Text 1983, 166 rader
Skriven 2005-01-15 21:00:26 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 1976 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Do we protect users from their own stupidity?
=========================================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_06AE_01C4FB45.3D69B6F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You can't protect them from their own stupidity. I've seen plenty of =
examples of people getting infected with spyware due to their own = explicit
actions, either approving when asked if something should be = installed or
explicitly downloading and installing something that is or = includes spyware.
I do not know of anyone personally that was infected = due to an exploit of a
bug. Phishing is another example that relies = almost entirely on people being
to trusting and doing something they = shouldn't. I haven't seen an email
virus in a long time that did not = rely on the user following instructions in
the email to act against his = own interest and run or even save then open and
run something they = shouldn't. We are well beyond what many folks would
consider security. = To protect against people making these kinds of mistakes
you have to = take choices they can't be trusted making away from them. That
upsets = the folks that can be trusted to or want to make these choices
unhappy. = This isn't far from the idea that putting you in a straightjacket
makes = you more secure because you are less likely to hurt yourself. As for =
how people react to this, do you remember the reaction to cars that = buzzed or
otherwise made noise when the driver or a passenger did not = wear his seat
belt? It wasn't positive.
Rich
"Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in message =
news:48qju0547j4l00akdf69j0bip7fgj8bmp5@4ax.com...
And that is a very big problem when trying to figure out what security
features should be built in or what functionality should be allowed. =
Do
we protect users from their own stupidity? I guess there is a
rationale for doing so in that if the masses' machines are laxly =
secured
(if at all), the danger to _everyone_ increases.
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:07:12 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
<41e30a96@w3.nls.net>:
> I agree there are a great many people that have no interest in or =
familiarity with exercising the control available to them. That will = always
be true. =20
>
>Rich
>
> "Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in =
message news:7og4u0pj8f0nq10sm8t2covkac7q75oj1s@4ax.com...
> Well, I think this conversation is all over the place regarding who =
we
> are talking about when we talk about users. The folks here are an
> entirely different animal from the famous great unwashed masses.
>
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:40:28 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
> <41e0fbe8@w3.nls.net>:
>
> > Because you are in control, my point to george.
> >
> >Rich
------=_NextPart_000_06AE_01C4FB45.3D69B6F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.3790.1289" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> You can't protect them =
from their own=20
stupidity. I've seen plenty of examples of people getting infected =
with=20
spyware due to their own explicit actions, either approving when asked = if=20
something should be installed or explicitly downloading and installing =
something=20
that is or includes spyware. I do not know of anyone personally = that
was=20
infected due to an exploit of a bug. Phishing is another example =
that=20
relies almost entirely on people being to trusting and doing something =
they=20
shouldn't. I haven't seen an email virus in a long time that = did
not=20
rely on the user following instructions in the email to act against his =
own=20
interest and run or even save then open and run something they =
shouldn't. =20
We are well beyond what many folks would consider security. To =
protect=20
against people making these kinds of mistakes you have to take choices =
they=20
can't be trusted making away from them. That upsets the folks that = can
be=20
trusted to or want to make these choices unhappy. This isn't far = from
the=20
idea that putting you in a straightjacket makes you more secure because = you
are=20
less likely to hurt yourself. As for how people react to this, do =
you=20
remember the reaction to cars that buzzed or otherwise made noise when = the=20
driver or a passenger did not wear his seat belt? It wasn't=20
positive.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Ellen K." <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com">72322.enno.esspe=
ayem.1016@compuserve.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:48qju0547j4l00akdf69j0bip7fgj8bmp5@4ax.com">news:48qju0547j4=
l00akdf69j0bip7fgj8bmp5@4ax.com</A>...</DIV>And=20
that is a very big problem when trying to figure out what =
security<BR>features=20
should be built in or what functionality should be allowed. =
Do<BR>we=20
protect users from their own stupidity? I guess there is=20
a<BR>rationale for doing so in that if the masses' machines are laxly=20
secured<BR>(if at all), the danger to _everyone_ increases.<BR><BR>On =
Mon, 10=20
Jan 2005 15:07:12 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message<BR><<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:41e30a96@w3.nls.net">41e30a96@w3.nls.net</A>>:<BR><BR>&=
gt; =20
I agree there are a great many people that have no interest in or =
familiarity=20
with exercising the control available to them. That will always =
be=20
true. <BR>><BR>>Rich<BR>><BR>> "Ellen K." =
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com">72322.enno.esspe=
ayem.1016@compuserve.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:7og4u0pj8f0nq10sm8t2covkac7q75oj1s@4ax.com">news:7og4u0pj8f0=
nq10sm8t2covkac7q75oj1s@4ax.com</A>...<BR>> =20
Well, I think this conversation is all over the place regarding who=20
we<BR>> are talking about when we talk about users. The =
folks=20
here are an<BR>> entirely different animal from the famous =
great=20
unwashed masses.<BR>><BR>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:40:28 =
-0800,=20
"Rich" <@> wrote in message<BR>> <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:41e0fbe8@w3.nls.net">41e0fbe8@w3.nls.net</A>>:<BR>><=
BR>> =20
> Because you are in control, my point to =
george.<BR>> =20
><BR>> >Rich<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_06AE_01C4FB45.3D69B6F0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|