I don't think anyone there thought/realized that they were including a backdoor usable by any number of third parties (by virtue of installing a mitm-cert, and giving away the key). And this case is much worse than any other crapware-by-way-of-oem than I've heard of. But given the amount of nasty stuff most vendors seem to install on systems -- it appears to me that no one really looks at what is installed, or gives much thought to the consequences.
It's negligent, and in this case probably criminally so -- and that might constitute "an evil" -- but I don't think this is the result of someone's overt intentional evil act. I don't think anyone actually did consider the security risk of this particular piece of software. Maybe I'm naive, but if nothing else, the risk of lawsuits/backlash seems too great in this case.
I don't like ads and bloatware, but I think calling them "evil" is diluting what "evil" means.
I might be wrong, of course. But I don't think any of the big OEMs does any real review of the crap that is installed on computers -- and I think forgetting to generate an unique cert/key on post-install/first run is an error -- not intentional. Deciding to install this kind of crap strikes me as a very poor decision -- but I'm still not sure I'd consider it evil. Evil would be using the Intel management co-prosessor to do something similar -- presumably then a clean install wouldn't help.
But that argument means either that these companies do not have a security team (we know they do), that the security team signed off on this (we know they wouldn't), or the security team raised the risk and management chose to ignore it. There's absolutely no option that says "no one ever thought of this risk", at least not in the world we live in. I've worked in enterprise security and I still work in the security industry. There is just no way that this software got approved to be put in a default install and had no review from the security department.
That's what I meant by invoking the opposite of Hanlon's razor. Sure, never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. But my point is, you can't explain this one with ignorance. There is just no way that Lenovo has hired a security team that would do a review of this and say it looks fine, and no way a company the size and stature of Lenovo would not have a competent security team. The only logical answer is that this was raised as a risk and management chose to accept the risk.
I'm not saying they're evil (I used that word to describe Charles Manson), nor that their end goal was for users to be compromised. Merely that they had to know this was a bad idea, and they chose to do it anyway.
You may be right. I'm inclined to believe the provisioning team in Lenovo is understaffed, and that they don't really do much security analysis at all. So I believe their negligent, and that their process is negligent. But I'm open to the idea that I might very well be wrong about that. Either way, it doesn't speak very highly of what kind of quality one can expect to get when shopping Lenovo products.
It's negligent, and in this case probably criminally so -- and that might constitute "an evil" -- but I don't think this is the result of someone's overt intentional evil act. I don't think anyone actually did consider the security risk of this particular piece of software. Maybe I'm naive, but if nothing else, the risk of lawsuits/backlash seems too great in this case.
I don't like ads and bloatware, but I think calling them "evil" is diluting what "evil" means.
I might be wrong, of course. But I don't think any of the big OEMs does any real review of the crap that is installed on computers -- and I think forgetting to generate an unique cert/key on post-install/first run is an error -- not intentional. Deciding to install this kind of crap strikes me as a very poor decision -- but I'm still not sure I'd consider it evil. Evil would be using the Intel management co-prosessor to do something similar -- presumably then a clean install wouldn't help.