Text 1987, 226 rader
Skriven 2005-01-16 05:35:02 av Geo (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 1983 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Do we protect users from their own stupidity?
=========================================================
From: "Geo" <georger@nls.net>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0055_01C4FB8D.21108DB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
part of the reason it's so easy to fool people is because of Microsoft. =
Remember some years ago when I said to make a consistant interface that = blurs
the line between the local machine and remote machines/internet = machines was
a mistake? Well that's one of the big reasons why people = today are so easy to
fool. They don't understand the concept of = trusted/untrusted machines because
it all looks the same to them. They = honestly don't know where their machine
ends and the rest of the world = begins.
I understood the logic behind making that a consistent interface and = blurring
the line but I saw the problem with it as well. How is a user = to know the
difference between a remote website and a help page from one = of their own
programs if there is no difference?
As for not knowing anyone who was infected due to the exploit of a bug, =
doesn't phishing work because of a bug that allows IE to show one = address in
the address bar while in fact it's talking to another = address? What, doesn't
that count?
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:41e9f4ea$1@w3.nls.net...
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_0055_01C4FB8D.21108DB0
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 6.00.2800.1479" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>part of the reason it's so easy to fool =
people is=20
because of Microsoft. Remember some years ago when I said to make a =
consistant=20
interface that blurs the line between the local machine and remote=20
machines/internet machines was a mistake? Well that's one of the big = reasons
why=20
people today are so easy to fool. They don't understand the concept of=20
trusted/untrusted machines because it all looks the same to them. They =
honestly=20
don't know where their machine ends and the rest of the world=20
begins.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I understood the logic behind making =
that a=20
consistent interface and blurring the line but I saw the problem with it =
as=20
well. How is a user to know the difference between a remote website and = a
help=20
page from one of their own programs if there is no = difference?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As for not knowing anyone who was =
infected due to=20
the exploit of a bug, doesn't phishing work because of a bug that allows = IE
to=20
show one address in the address bar while in fact it's talking to = another=20
address? What, doesn't that count?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:41e9f4ea$1@w3.nls.net">news:41e9f4ea$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> You can't protect them =
from their=20
own stupidity. I've seen plenty of examples of people getting =
infected=20
with spyware due to their own explicit actions, either approving when =
asked if=20
something should be installed or explicitly downloading and installing =
something that is or includes spyware. I do not know of anyone=20
personally that was infected due to an exploit of a bug. =
Phishing is=20
another example that relies almost entirely on people being to =
trusting and=20
doing something they shouldn't. I haven't seen an email virus =
in a=20
long time that did not rely on the user following instructions in the =
email to=20
act against his own interest and run or even save then open and run =
something=20
they shouldn't. We are well beyond what many folks would =
consider=20
security. To protect against people making these kinds of =
mistakes you=20
have to take choices they can't be trusted making away from =
them. That=20
upsets the folks that can be trusted to or want to make these choices=20
unhappy. This isn't far from the idea that putting you in a=20
straightjacket makes you more secure because you are less likely to =
hurt=20
yourself. As for how people react to this, do you remember the =
reaction=20
to cars that buzzed or otherwise made noise when the driver or a =
passenger did=20
not wear his seat belt? It wasn't 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=20
security<BR>features should be built in or what functionality should =
be=20
allowed. Do<BR>we protect users from their own =
stupidity? =20
I guess there is a<BR>rationale for doing so in that if the masses' =
machines=20
are laxly secured<BR>(if at all), the danger to _everyone_=20
increases.<BR><BR>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:07:12 -0800, "Rich" =
<@> wrote=20
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=20
familiarity with exercising the control available to them. =
That will=20
always be true. <BR>><BR>>Rich<BR>><BR>> =
"Ellen K."=20
<<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=20
george.<BR>> ><BR>> =20
>Rich<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0055_01C4FB8D.21108DB0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|