RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly

[Frank Knobbe <frank () knobbe us>]

On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 12:33, j wrote:
> The same is certainly NOT true of the masses of end-user boxes barfing 3
> million pings/hour out their broadband.  As the report (accurately)
> points out, that is the weak point, where the resource (shiny new P4 on
> a cable modem) is run by a clueless 'user'.  They don't want to,
> shouldn't need to, and often can't, keep up with the required effort to
> secure their computer.  They'd rather throw $30 at it ('personal
> firewall') and hope/assume.  And Linux isn't the solution for them
> either, nor Mac - as a group they're unlikely to understand ANY platform
> enough (or even care enough) to handle it 'properly'.


Certainly Linux or Mac isn't a solution for them, although I may argue
that a Mac might be a) more secure by default, and b) easier to operate.
But there is a still a ... uhm... lesser educated user operating a
complex computing device while connected to a large network.

But what *would* help would be the diversity of different platforms. All
those machine are still vulnerable, but not to the same bugs. And they
would not act or be exploited at the same time. That minimizes the
impact it has on the rest of the infrastructure/Internet.

There is a difference in 95% of computers online starting to "barf
pings" at the same time (i.e. Slammer), or -- say 40% -- this week and
others at other times (weeks later, months later whatever).


Regards,
Frank

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part