Text 2032, 393 rader
Skriven 2005-01-17 18:13:44 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 2018 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_07B0_01C4FCC0.47E29AD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Or care to do any of those three? It is easy enough to do them all =
in any of the Microsoft email clients I use. People don't becuase they = don't
care to. Those that care do.
Rich
"Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in message =
news:ltcou0lhvanrbp6su81dokr26fcrpiftfa@4ax.com...
Periodically I get phishing emails pretending to be from ebay, and =
they
even manage to get "ebay" into the headers, but if you look up the IP
address of course you find out it's not... but what percentage of =
users
A) know how to find the header;
B) know how to read it; or
C) know how to look up an IP address?
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:14:01 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
<41eaf508@w3.nls.net>:
> I disagree.
>
> People do very much know the difference between their own computer =
and the other computers referenced in phishing attacks. They know that = email
comes from somewhere outside their computer. They know the web = site to which
they are referred is not their computer. They still are = fooled.
>
> People know they are choosing to download and install software =
from the Internet. What they may not know is that it is or contains = spyware.
There is no confusion over boundaries.
>
> I believe your whole idea of trust is off base. People aren't =
making decisions on whether or not to trust particular machines. I = douby
very much most people even think that way. People place trust in = other
people or in some cases who they believe those people are. = Phishing attacks
for bank sites succeed because the people the fall pray = to them believe that
the people sending the email are valid = representitives of the bank and they
trust those people.
>
> As for your initial premise, I honestly don't know what it is you =
believe is consistent that should not be or is different that should not = be.
You can't be referring to the browser which is almost never used = for the
local computer and clearly identifies what is local and what is = not.
>
> Your claim regarding phishing is also wrong. The address bar is =
one possible indicator to users. Phishing attacks preceeded any of = these and
continue without them. I've seen phishing emails that make no = attempt to
mask the domain to which they refer. People still get = fooled. The address
bar probably means little to many users. I can = tell when speaking with and
helping non-technical users that even though = they get that they type into the
address bar to go to a site they do not = always get that it is overloaded to
provide feedback to them where they = have gone. The same with the status bar.
Their have been status bar = spoofs. They make little difference. Do any of
these make a difference = to you so that you would be fooled?
>
>Rich
>
> "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:41ea4440@w3.nls.net...
> 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_07B0_01C4FCC0.47E29AD0
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> Or care to do any of those =
three? It is easy enough to do them all in any of the Microsoft =
email=20
clients I use. People don't becuase they don't care to. = Those
that=20
care do.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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:ltcou0lhvanrbp6su81dokr26fcrpiftfa@4ax.com">news:ltcou0lhvan=
rbp6su81dokr26fcrpiftfa@4ax.com</A>...</DIV>Periodically=20
I get phishing emails pretending to be from ebay, and they<BR>even =
manage to=20
get "ebay" into the headers, but if you look up the IP<BR>address of =
course=20
you find out it's not... but what percentage of users<BR>A) know how =
to find=20
the header;<BR>B) know how to read it; or<BR>C) know how to look up an =
IP=20
address?<BR><BR>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:14:01 -0800, "Rich" <@> =
wrote in=20
message<BR><<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:41eaf508@w3.nls.net">41eaf508@w3.nls.net</A>>:<BR><BR>&=
gt; =20
I disagree.<BR>><BR>> People do very much know the=20
difference between their own computer and the other computers =
referenced in=20
phishing attacks. They know that email comes from somewhere =
outside=20
their computer. They know the web site to which they are =
referred is not=20
their computer. They still are =
fooled.<BR>><BR>> =20
People know they are choosing to download and install software from =
the=20
Internet. What they may not know is that it is or contains=20
spyware. There is no confusion over=20
boundaries.<BR>><BR>> I believe your whole idea of =
trust is=20
off base. People aren't making decisions on whether or not to =
trust=20
particular machines. I douby very much most people even think =
that=20
way. People place trust in other people or in some cases who =
they=20
believe those people are. Phishing attacks for bank sites =
succeed=20
because the people the fall pray to them believe that the people =
sending the=20
email are valid representitives of the bank and they trust those=20
people.<BR>><BR>> As for your initial premise, I =
honestly=20
don't know what it is you believe is consistent that should not be or =
is=20
different that should not be. You can't be referring to the =
browser=20
which is almost never used for the local computer and clearly =
identifies what=20
is local and what is not.<BR>><BR>> Your claim =
regarding=20
phishing is also wrong. The address bar is one possible =
indicator to=20
users. Phishing attacks preceeded any of these and continue =
without=20
them. I've seen phishing emails that make no attempt to mask the =
domain=20
to which they refer. People still get fooled. The address =
bar=20
probably means little to many users. I can tell when speaking =
with and=20
helping non-technical users that even though they get that they type =
into the=20
address bar to go to a site they do not always get that it is =
overloaded to=20
provide feedback to them where they have gone. The same with the =
status=20
bar. Their have been status bar spoofs. They make little=20
difference. Do any of these make a difference to you so that you =
would=20
be fooled?<BR>><BR>>Rich<BR>><BR>> "Geo" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote in =
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:41ea4440@w3.nls.net">news:41ea4440@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>>=
=20
part of the reason it's so easy to fool people is because of =
Microsoft.=20
Remember some years ago when I said to make a consistant interface =
that blurs=20
the line between the local machine and remote machines/internet =
machines was a=20
mistake? Well that's one of the big reasons why people today are so =
easy to=20
fool. They don't understand the concept of trusted/untrusted machines =
because=20
it all looks the same to them. They honestly don't know where their =
machine=20
ends and the rest of the world begins.<BR>><BR>> I =
understood the=20
logic behind making that a consistent interface and blurring the line =
but I=20
saw the problem with it as well. How is a user to know the difference =
between=20
a remote website and a help page from one of their own programs if =
there is no=20
difference?<BR>><BR>> As for not knowing anyone who was =
infected=20
due to the exploit of a bug, doesn't phishing work because of a bug =
that=20
allows IE to show one address in the address bar while in fact it's =
talking to=20
another address? What, doesn't that count?<BR>><BR>> =20
Geo.<BR>> "Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:41e9f4ea$1@w3.nls.net">news:41e9f4ea$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
> =20
You can't protect them from their own stupidity. I've seen =
plenty of=20
examples of people getting infected with spyware due to their own =
explicit=20
actions, either approving when asked if something should be installed =
or=20
explicitly downloading and installing something that is or includes=20
spyware. I do not know of anyone personally that was infected =
due to an=20
exploit of a bug. Phishing is another example that relies almost =
entirely on people being to trusting and doing something they =
shouldn't. =20
I haven't seen an email virus in a long time that did not rely on the =
user=20
following instructions in the email to act against his own interest =
and run or=20
even save then open and run something they shouldn't. We are =
well beyond=20
what many folks would consider security. To protect against =
people=20
making these kinds of mistakes you have to take choices they can't be =
trusted=20
making away from them. That upsets the folks that can be trusted =
to or=20
want to make these choices unhappy. This<BR>>isn't far from =
the idea=20
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.<BR>><BR>> =20
Rich<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:48qju0547j4l00akdf69j0bip7fgj8bmp5@4ax.com">news:48qju0547j4=
l00akdf69j0bip7fgj8bmp5@4ax.com</A>...<BR>> &nb=
sp;=20
And that is a very big problem when trying to figure out what=20
security<BR>> features should be =
built in or=20
what functionality should be allowed. =20
Do<BR>> we protect users from their =
own=20
stupidity? I guess there is=20
a<BR>> rationale for doing so in that =
if the=20
masses' machines are laxly =
secured<BR>> (if=20
at all), the danger to _everyone_=20
increases.<BR>><BR>> On Mon, 10 =
Jan 2005=20
15:07:12 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in=20
message<BR>> <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:41e30a96@w3.nls.net">41e30a96@w3.nls.net</A>>:<BR>><=
BR>> =20
> I agree there are a great many people that have no =
interest=20
in or familiarity with exercising the control available to them. =
That=20
will always be true. <BR>> =20
><BR>> =20
>Rich<BR>> =20
><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>> &nb=
sp;=20
> Well, I think this conversation is all over the place =
regarding who=20
we<BR>> > are talking about =
when we=20
talk about users. The folks here are=20
an<BR>> > entirely different =
animal=20
from the famous great unwashed =
masses.<BR>> =20
><BR>> > On Sun, 9 Jan =
2005=20
01:40:28 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in=20
message<BR>> > <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:41e0fbe8@w3.nls.net">41e0fbe8@w3.nls.net</A>>:<BR>>&=
nbsp; =20
><BR>> > > =
Because=20
you are in control, my point to =
george.<BR>> =20
> ><BR>> > =20
>Rich<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_07B0_01C4FCC0.47E29AD0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|