co.uk]
And now this bullshit...
Huh? (Score:2)
Let me get this... They see a market for people wanting to share pictures to prevent people from saving them?
Doesn't make sense. Why share the pictures in the first place then?
Also, if the pictures can appear on your Facebook page, they can be saved. The browser has the data so can be saved just like it can be displayed. There are already tools to access the browsers rendering engine and its data so it will be trivial to do the same in a streamlined tool that makes it super-easy to save special pictures lik
Re: (Score:2)
They should double up on security and display a transparent PNG over the photo displayed as a background image. And disable right-clicking on the image. That will stop everyone!
impossible (Score:3)
You see the image on your computer means that it's already been copied to your computer and you can do whatever you want with it. Use a packet sniffer to get the data being passed, reverse engineer the applet to see what method/key it uses for decryption... or just run in a VM and take a screenshot. McAfee has reached a new low....
Stupid things like this are on par with perpetual motion machines when it comes to stupidity and shortsightedness.
Comparable solution (Score:2)
I've got something that's about as good and doesn't require a stupid plug-in and will work on ALL devices.
Put a transparent PNG over your photo! That will be almost as effective as this stupid plug-in idea.
The summary makes no sense (Score:2)
I can see McAfee's software interfering with one's ability to save or print a photo that has a watermark it recognizes as a "do not copy" code, but I completely fail to see how it could impact my browser on a Linux box if I don't have their software installed.
Lord knows there is no shortage of sites that would have implemented such technology to stop my browser from doing a right-menu-save-as on pictures years ago if such a thing were possible.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This demo is kind of sad because they have a division that really does understand security. It's made up primarily of people and products that were acquired (IntruShield through IntruVert and Sidewinder/Firewall Enterprise through Secure Computing), but they're still McAfee at least in name.
Re:in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, McAfee AV will still be crap.
It's biggest problem isn't the fact that their virus definitions miss the most virii, worms, and malware of any that I have used. It's the fact that their software tends to kludge up a system and break compatibility all to frequently. Then there are the times when it does find a virus, and instead of removing it, just pegs the CPU at 100% and does nothing to stop the problem. I would find this last situation reasonable with some virus truly hardcore at ripping out AV, but I was able to remove the last one by just deleting the cached .exe from the system and rebooting. Sucked that it took 10 minutes to get that far because the McAfee processes made the system slow as a 386.
Intel made a bad buy. Even Microsoft had the foresight to just start fresh and develop AV on their own instead of buying a pile of steaming poo to polish. I've felt bad for most of the companies McAfee has bought out in the past. Too often the response to support requests is, "Buy the new McAfee edition of the product you already own." even when McAfee hasn't held the company long enough to have gotten farther than the rebranding process.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Microsoft had the foresight to just start fresh and develop AV on their own instead of buying a pile of steaming poo to polish.
MSAV [wikipedia.org] in 1993 was a branded Central Point Software anti-virus (tech that would later go into early Symantec and then Norton AV products). Microsoft AntiSpyware [wikipedia.org] (renamed to Windows Defender) came from buying the GIANT Company Anti-spyware program. So Microsoft has both borrowed other poo and purchased a steaming pile to polish before here.
What they're current using started as Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool [wikipedia.org], and kept picking up features until it became viable as the standalone Microsoft Security Es [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
i'd rather have mcafee make me a sandwich or something and leave security and privacy to the experts.
I'd like to have that engraved on a plaque that I could present to people who tell me their machines must be secure because they run McAfee.
Re: (Score:3)
But that still leaves running it in a virtual machine and taking a snapshot that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Imagine the photo displayed on the webpage is 640x480 pixels. If I use an 8 megapixels camera and the photo on the screen takes about 50% of the camera's photo area, then the result will be the original photo but with a 1300% increase in resolution!
Re: (Score:2)
Or if you want to do it wholesale at top-quality, a $21 Chinese HDMI splitter (which, conveniently enough, will probably decrypt the HDCP protection, then not bother going to the trouble of re-encrypting it instead of just outputting DVI-with-HDMI-pinout), then feed it to a $85 FPGA dev board from eBay that's been programmed to capture a frame of pure pixel-addressed RGB data to sram before writing it out to microSD.
Re:Jokes on them (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to be clear...
You're going to take a picture of the picture on your PC monitor with your phone, then you're going to drive to an internet cafe to put the picture in an email (presumably) to yourself, then drive back home again to save it?
If this is what it would take for you to defeat this, then I'd say the joke's on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, some version of McAfee is usually pre-installed on a lot of crapware computers.
Re: (Score:2)
False. The lottery has winners.
Re: (Score:3)
So do McAfee--this group just doesn't include any of the users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)