Re: Forget the security industry!

Doubting Thomas,

There is always one in a crowd.

I am a very polite person, unlike many in this newsgroup. I shall
therefore bow to you very rude request for information and give
you the info you are asking for. I do expect however the proper
respect and now wisecracking reply.

I gained my early computer experience by doing work on various
projects at General Electric's TEMPO in Santa Barbara. The
work with this and assembly language were taught by IBM
teachers.

I do agree with you that work with Fortran is not like work with
the C-languages or Java or any of the many languages which are
being used currently and with which the the young crop of program-
mers are familiar. It is a fact however, that the logic and the
basic principles of programming are present in all languages.
Knowing one makes the appreciation of others easier.

And you are correct. In those early days we carried our programs
in large cases to the computer center and these cases were filled
with IBM cards some of which with a C punched for 'Comment'
in column one.

I now refer to your rude remarks concerning my possible
computing habits, which you call dumping the cards on top
of the stack and not running things in a coherent manner....
..........
and admit that I just do not know how to reply to such an
emotional discharge.

Furthermore I am awed by your experience with firecontrol
and nuclear weapons and imagine that now, that you are in
civilian life you are frustrated by a certain lack of feeling of
power and have chosen me for target practice.

Regarding the rest of your comments I refer to a recent post of
mine in which I said the following:

<Your argument that each user should purchase additional
<hard and software to protect his PC if faulty. Look at the
<statistics at the Lavasoft site. There the claim is made that
<9 out of 10 PCs are "infected". This is proof beyond any
<doubt that the idea that the public can provide for its own
<Internet safety is poppy *** .Since an infected computer
<can infect uninfected ones, it is essential that the internet
<vehicle be made safe by experts and it is clear that this job
<cant be left to the individual owner.

If you have something to say regarding the contents of this
paragraph, I will be interested. If you insist in looking down
upon all those millions of internet users who are, according
to your evaluation to dumb or to lazy to secure their PCs
then I am not.

Cheers and Greetings
GR.



..


"Moe Trin" <ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrnf8la8n.jd0.ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in
article
<ezdii.1304$Np2.751@trnddc07>, NoSpam wrote:

Furthermore regarding your last few paragraphs which sound
just a bit contemptuous of my initiative and intelligence, I like
you to know that I programmed an IBM 635 machine in
assembly language in 1959

And you are positive this wasn't a GE. Where exactly did you gain
this early "programming experience"? And what could that possibly have
to do with securing your current computer that really does operate
in a different manner?

and an IBM 704 in FORTRAN starting in the same year. I am still
writing programs in FORTRAN and I am building my own PCs. NOT that I
claim that it takes great intelligence or diligence to do these things

Program in FORTRAN - yeah, I suppose that's correct. But it, and
assembling your own PC is less common. Most computer users would
have grave difficulty using a screw driver to open a case, never mind
not knowing that the 'C' in column 1 meant the card was a comment. But
doing the mechanical labor is relatively simple compared to actually
configuring the software correctly. Or did you dump all of your
Hollerith cards on the top of the stack and not worry about running
things in a coherent manner - something like your top-posting replies
so that people wonder what part of the article you include at the
bottom without context you are responding to, or trimming the parts you
of the article you aren't responding to.

but they do seem to contradict you suspicions, dont they?

Not really - you haven't a clue how to operate a network connected
computer, or you wouldn't be whining about your system being 0wn3d
because you can't take elementary steps to secure it. Hoping that
after-market crap is going to protect you (and you almost certainly
have that mis-configured too) shows a serious lack of reality.

Would you mind telling me what you did in those years and
what makes you believe that you may look down upon me???

59? I was active Air Force at the time, working on fire control systems
and nuclear weapons. I didn't get involved in digital computers until
after I finished military service in '65 - there's not much of a civilian
market for those skills. As for looking down upon you - read your whiny
posts and think why everyone is laughing at you. Could it be that the
rest of the world has some major clue that you're missing?

Since I am a very, very old guy, I do believe that the sellers,
that is MS and the rest of the security and software business
should deliver what they promised to deliver

What in the WORLD do you think they promised? Security? What a major
joke. Read the license agreement you have with your software supplier,
not just microsoft. No, they didn't promise you one damn thing - even
that the software might even work. Read that license again. Or you
_could_ try suing then for failing to deliver on their "promise".

I am convinced that the current setup with proper enforcement
of existing rules and persecution of offenders CAN BE MADE
secure.

Certain rules in what country - or even what region of the world?
You are SERIOUSLY out of touch with reality, and shouldn't be
trying to use a computer connected on a network. Really.

A much simpler solution would be to fine anyone who has their
computer infected (and detectable from the Internet) one months
salary - with the proceeds going directly to the company or agency
that discovers the infected system. Sort of like traffic fines
you have to pay for being caught doing something st00pid on the the
road. After a year or two, things might actually improve as the
clueless either stop using computers, or learn HOW to use them in
a safe manner. Users with clue wouldn't have a problem.

That it is not done is related to the potential loss of busi-
ness and not to unsurmountable technical difficulties. It is not
the great new software invention which will bring about security
but the WILL to achieve it.

Actually it's quite feasible to achieve security, but no user wants
to jump through the hoops to do so. They depend on the software
vendors to supply something that is pre-configured to work - to do
something that the user thinks they want to do. Can this be done in
a safe manner? No, because the user doesn't want to learn one damn
thing about using the software (and hardware for that matter) and
there are so many DIFFERENT things that computers can be used for. I
really haven't seen a "Windoze for FORTRAN Wankers" - have you? So
there is an after-market in tools that purport to do something else
that the user wants. Like those neat tool-bar thingies that include
an icon you can click to connect directly to your favorite pr0n site
(and see that your computer is properly 0wn3d at the same time - what
a convenience). And who installed that crap? Do you think it's the
Mal-Ware Fairy that sneaks up when you aren't looking, waves her
magic wand, and P00F - your box is loaded once again with malware? I
suppose you also blamed the same fairy for the bugs in your code.

Old guy


.

Relevant Pages