Re: [Fwd: Re: windows future]

[Peter Besenbruch <prb () lava net>]

On Thursday 27 August 2009 05:04:16 Rohit Patnaik wrote:
> Of course, all this is based on an extrapolation of the current strategy
> of blacklisting. My feeling is that, once malware levels grow beyond
> this threshold, we'll see a mass switch to whitelists.  In other words,
> apps will go from being innocent until proven guilty, to being guilty
> until proven innocent. We're already seeing some if this with Vista's
> UAC pestering when one wants to install a new application. Given that,
> I'm not sure how the rest of your scenario plays out.

I'm not sure this is a solution. Most of the people I work with will 
unquestioningly click every UAC prompt. Knowing what to whitelist requires a 
fair degree of technical skill beyond most users' ability.

A few thoughts on the previous post: In biology, most parasites do not kill 
their host. If the analogy fits, it is possible for Windows to stumble along, 
rather infected, but still functional.

In a business setting, malware scanning is often done at the periphery of the 
LAN, not by each individual computer.

In another biological analogy, doctors see lots of sick patients, but don't 
get sick themselves. They wash their hands a lot. In the computer world, 
people who don't install that fake codec, and who do keep their systems up to 
date, may not need anti-virus.

Given the proliferation of malware over the last few years, I have my doubts 
about the effectiveness of anti-virus software today. In other words, 
anti-virus software will stop being effective before it consumes all 
available computer resources trying to protect the computer.

-- 
Hawaiian Astronomical Society: http://www.hawastsoc.org
HAS Deepsky Atlas: http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/