Author: Paul Wallbank

  • Dealing with the DNS Changer Trojan

    Dealing with the DNS Changer Trojan

    On Monday, thousands of computers around the world will be cut off the web as the servers behind the DNS Changer Trojan Horse are shut down.

    The DNS Changer did exactly what the name says – it changed a computer’s Domain Name Service (DNS) settings so that all web traffic went through servers belonging to the virus writers.

    Eventually the writers were caught and the computers were seized, in order to avoid disruption the servers were left running but they will be shut down on Monday.

    On Monday, those computers still infected won’t be able to surf the net until the problem is fixed.

    How Do I Know I’m infected?

    As part of the Shutdown, the DNS Changer working group was set up. On their site they have a  detection tool website that will tell you if your computer is infected.

    How can I fix the problem?

    The easiest fix is with the Microsoft Malware Scanner which will check your computer for the DNS Changer virus along with other malware. If the scanner detects a problem it will remove the virus. IT Queries also have instructions on Removing A Trojan.

    To prevent further infections, it’s necessary to install an up to date anti virus. A good free one is the Microsoft Security essentials tool.

    The DNS Changer Trojan was very effective malware and it illustrates why computer users need to be careful of where they go on the mean streets of the Internet.

    Similar posts:

  • How much did Vista really cost Microsoft?

    How much did Vista really cost Microsoft?

    Microsoft Vista was the company’s despised stepchild – released way past schedule, clunky, slow and disdained so much by the market that PC manufacturers started offering “downgrades” to Windows XP to attract customers.

    Despite the embarrassment, Microsoft retained its position as the world’s leading software company and does so today. But Vista certainly did hurt Microsoft and today’s marketplace shows the deep, long term effects of that damage.

    Research website Asymco earlier this week looked at the ratio of Windows PCs sold to the sales of Apple Macs over the last 30 years. The ratio peaked at 56 to 1 in 2004.

    Today that ratio is 18 and when phone and tablet sales are added in, the ratio is approaching 1:1. Apple has caught up.

    It’s no accident 2004 is the peak of the Windows-Apple ratio. In 2004 Windows XP had matured after three years on the market, the older computers running Windows 98 or ME (another hated operating system) were being retired and a new version of Windows – codenamed Longhorn – taking advantage of newer technologies and with improved security was due to be released.

    On August 27, 2004 things started to change with Microsoft’s announcement Longhorn would be delayed two years. This effectively broke the product roadmap that underpinned the business models of Microsoft and their partners.

    To make matters worse, Apple were back in the game with their OSX operating system well established and a steady stream of well designed new products coming onto the market.

    For consumers and businesses one of the advantages Windows systems had over Apple was the cost difference. The “Apple Tax” started to be eroded by the company’s move to Intel CPUs which delivered economies of scale coupled an aggressive program of tying up the supply chain with key manufacturers.

    Then Longhorn – now known as Microsoft Vista – was released.

    Despite the cheerleading of the Microsoft friendly parts of the technology media, consumers weren’t fooled. The product was slow and buggy with a new interface that confused users. Making matters worse was Microsoft’s ongoing obsession with multiple versions offering different features, something mocked by Steve Jobs,  which further confused the marketplace.

    Vista languished, customers decided to stick with Windows XP or to look at the faster and better designed Apple computers, and Microsoft’s market share started to slowly erode.

    By the time Windows 7 was released Apple had clawed back their market position, launched the iPhone and caught the shift from personal computers to smartphones.

    Probably the biggest embarrassment of all to Microsoft was the launch of the iPad, the market had been gagging for good tablet computer since the late 1990s and Microsoft’s partners had failed to deliver, partly because Windows XP, Vista and 7 didn’t perform as well as Apple’s iOS on the tablet form factor.

    Microsoft’s completely blowing a decade’s lead in the tablet market is almost certainly due to the misguided priorities and feature creep that dogged Vista’s development. This is now costing the company dearly.

    Asymco’s conclusion of Microsoft’s new market position is stunning and accurate.

    The consequences are dire for Microsoft. The wiping out of any platform advantage around Windows will render it vulnerable to direct competition. This is not something it had to worry about before. Windows will have to compete not only for users, but for developer talent, investment by enterprises and the implicit goodwill it has had for more than a decade.

    It will, most importantly, have a psychological effect. Realizing that Windows is not a hegemony will unleash market forces that nobody can predict.

    Vista’s cost to Microsoft was great, it meant the company missed the smartphone surge, the rise of tablets and – possibly most dangerous of all to Microsoft – the move to cloud computing.

    A lot hangs on Microsoft’s next operating system, Windows 8. Another Vista could kill the company.

    Similar posts:

  • Your business personalities

    Your business personalities

    Eccentric Sydney restaurant Wafu made headlines a few years ago over the owner’s strict insistence that diners followed her house rules.

    A few weeks ago Wafu announced it would close and owner Yukako Ichikawa gave Sydney diners a serve of abuse on the restaurant’s site (currently down due to bandwidth issues).

    There’s no doubt diners at Wafu had to accept Ms Ichikawa’s rules or else. Bring your own “doggie bag” or container and don’t waste anything or else you would be in trouble.

    Wafu was a reflection of the owner’s beliefs, she wasn’t just running her business to make money. As she’s quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald,

    “Wafu is viable, as a business, if I continue to accept inconsiderate, greedy people.

    “But I couldn’t do it. Wafu has always been, and will remain, more to me than simply just another business.”

    People often misunderstand why someone would start a business – it isn’t always about the money. Sometimes it’s because the founder or proprietor wants to do things differently, sometimes because they don’t want to work in an office anymore and sometimes it’s because they are unemployable anywhere else.

    Often it’s because the business founders are sick of dealing with jerks. The freedom to refuse to do business or work with assholes is a great liberating feeling and something that those working in a corporation or government department will never experience.

    Whatever the reason, those businesses reflect the owner’s personality and they have put their money, and their livelihoods, where their mouths are.

    I wonder how many corporate warriors and armchair critics of Yukako Ichikawa have ever done that in their lives?

    Similar posts:

  • Ranking managers

    Ranking managers

    Vanity Fair’s analysis of Microsoft’s lost decade focuses on an unlikely culprit – the management tool of stack ranking.

    Stack ranking, or “forced distribution”, is the practice of listing staff members in order of effectiveness or placing them on a bell curve where those in the middle are satisfactory and those at the right hand of the graph are exceptional.

    Those on the left of the curve or the bottom of the list are deemed to be underperformers and risk losing their bonuses or even their jobs should the company be shedding staff.

    Like all business tools, stack ranking can be useful. One manager of a North American multinational who encountered this when working with an Indian outsourcer described how it was used.

    “A senior manager told me how he applied it in his group. Of 300 people, everybody was given a ranking and were told that ranking and given a chance to put their case if they thought it was unfair.
    Then the bottom 5% were culled. Tough but fair.”
    So at the Indian outsourcer it was applied to large groups and the bottom tier were given the opportunity to put their case. There was some transparency and at least some fairness in the process.
    Used poorly though, it can backfire, “using it for groups of ten is stupid and lazy” said that manager who later saw it introduced at his own corporation with catastrophic results.

    The real problem at companies misusing tools like stank ranking is too much management.

    Like the old saw of “too many cooks spoil the broth”, too many managers create mischief. To justify and protect their positions they build little empires and make work for themselves.

    Give empire building middle managers a tool like “stack ranking ” and you have a problem where office politics and patronage become more important than technical skill or performance which is exactly what the Vanity Fair article describes at Microsoft.

    Ranking employees in a mindless way is symptom of a bigger problem in an organisation. In Microsoft’s case, the problem is too many managers.

    The solution to that problem is simple.

    Similar posts:

  • Facebook’s final fail

    Facebook’s final fail

    We’ve come to expect Facebook storing and manipulating our personal data, but is changing our contacts’ email addresses the final straw for the social media service?

    Last week Facebook started changing users’ default email addresses to their inbuilt @facebook accounts.

    This was irritating for many users, but now it appears the social media service has gone too far with changing the address books of their users.

    If you have connected your iPhone, Android or Windows smartphone address books to the Facebook App, there is a chance that your contacts’ email addresses are now set to send to the user’s Facebook address rather than their “normal” email account.

    When you synch your phone with your PC or laptop these changes will also be made in your main address book.

    Given most people don’t use their Facebook supplied email this means many people won’t see messages sent to that address. This is a serious problem

    You can check if your address book has been changed by simply looking at your contacts’ email addresses.

    If it has, let your contacts know their addresses may have been changed as they can change the settings on their accounts. Read Write Web has instructions on fixing the address book problem.

    Facebook’s behaviour on this is seriously worrying, it’s bad enough they store all of our data but altering our personal information is for me a bridge too far.

    Given most mobile phone users would rather have their wallet stolen than lose their handset, Facebook’s messing with phones address book is going to shake their confidence in the service far more than the myriad privacy issues.

    If the IPO was Facebook’s peak, it could well be this poorly thought out tactic that marks the beginning of the company’s decline.

    Similar posts: