Re: Why does Windows allow Worms?
From: Alun Jones [MS MVP - Security] (alun_at_texis.invalid)
Date: 05/18/04
- Next message: Alun Jones [MS MVP - Security]: "Re: Just back from the MS Security Summit in Philadelphia"
- Previous message: Alun Jones [MS MVP - Security]: "Re: Why does Windows allow Worms?"
- In reply to: James Baugh: "Re: Why does Windows allow Worms?"
- Next in thread: Wendel: "Re: Why does Windows allow Worms?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:28:26 GMT
In article <610222aa.0405060943.1148e2a@posting.google.com>,
jam9baugh@ix.netcom.com (James Baugh) wrote:
>An innocent person should not by simply double clicking an icon on
>a malicious e-mail end up with his entire system corrupted requiring
>a re-install. This is a fault in the OS design.
At which point is the fault? The user has chosen to execute an application
(probably because he was fooled into thinking it was safe).
Should the OS prevent the user from, say, installing Linux? After all, that
is going to start with an executable that overwrites his existing operating
system.
So, maybe the fault is in allowing the user to run attachments - and that's
been blocked by default in Outlook Express, the email client that comes with
the OS, for some time now.
>It has its own problems including the extra time I must invest in learning
>how to make it work on my system.
That effort, that time, that education, is how you turned yourself into a
non-fool for the operating system. What you're asking for, in essence, is a
mandatory level of computer literacy before an OS can be used.
If Windows were to disappear tomorrow, someone else would inherit all those
"foolish" users. And someone else would find that their tech support costs
could be reduced by making the system easier for people to use. The virus
problem moves with the users, not with the OS.
>But I get what I pay for (or less)
>and I'm not willing to fork out hundreds of dollars for a product which
>doesn't fit my general desires. I'd rather spend thousands of dollars
>worth om my time with a raw product like the free linux's in order
>to get something close to what I want.
Good - operating systems are a personal choice, and you should feel free to
use whichever one you feel is best for your needs. I'd really like it if
everyone learned a lot about their particular OS, too, so that they can use
it better and protect themselves better.
However, there will always be naive users, and they will always need a
measure of protection. Consider how well Linux covers those users - if some
people had their way, and Windows were to die out completely, where would
those users go, and would they be adequately protected there?
>Someone someday is going to design a sensible PC arch and OS and then
>look out (or better yet buy stock!).
I'm intrigued by the NGSCB (used to be called Palladium) idea. I don't
think it's universally applicable, but it's not quite the bugbear I once
thought it was. It may even be an excellent idea.
Alun.
~~~~
[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
-- Texas Imperial Software | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email 1602 Harvest Moon Place | alun@texis.com. Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers. Fax/Voice +1(512)258-9858 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer.
- Next message: Alun Jones [MS MVP - Security]: "Re: Just back from the MS Security Summit in Philadelphia"
- Previous message: Alun Jones [MS MVP - Security]: "Re: Why does Windows allow Worms?"
- In reply to: James Baugh: "Re: Why does Windows allow Worms?"
- Next in thread: Wendel: "Re: Why does Windows allow Worms?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
