Re: A poor man's activity check :)
From: Chris Severance (severachAatThotmail.DOT.NOSP@M.DOT.com)Date: 01/09/02
- Next message: Simon Tneoh: "Setup a new firewall to replace existing one."
- Previous message: Chris Severance: "Re: somewhat OT- trojans in filesharing programs?"
- In reply to: Art Kopp: "Re: A poor man's activity check :)"
- Next in thread: Juergen Nieveler: "Re: A poor man's activity check :)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Chris Severance <severachAatThotmail.DOT.NOSP@M.DOT.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 02:13:52 -0500
On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 03:57:56 GMT, artnpeg@nowhere.com (Art Kopp)
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 03:18:40 GMT, "Frank S" <fsexton@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>Are you saying you are so smart that you can "smell" an attachment with a
>>virus and somehow "just know" not to click on it?
>
>Of course not. Safe hex means you don't click :) Only idiots click. I
>do use several several DOS av scanners as you can see at my web site.
>But I don't use them to "protect" me. That's a fool's game. I use them
>to identify known malicous code in email attachments so I can notify
>the senders if possible.
The problem is that the "idiot" is not fixable. They are at work to do
something else than read security newsgroups all day.
>> And that the Raptor
>>$20,000.00 software firewall is "lousy"?
>
>Could be. Hardware firewalls are the only way to go, as I understand
>it.
The best protection involves some hardware firewall that is hardened
against compromise and a software firewall that helps IT or the user
keep up with the crazy programs in the machine connecting willy nilly
to the internet for who knows what.
>>I don't understand your rational.
>
>Probably not.
>
>>Also, used to be that most computer users were geeks (all, if you go back
>>far enough). The problem today (good thing really, not a problem!) is that
>>computer users are regular folks that don't really give a hoot about the
>>technology. They just want to use a computer, often provided by their
>>company, to get their job done. It's their job they are interested in, not
>>the computer. Some of these folks will never now how to practice "safe-hex".
>>But... the IT folks can educate them when possible. And ALSO attempt to
>>help protect them from themselves.
>
>And they're being snowed. The only way to protect yourself is to
>become enough of a geek that you're in control of your PC. There just
>is no other way.
This is intractable. You cannot possible educate everyone. The best
you can do is tell them a set of programs to run and hope it is enough
to keep them out of trouble. If you are setting up their computer it
is your job to keep it safe under the worst conditions.
On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 03:18:40 GMT, "Frank S" <fsexton@qwest.net> wrote:
>Does an airline passenger need to know how to fly to take a trip? Or is he
>expecting the provider of that transportation (for which he pays good money)
>to help keep him safe? It takes a partnership. Don't do anything stupid
>and accept all the help you can get from the IT folks. My opinion.
Better yet, should every passenger perform pre flight safety checks on
the many systems of a jet plane just to fly to work? Should the ground
crew keep everyone off jet planes because a bolt might fall off? The
job of the ground crew is to make reasonable checks on the systems and
ensure that it works well enough to be trusted and reliable.
- Next message: Simon Tneoh: "Setup a new firewall to replace existing one."
- Previous message: Chris Severance: "Re: somewhat OT- trojans in filesharing programs?"
- In reply to: Art Kopp: "Re: A poor man's activity check :)"
- Next in thread: Juergen Nieveler: "Re: A poor man's activity check :)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
