Re: Dumb users spread viruses
So I guess my point is that after years of resistance to Outlook, even I am reconsidering due to high user demand and a void in the market for a robust group calendaring and task management application. Does anyone have any pointers for me. Something that fills the organizations needs and that will work with Eudora? Hmmm... If you go to http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/tutorials/esp/ it says this: Create an ESP Group and subscribe your work email address and your home email address. Make a change to your calendar at home - and the changes will be synchronized with your calendar at work! Presumably this means that it will synchronize the standard iCal files used by products like Mozilla Calendar and Apple's OS X iCalendar. A quick bit of googling shows several universities are using Eudora in conjunction with a calendaring program called Meeting Maker. --Michael Dillon
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
Roland Perry wrote: As for this business of opening (aka executing etc) files which users have been sent. One useful first line of defence would be for client software to insist that the name of the sender be typed into a box, as some kind of confirmation that the sender was known to the user. The users that are the problem anyway will vote for convinience with their wallets. If they wouldn´t, they would not be buying the systems that conviniently allow them to execute and install code in the first place. It would be financially suicidal to make a piece of software to bother the user. Pete
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The users that are the problem anyway will vote for convinience with their wallets. If they wouldn´t, they would not be buying the systems that conviniently allow them to execute and install code in the first place. It would be financially suicidal to make a piece of software to bother the user. It doesn't cost the user any extra to include such a feature in the next version of Windows, and in all the Critical Updates downloaded starting tomorrow. [Obviously it costs MS something to do the software development.] -- Roland Perry
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
--On Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:46 PM + Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know how to protect their computer from virus infections. However, someone attending NANOG should at least have cleaned up slammer before connecting to the wireless...
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
--On Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:46 PM + Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know how to protect their computer from virus infections. However, someone attending NANOG should at least have cleaned up slammer before connecting to the wireless...
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
Apparently this went out twice. Apologies for that - the wireless net went away before my mail client claimed the smtp transaction finished.
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
Uneducated users should live with the slowness. It's protecting the rest of the world from their blissful ignorance. if it protected them or anybody else i'd say you were right, but since it's a pattern matcher it always takes 2 to 24 hours for a new pattern file to be developed and distributed after a new worm is released. why even bother? The average Windows user CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING because they are blindly trusting the (1) operating system's security, and (2) non-malicious intent of the things they view or download. This is established fact, with oodles of hard-earned stats to back it up. once you add a particular operating system to the equation i can't disagree (mostly due to lack of facts i've actually gathered or checked personally.) however, in the situation you describe, the fault is still with the OS, not with the end user. as i said before, if we (the creators and distributors of the products and services these users depend on) can't make them safe, then the fault is with us, not with the people using them. it's as if not knowing how the fuel injectors work on my car could make it blow up on the freeway. we'd blame the manufacturer, not the driver, right?
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
Roland Perry wrote: It doesn't cost the user any extra to include such a feature in the next version of Windows, and in all the Critical Updates downloaded starting tomorrow. [Obviously it costs MS something to do the software development.] It does if you provide free support. You get millions of people calling asking how to disable the annoying feature that they got when they updated the computer. In addition they will tell other people not to upgrade because it gets more annoying to use email and the earlier way was more convinient. You missed my point earlier. Pete
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes You get millions of people calling asking how to disable the annoying feature that they got when they updated the computer. In addition they will tell other people not to upgrade because it gets more annoying to use email and the earlier way was more convinient. That's a user interface design issue. People seem happy enough with popups from virus checkers saying suchandsuch a file is infected - what do you want to do about it, all I'm proposing is something similar for potentially harmful files. You already get something similar for (eg) driver files not signed as XP-compatible. Does that put people [support desks, users, potential upgraders] off XP? I agree there may be a scaling issue, although I see fewer wanted-executables annually than I have non-XP drivers installed, which is also pretty much an annual exercise. Of course, if it did gain acceptance maybe the black hats would simply deliver their infections differently. -- Roland Perry
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
Uneducated users should live with the slowness [caused by a virus scanner]. It's protecting the rest of the world from their blissful ignorance. * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Vixie) [Mon 09 Feb 2004, 16:30 CET]: if it protected them or anybody else i'd say you were right, but since it's a pattern matcher it always takes 2 to 24 hours for a new pattern file to be developed and distributed after a new worm is released. why even bother? Because we're all still seeing Slammer, Nimda etc. infections occur. it's as if not knowing how the fuel injectors work on my car could make it blow up on the freeway. we'd blame the manufacturer, not the driver, right? Can a driver reach the fuel injector controls during normal operation of the vehicle? Ignorance of operation needn't always pose an acute danger. -- Niels.
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Paul Vixie wrote: : Uneducated users should live with the slowness. It's protecting the rest of : the world from their blissful ignorance. : : if it protected them or anybody else i'd say you were right, but since it's : a pattern matcher it always takes 2 to 24 hours for a new pattern file to : be developed and distributed after a new worm is released. why even bother? Because the updates do, in most cases, remove the infection automatically after the update is in place. It's a better situation than sitting on our hands watching Swen, Nimda, Sobig, and friends continue pounding at our doors for months on end. : The average Windows user CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING because : they are blindly trusting the (1) operating system's security, and (2) : non-malicious intent of the things they view or download. : once you add a particular operating system to the equation i can't disagree : (mostly due to lack of facts i've actually gathered or checked personally.) : however, in the situation you describe, the fault is still with the OS, not : with the end user. Good luck getting the OS manufacturer in question to fix things. I'd be happy to file or join an amicus brief if you're looking to take them to court. This, however, has not happened yet and probably will not happen for some time. Antivirus software is an imperfect solution where there would be *no* solution otherwise. It's the digital adulterer's condom. : as i said before, if we (the creators and distributors of the products and : services these users depend on) can't make them safe, then the fault is : with us, not with the people using them. : : it's as if not knowing how the fuel injectors work on my car could make it : blow up on the freeway. we'd blame the manufacturer, not the driver, right? Computers provide much more control to the end-user, which leads to an increased level of confused ignorance. Even if you turn off the system-supplied mail client and Web browser and somehow manage to disable all things using that Web browser's embedded component, people will still download and run trojans. It happens all the damned time. To extend the automobile metaphor but add the control/confusion level I described: Let's say the driver sees the PUT IN YOUR CAR EVERY 2-3 MONTHS! tagline on a bottle of motor oil. Knowing this should go in the car, but without knowing what an oil change is, s/he happily pours it into the gas tank. Now who's liable when the head gasket blows or the engine catches fire from overheating? -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niels Bakker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Can a driver reach the fuel injector controls during normal operation of the vehicle? No, because safety laws prevent this possibility (due to dumb drivers). -- Roland Perry
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
At 02:46 PM 2/8/2004, Paul Vixie wrote: In this past year's tour of my friends and family, I've taken to removing their antivirus software at the same time I remove their spyware, and I've taken to installing Mozilla (with its IMAP client) as a way to keep the machine from having any dependency on anti-virus software. IT managers are encouraged to consider a similar move next time they're asked to approve the renewal costs of a campus-wide anti-virus license. Do you honestly think that any IT manager is going to be successful getting an entire company to dump Outlook/Exchange and stop using anti-virus software? Do you have an example (within the North American area of interest to NANOG members) where this has actually happened? IMHO, if you can convince an Outlook/Exchange using company to dump MS for email, you can convince them to dump MS/Windoze OSs entirely, which is a much more complete way to solve this problem. jc p.s. Please do not cc me on replies to the list. Please reply to the list only, or to me only (as you prefer) but not to both.
Network and security experts (was Re: Dumb users spread viruses)
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, John Payne wrote: --On Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:46 PM + Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know how to protect their computer from virus infections. However, someone attending NANOG should at least have cleaned up slammer before connecting to the wireless... I have never seen any evidence that security experts or network operators are any better at practicing security than any other user group. In every forum I've been at, the infection rates have been similar regardless of the attendees security experience. Sometimes the attendees know about the issue, but do not have the power to fix it, e.g. corporate IT deparment controls the laptop they are required to use. Other times, they are oblivious to the equipment being infected. I wouldn't be surprised if I went to a meeting at the Department of Homeland Security or NSA, their infection rates are similar.
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
At 02:46 PM 2/8/2004, Paul Vixie wrote: In this past year's tour of my friends and family, I've taken to removing their antivirus software at the same time I remove their spyware, and I've taken to installing Mozilla (with its IMAP client) as a way to keep the machine from having any dependency on anti-virus software. IT managers are encouraged to consider a similar move next time they're asked to approve the renewal costs of a campus-wide anti-virus license. Do you honestly think that any IT manager is going to be successful getting an entire company to dump Outlook/Exchange and stop using anti-virus software? Do you have an example (within the North American area of interest to NANOG members) where this has actually happened? IMHO, if you can convince an Outlook/Exchange using company to dump MS for email, you can convince them to dump MS/Windoze OSs entirely, which is a much more complete way to solve this problem. jc As much as I respect Paul's opinions, are you sure Mozilla is viable as a solution to the virus problem? I still fell it's an OS problem. And yes even with Mozilla I still leave the AV software on a client's PC. Lusers still like to click on things and having the mail client /dev/null attachments is not viable as they want their family to send attached pictures of the grandkids. And JC, yes I am working on getting this company to move from Windows to Mac. Windows users know better than to come to me with their latest Windows Woes. I gently pat my iMac and say Gee, I don't have that problem with a Smug BOFH grin :-) -- Mike Jezierski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network and security experts (was Re: Dumb users spread viruses)
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 12:41:26PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, John Payne wrote: --On Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:46 PM + Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know how to protect their computer from virus infections. However, someone attending NANOG should at least have cleaned up slammer before connecting to the wireless... I have never seen any evidence that security experts or network operators are any better at practicing security than any other user group. In every forum I've been at, the infection rates have been similar regardless of the attendees security experience. This is dramatically demonstrated by the number of NANOG attendees that do not utilize encrypted paths to communicate back to their offices and who do not maintain at least passable password standards for their own accounts. It always astonishes me to see passwords such as asdfg, microsoft, and password come up on that list. --- Wayne Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
At 12:24 PM 2/9/2004, you wrote: Do you honestly think that any IT manager is going to be successful getting an entire company to dump Outlook/Exchange and stop using anti-virus software? Do you have an example (within the North American area of interest to NANOG members) where this has actually happened? IMHO, if you can convince an Outlook/Exchange using company to dump MS for email, you can convince them to dump MS/Windoze OSs entirely, which is a much more complete way to solve this problem. I have been using Eudora for Windows since v1.3. I am now using 6.011. It works flawlessly and I have all my email for the past 10 years (3+GB in 100s of mailboxes). This is our corporate standard for email. We turn off inline images, MS's HTML viewer and we don't allow automatic html downloads and we don't allow executable HTML content. We strip all useless executables on the mail server (com,exe,vbs,scr,shs,js, etc.) and all other attachments are renamed so they must be renamed THEN opened. We have mail server AV (AVAST - no bogus infected message replies) and desktop/server AV (Norton AV Corp Ed) on all workstations. We have never had a single virus or worm infection since 1995. I banned Outlook years ago. However, as we grow and as Outlook adds more and more features, I am getting lots of pressure to allow it. I allowed a few people to use it for calendaring and task management (One-note) and they LOVE it and want to use it for everything. I am VERY hesitant to allow this. I have been focused on security for 10+ years. I am an engineer and I am also CEO of the company and even I am wondering if it might make sense to allow use of Outlook for email at this point. Microsoft has made a lot of progress with Office XP and most features which caused problems in the past are off by default - until the next exploit of course. :( Oulook simply has the features and the usability that people want. As much as you may hate Microsoft for making security an afterthought, their software is powerful, feature-rich and VERY intuitive for people to use. So I guess my point is that after years of resistance to Outlook, even I am reconsidering due to high user demand and a void in the market for a robust group calendaring and task management application. Does anyone have any pointers for me. Something that fills the organizations needs and that will work with Eudora? Please help me resist the siren song of Outlook 2003. -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one. - Francis Jeffrey
Re: Network and security experts (was Re: Dumb users spread viruses)
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:12:58 MST, Wayne E. Bouchard said: This is dramatically demonstrated by the number of NANOG attendees that do not utilize encrypted paths to communicate back to their offices and who do not maintain at least passable password standards for their own accounts. It always astonishes me to see passwords such as asdfg, microsoft, and password come up on that list. Been there, done that. We hosted a SANS-EDU event a while back, and had about 300 people in a lecture hall, most of whom had wireless access. I ran a small tcpdump on the wireless, grabbing only outbound SYN packets for port 110, 995, and the ports IMAP lives on. About lunchtime, I announced that I'd seen some 50 or so people using encrypted POP on 995, and 65 or so using it in plaintext. Somebody asked what data I was gathering, and I said I'm a white hat, I only looked at SYN packets enough to make this announcement. Suddenly, we have 65 relieved looking people. Then I added But I have no idea at all what people sitting out in the atrium are grabbing off the wire - and we had 65 worried looking people. ;) I didn't see very many SYN packets on port 110 in the afternoon session. :) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Network and security experts (was Re: Dumb users spread viruses)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wayne E. Bouchard writes: On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 12:41:26PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, John Payne wrote: --On Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:46 PM + Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to kn ow how to protect their computer from virus infections. However, someone attending NANOG should at least have cleaned up slammer before connecting to the wireless... I have never seen any evidence that security experts or network operators are any better at practicing security than any other user group. In every forum I've been at, the infection rates have been similar regardless of the attendees security experience. This is dramatically demonstrated by the number of NANOG attendees that do not utilize encrypted paths to communicate back to their offices and who do not maintain at least passable password standards for their own accounts. It always astonishes me to see passwords such as asdfg, microsoft, and password come up on that list. Yah -- and you see that on telnets and snmp queries to live routers, on the nanog wireless net. That's *after* the demonstration that a few of us did last time... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
RE: Dumb users spread viruses
Robert Boyle wrote: Please help me resist the siren song of Outlook 2003. What I retain from your very good post is that if _you_ are having trouble resisting the siren song, there is nothing to do for the typical non-technical CEO, as all they care about is feature and ease of use. Microsoft may be crap, but as long as the users are screaming for it, no problemo. After you've shown them that they can have their email, calendaring, contacts, etc in their cell phone, that their administrative assistant can manage it from the office, and that it fits in their shirt pocket and is updated quasi real-time, the sale is over. Real story: A month ago I had a non-technical customer that used her windoze cell phone to open a critical m$ word file from the basement of capitol hill. One can whine all they want about Outlook, if one does not provide a solution that looks as good IN THE USER'S MIND, one will continue so see Outlook being the dominant app and Windows being the dominant OS. Michel.
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
On 8 Feb 2004, Paul Vixie wrote: In this past year's tour of my friends and family, I've taken to removing their antivirus software at the same time I remove their spyware, and I've taken to installing Mozilla (with its IMAP client) as a way to keep the machine from having any dependency on anti-virus software. A friend of mine did that for his mom's law office about 4-5 years ago. Instead of MS Word + Outlook, they used Word Perfect and Eudora. They've never had a macro virus or email virus outbreak, and so far have managed to stay fairly virus free. I don't think not having MS Word or Outlook have slowed them down in the least.
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
On 2/8/2004 4:46 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: In this past year's tour of my friends and family, I've taken to removing their antivirus software at the same time I remove their spyware, and I've taken to installing Mozilla (with its IMAP client) as a way to keep the machine from having any dependency on anti-virus software. I switched to Communicator (and then Mozilla) a long time ago, and I also use older versions of Word or alternative products that are less prone to worms/viruses. I also run anti-virus scans on my mail server. But I still use virus checkers locally and I don't think it's a good idea for folks to be discounting their usefulness. There are too many other paths for infection -- web downloads, infected CD-ROMs (yes this still happens), and so forth. If performance is a problem then scan writes only, instead of writes+reads (you won't get infected if you scan every write to disk, while scanning reads is only going to produce a hit if you are already infected). -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: Network and security experts (was Re: Dumb users spread viruses)
In their defense, Microsoft hired a convention specialist to handle their booth. That company in turned hired some random integrator to supply and configure the Windows machines. Doug On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:41:26 -0500 (EST) From: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, John Payne wrote: --On Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:46 PM + Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know how to protect their computer from virus infections. However, someone attending NANOG should at least have cleaned up slammer before connecting to the wireless... I have never seen any evidence that security experts or network operators are any better at practicing security than any other user group. In every forum I've been at, the infection rates have been similar regardless of the attendees security experience. Sometimes the attendees know about the issue, but do not have the power to fix it, e.g. corporate IT deparment controls the laptop they are required to use. Other times, they are oblivious to the equipment being infected. I wouldn't be surprised if I went to a meeting at the Department of Homeland Security or NSA, their infection rates are similar. At a recent large (last 6 months) trade show, the show network saw a bunch infected systems pop up at once. The problem was tracked (fairly quickly) to machines brought up by a vendor in their booth that lacked a number of recent Microsoft Windows Critical Updates. I can't say who the vendor was, but they REALLY should have been the FIRST to install any patches. If this happens, what hope do we have for normal users. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Dumb users spread viruses
The 'nothing to do with me' mob are the major offenders, making up 90 per cent of the 1,000 UK employees surveyed. This vast majority believe that they have no part to play in preventing the spread of viruses, and that it is the responsibility of the IT department, Microsoft or the government. almost two thirds (60 per cent) aren't aware of even the most basic virus-protection methods and one third claims to be too busy to bother - even if they knew how. http://www.silicon.com/software/security/0,39024655,39118228,00.htm
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
SD Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 15:41:53 -0500 (EST) SD From: Sean Donelan SD http://www.silicon.com/software/security/0,39024655,39118228,00.htm Not surprising. In our experience, I'm not concerned about security, because I don't have anything really important on the computer is all too common of an attiude. Most of our users are reasonable, however. With a little explanation about the harm an insecure computer can cause, they understand and accept the fact that they're not islands. Of course, many still get infected with spyware and viruses. At least they're willing to have their computers repaired... better than nothing, but still not as good as being proactive. :-/ Eddy -- EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita _ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses : [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
http://www.silicon.com/software/security/0,39024655,39118228,00.htm The puzzling thing about this is the basic assumption (by the author of the article) that computers are fragile and infection-prone and that users who don't know how to protect them are somehow part of the problem. At the moment I'm on a moderate rampage against anti-virus companies, for four reasons: 1. free anti-virus software that comes with new computers these days is usually time-locked such that after N days of service, the user has to pay. 2. anti-virus software makes booting, rebooting, logging in, logging out, and sometimes just general operations, amazingly much slower. 3. since they're pattern matchers, it's almost always nec'y to update the virus definitions AFTER a new virus is in the field, to get any protection. 4. the mail-server versions of these packages inevitably send e-mail to the supposed sender, even though they know this address is inevitably forged. In this past year's tour of my friends and family, I've taken to removing their antivirus software at the same time I remove their spyware, and I've taken to installing Mozilla (with its IMAP client) as a way to keep the machine from having any dependency on anti-virus software. IT managers are encouraged to consider a similar move next time they're asked to approve the renewal costs of a campus-wide anti-virus license. There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know how to protect their computer from virus infections. If we (the community who provides them service and software) can't make it safe-by-default, then the problem rests with us, not with the end users. -- Paul Vixie
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know how to protect their computer from virus infections. Thank you, you made my day! Now I know that my judgement isn't clouded by the severe chest cold I am suffering from. Adi
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In this past year's tour of my friends and family, I've taken to removing their antivirus software at the same time I remove their spyware, and I've taken to installing Mozilla (with its IMAP client) as a way to keep the machine from having any dependency on anti-virus software. IT managers are encouraged to consider a similar move next time they're asked to approve the renewal costs of a campus-wide anti-virus license. There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know how to protect their computer from virus infections. If we (the community who provides them service and software) can't make it safe-by-default, then the problem rests with us, not with the end users. And tomorrow's worm will instead send itself to Mozilla addressbook instead of Outlook addressbook, and users will keep clicking on Open when they see an attachment DANCING BEARS - OPEN ME.SCR or Mozilla Internet Patch.exe. (I agree with spyware aspect though) -alex
RE: Dumb users spread viruses
There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know how to protect their computer from virus infections. If we (the community who provides them service and software) can't make it safe-by-default, then the problem rests with us, not with the end users. This is somewhat of a surprising position. What is considered safe? How do you make a computer safe from the most irresponsible of users, who will run any executable without thinking twice, other than maybe locking down their access rights to an extent that 1) is probably impractical, and 2) would cause an uproar? It seems there has to be at least some level of basic clue on the user side of things for there to be any hope of this problem going away. As the Internet becomes a commodity, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to insist that those who use it be versed in the basics of protecting themselves against common threats. No one is asking for expertise -- just the basics would be a big help, wouldn't it? If we accept that there's no such thing as perfect security or completely safe, how do we protect users who assume this isn't the case simply because it's a more convenient assumption for them to make? OpenBSD is reasonably safe by default. But as functionality user-friendliness reach levels that non-technical users require/demand, I'm not seeing how we make systems safe without user cooperation; i.e., basic clue on their part. The Someone else should be completely totally responsible stuff exhibited in the article just doesn't seem reasonable here. Society as a whole could benefit from people taking more responsibility for themselves -- the Internet doesn't seem any different in this regard. -Terry
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Terry Baranski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Society as a whole could benefit from people taking more responsibility for themselves -- the Internet doesn't seem any different in this regard. Which is fine (some would argue) as long as their irresponsibility affects only them, and not the rest of society. As for this business of opening (aka executing etc) files which users have been sent. One useful first line of defence would be for client software to insist that the name of the sender be typed into a box, as some kind of confirmation that the sender was known to the user. -- Roland Perry
Re: Dumb users spread viruses (here's one!)
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:03:29 + (GMT), E.B. Dreger wrote: Most of our users are reasonable, however. With a little explanation about the harm an insecure computer can cause, they understand and accept the fact that they're not islands. Of course, many still get infected with spyware and viruses. At least they're willing to have their computers repaired... better than nothing, but still not as good as being proactive. :-/ Datapoint: I just cleaned my 12-year old daughter's personal machine running Windows, connected to our home network and to the world via ADSL. Took half a day. Found 2 viruses, 4 trojans, and 122 registry entries for assorted malware, spyware, adware, etc. Jeffrey Race
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
PV Date: 08 Feb 2004 22:46:17 + PV From: Paul Vixie PV There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not PV have to know how to protect their computer from virus PV infections. If we (the community who provides them service PV and software) can't make it safe-by-default, then the problem PV rests with us, not with the end users. Cool. I guess I'll quit locking doors, leave valuable items unsecured and unattended in plain sight, and generally rely on law enforcement to keep everything safe. It'll be more convenient and less effort for me. No? Perhaps all parties should do as much as is reasonable.[*] ISPs cannot block 100% of Internet nastiness. By no stretch of the imagination does this mean ISPs shouldn't try, but users need to take on some responsibility, too. [*] Fuzzy grey ideology. Yes, I know. Eddy -- EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita _ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses : [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:17:00 GMT, E.B. Dreger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Cool. I guess I'll quit locking doors, leave valuable items unsecured and unattended in plain sight, and generally rely on law enforcement to keep everything safe. It'll be more convenient and less effort for me. Unfortunately, I have to differ here. A more proper analogy would be that running A/V software on the standard Microsoft configuration is like putting security cameras around a building that's lacking locks on the doors. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Paul Vixie wrote: The puzzling thing about this is the basic assumption (by the author of the article) that computers are fragile and infection-prone and that users who don't know how to protect them are somehow part of the problem. The way corporations solve the problem is take away all privileges from end-users. End-users can't install software, can't make changes to the system configuration, can't connect to unapproved systems. IT support in most corporations cost more per seat than the average home user pays for Internet access. In 1998, the concept of Web Appliances was the rage. Most users of the Internet use e-mail and the web. Web appliances eliminated 90% of the bloat of Windows, and only provided the few functions most people use. They didn't even have anti-virus, because they didn't need it. The market decided secure (limited) web appliances weren't desired by the purchasers of computers. In this past year's tour of my friends and family, I've taken to removing their antivirus software at the same time I remove their spyware, and I've taken to installing Mozilla (with its IMAP client) as a way to keep the machine from having any dependency on anti-virus software. IT managers are encouraged to consider a similar move next time they're asked to approve the renewal costs of a campus-wide anti-virus license. Next year, whe you tour your family and friends, how many will have re-installed programs which included spyware as well as saving and running viruses delivered through the e-mail. There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know how to protect their computer from virus infections. If we (the community who provides them service and software) can't make it safe-by-default, then the problem rests with us, not with the end users. Every computer sold in the US is safe by default. It is powered off, disconnected, in a factory sealed box :-) The problem is only partially technical. I used to do public access kiosks and never had virus problems with millions of users every year. But you couldn't save, alter or run any unauthorized programs on any of the public access kiosks either. No Microsoft Word, no KaZaA, no Instant Messenger, no Gator, no Weatherbug, no Real Player, etc. Unfortunately, people want to install arbitrary software on their computers and are willing to bypass every control to do it.
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In this past year's tour of my friends and family, I've taken to removing their antivirus software at the same time I remove their spyware, and I've taken to installing Mozilla (with its IMAP client) as a way to keep the machine from having any dependency on anti-virus software. IT managers are encouraged to consider a similar move next time they're asked to approve the renewal costs of a campus-wide anti-virus license. when my mother wanted to use the web, i gave her a laptop with ROM-boot linux (Mozilla runs on top of it). so far i saw no problem, she's okay with using linux. ROM-boot linux was from www.cramworks.com. (she is using cellphone for emails) itojun PS: i have no relationship with cramworks.com
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Sean Donelan wrote: Unfortunately, people want to install arbitrary software on their computers and are willing to bypass every control to do it. Which is rather interesting... As probably every person on this mailing list does regularly, I end up sitting at a computer for some period of time when visiting any relative's home. I don't even run Windows myself, but have still had to become familiar with AdAware and all the other cleaning tools. It's truly amazing the amount of software people will install in the course of a few months. And almost all of it is the kind of junk that wants to throw ads in the user's face during the normal course of use. You can even ask the owner of the PC what software should I put on here? what do you *need* to do on this PC? and they'll give you a list, and you seek out more friendly applications for weather reporting, browser bar helpers, etc. The machine is clean and there is no nagware/adware. Come back months later and WeatherBug is there, 5 different IE toolbars that can't be turned off, etc. Stunning, really. The thing that really burns me is that my own shiny pretty happy box is a Mac. I tend to install gadgets for weather, stock trackers, you name it. For whatever reason, I'm more likely to find truly free applications that have no ill side-effects to do the same things that the PC crowd wants. I mean, I have to *work hard* to find adware for the Mac. Why is that? I understand why that's so on *BSD/Linux, but the Mac really does out-of-the-box work like a PC running Windows as far as functionality is concerned, unlike *BSD/Linux. So why the apparent lack of junkware? Charles
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charles Sprickman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes So why the apparent lack of junkware? [on the Mac] I presume this is because the marketers believe in the 80:20 rule, and the Mac is well inside the 20. -- Roland Perry
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Paul Vixie wrote: : http://www.silicon.com/software/security/0,39024655,39118228,00.htm : : The puzzling thing about this is the basic assumption (by the author of : the article) that computers are fragile and infection-prone and that users : who don't know how to protect them are somehow part of the problem. Replace computers are with Windows is in that statement and it becomes very much true. There's a direct link between the Windows*uneducated-user tuple and distribution levels of malware. : 2. anti-virus software makes booting, rebooting, logging in, logging out, : and sometimes just general operations, amazingly much slower. That's the cost of having an amazingly insecure OS, used by an average computer user, wrappered by a condom. If the user is not smart enough to inspect everything downloaded to the computer (and preferably with a trojan-virus scan run by hand), then the user is not smart enough to be trusted not to use antivirus software. Uneducated users should live with the slowness. It's protecting the rest of the world from their blissful ignorance. : 4. the mail-server versions of these packages inevitably send e-mail to the : supposed sender, even though they know this address is inevitably forged. Unrelated to the end user bit, but this is definitely an annoyance. : In this past year's tour of my friends and family, I've taken to removing : their antivirus software at the same time I remove their spyware, Gee, I hope these folks are more computer literate than my family. My mother-in-law reinstalled Win2k, and even Mozilla for mail and browsing, and she still got hold of a malware trojan and ran it. Didn't help one bit. The average Windows user CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING because they are blindly trusting the (1) operating system's security, and (2) non-malicious intent of the things they view or download. This is established fact, with oodles of hard-earned stats to back it up. : and I've taken to installing Mozilla (with its IMAP client) as a way to : keep the machine from having any dependency on anti-virus software. Did you also do everything in your power to prevent users from running IE or its shdocvw.dll embedded component? (Hint: That's not possible as of Win2k.) Or running OE or Windows Media Player? (Same deal.) The problem lies not in the e-mail program. Several of the recent worms were NOT spread by e-mail. Viruses still lurk in IE-trojan web sites. : IT managers are encouraged to consider a similar move next time they're : asked to approve the renewal costs of a campus-wide anti-virus license. Uh, you're kidding, right? Large internal networks are breeding grounds for viruses and trojans, and can be trusted even less than Aunt Millie. : There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know : how to protect their computer from virus infections. Exactly. So just run the software, live with the slowdown while it does its work, and you get to play in the sandbox. Don't run the software, and get infected and shut off from the rest of the world. Now, I may know your operating system software preferences a little better than most here. But it can't be so difficult to see that the average user's ignorance of technology, coupled with the rapid proliferation of security holes in their chosen OS, is a recipe for disaster. Antivirus software is not the best solution, to be sure. However, until a certain Redmond entity slows down its pervasive embedding of a very broken and bug-riddled Web browser rendering core into all corners of their OS, antivirus software is the *only* solution. -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
