Posts by arbeyu

Fedora 9 - an OS that even the Linux challenged can love

Step into the future...

Gosh! USB!! Wireless!!! Laptop screen resolutions!!!! Does this mean (gulp) that there's a Linux distro almost as useful as Windows 98?

Vista security credentials tarnished in malware survey

I've said it before...

If a computer is going to be usable, then the operating system must allow the installation of OS patches and applications. That's the problem right there, and it means that it is impossible to fully secure an OS. There has to be SOME mechanism to allow users to install software, and that mechanism will equally well let them install malware.

If non-technical users are to use a computer, the mechanism to allow the installation of OS patches and applications must be easy to use and as unobtrusive as possible. Ergo, the installation of malware is also made very easy.

The problem isn't the OS - it's the users. Letting non-tech users use computers is a bad idea for security. Unfortunately, it's also the only way that we can afford to have home computers in the first place... Without the non-tech users there wouldn't be the mass market driving down the unit cost.

Ubuntu could suffer just as much - if it ever reaches an installed user base large enough to be worth the attention of malware writers. Windows may have a special problem in that the line between OS and Application is more blurred than it is in Linux, but exactly the same logic applies to both: If you have to let a non-technical user install software or patches then you've immediately allowed a route in for malware.

The only solution is to start selling computers as "appliances" with no user-modifiable parts or software. It's a radical departure from what tech users think of as being a general-purpose computer, but I bet it's what 95%+ of users think of the wee box sitting in the corner of their room.

Thousands snared by malware warning from big-name websites

RW...

"Then why aren't computers designed for the same ease of use as toasters?"

Because computers are far, far more complicated than toasters.

"today's personal computers are designed by ...and FOR... a buncha geeks who are not at all representative of the man in the street"

No, the problem is that operating systems for today's computers are designed for people who don't understand that computers are far, far more complicated than toasters.

If they were designed for geeks, then we wouldn't have half the problems we do... because geeks at least have their brains present, correct and switched on.

Darren7160...

I totally disagree with your attitude re the prototypical user...

Most people would learn to use - RTFM - a consumer appliance, be it a toaster or video-recorder before using it. Yet they expect to be able to use a computer without any knowledge whatsoever. Why is this? Misusing a toaster isn't going to get your credit card details stolen.

We've reached the point where most attack vectors have been closed - it's much harder to catch a virus simply by opening an email or visiting a web-site or just connecting to the internet. The vast majority of attacks rely on user ignorance.

We're not talking here about a need for a level of technical expertise - we're talking about a need for simple common sense: Don't believe everything you see on the screen; don't give out personal details just because something asks you to; don't blindly click 'ok' when a warning box appears; do install security updates; etc.

People aren't 'considered "suckers" for being victimized by not knowing about firewalls, activating or deactivating scripts or any other such nonsense' - they are considered suckers because they use computers without using their brains at the same time.

The easier we make computers to use, the worse the problem is going to get because more and more people who know less and less about computers are going to be clicking buttons left, right and centre without a clue as to what they are doing.

Why is Hotmail so bad at spam?

Iddle boxies

I'm usually the first to beef about Microsoft, but...

I've got two hotmail accounts and have had for years... one gets loads of spam, the other none at all. One was for posting to untrusted sites and has a jokey address, the other for "official" business with my first-name underscore surname.

When I signed up the (now) spam-filled one, I purposefully chose to add the address to some public list of addresses (it's a while back now so forgive me if I can't remember the exact wording of the sign-up page). Result: Immediate torrent of spam.

When I signed up the legit spam-free one, I unticked all the boxes that I'd left ticked with the first one. Result: Totally spam-free. I mean _totally_

Hmm, is this the problem with people experiencing huge amounts of hotmail spam? Did you forget to untick the iddle boxies?

Hotmail spam filtering used to be dreadfully poor, but now it seems to be pretty good: few false negatives, and few false positives. It's as good as Thunderbird which is good enough for me.

My only gripe is that mail identified as spam is deleted after only five days... so if there is a false positive it can be a pain if like me you don't check your mail regularly. I've lost one legit email that way (in four years).

Strange spoofing technique evades anti-phishing filters

To most posters, especially StaudN

Have any of you bothered to read the article? The man visited the web-site from his browser. He didn't follow a link in an email.

The problem is that, to a trained eye (excepting the poor grammar), the site visited is 100% genuine.

You can be smug gits all you like, talking about "Joe Blow" being incapable of using the internet safely, but the simple fact is that NOBODY can use the internet safely: It's inherently unsafe.

This attack proves that which has been my position all along: The internet is not suitable, and cannot be made suitable, for security-critical applications such as online banking or payment services.

As StaudN points out, the original design of the internet was by the American military and then academia. Trusted computers were linked to trusted computers over a private network. Security existed in the users; not the design. In the case of academia, the whole point was to freely share information. In the case of the military, the unsecured computers were in secured military bases.

I said "the internet is broken" and perhaps there I was wrong: I should have said "the internet never worked in the first place, if you want to use it for online banking and payments" I was aiming for brevity in the title of my posting.

"You should need an internet access license just like you need a driving licence imho" There's nothing humble about your opinion, matey-boy. Your use of the word "plebs" shows that clearly. Your arrogance will land you in deep trouble one day, so convinced that you are in your own superiority.

The same goes for all you who say "I use Linux and Firefox and so I am secure by definition." You think that you are secure, and that your o/s and browser are secure, and so you are in danger of switching off your brain...

...and with no brain in charge, you are in danger of falling foul of a (less obvious than this current example) phising attack.

Pride, as they say, comes before a fall. It's no less true for being a cliche.

The internet is broken

Forget which browser or o/s you are using. The simple and appalling fact is that the internet is irredemiably broken and really, really cannot be trusted.

I took the decision years ago to never use on-line banking of any form, and I don’t even buy stuff on-line now except as part of my job where (a) I’m behind a firewall, (b) I’m working only with trusted sites, (c) I’m using a computer that has never, ever been used to browse anything even remotely dodgy, (d) when I do buy something over the ‘net it’s from a company with whom we’ve got an account (so no credit card details ever passed), and finally (e) when (and it will be when) my computer is finally compromised, it’s not my money that goes missing: it’s the company's.

Is this a hassle for me? Of course it is, but I take the view that being ripped-off and having my bank account emptied would be worse.