More Security == No Security

[Ian Semmel]

We all know that viruses and hackers etc have caused a great deal of damage
to computer systems and the response has been to increase 'security'.

However, when these security improvements result in systems being unusable,
people tend to turn them off and have no security. It is different for a
commercial enterprise which can employ a network nerd to twiddle with
settings and policies etc, but for the average user it is often too much.

Look at what happens in Vista. You may have a local network that works in
XP, you upgrade to Vista and then the network doesn't work any more because
they have 'improved' the security when it probably didn't need improving.

Most people use some sort of router which has a firewall built in, there is
Windows Firewall and often another firewall such as PC-cillin or Zone Alarm
getting into the act. It all gets to be too much. To get things to work,
people will turn the firewall off. Same with UAC.

What we need is a single button which says "I want to be able to have a
local network on which I can do anything I want, I don't want anyone from
outside my network to access my computers". Clicking this will result in the
OS working it all out for you.

 

[Kerry Brown]

"Ian Semmel" <anyone@rocketcomp.com.au> wrote in message
news:OyZVcTZwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> We all know that viruses and hackers etc have caused a great deal of
> damage to computer systems and the response has been to increase
> 'security'.
>
> However, when these security improvements result in systems being
> unusable, people tend to turn them off and have no security. It is
> different for a commercial enterprise which can employ a network nerd to
> twiddle with settings and policies etc, but for the average user it is
> often too much.
>
> Look at what happens in Vista. You may have a local network that works in
> XP, you upgrade to Vista and then the network doesn't work any more
> because they have 'improved' the security when it probably didn't need
> improving.
>
> Most people use some sort of router which has a firewall built in, there
> is Windows Firewall and often another firewall such as PC-cillin or Zone
> Alarm getting into the act. It all gets to be too much. To get things to
> work, people will turn the firewall off. Same with UAC.
>
> What we need is a single button which says "I want to be able to have a
> local network on which I can do anything I want, I don't want anyone from
> outside my network to access my computers". Clicking this will result in
> the OS working it all out for you.


The problem with allowing you to run with no security (or relaxed security)
is that when you get infected (and you will) your computers will affect
mine. Yours will try to infect mine, send me spam, try to steal my identity,
etc. Even if I have good enough security that this can't happen you still
use some public bandwidth while doing this. Now imagine the current
situation of XP with millions of infected computers each eating up a little
bandwidth. Who pays for this bandwidth? There are many estimates that 50% to
80% of all Internet traffic is spam or malware. Much of this is from
compromised XP computers. If your computers are not connected to anything
else then set your security however you like. As long as they are connected
to the same network as the general public (the Internet) you will have to
live with some restrictions. Windows was never designed with the Internet in
mind. Vista is the fallout from this. XP cannot be made secure. Vista
probably can't either but it is light years ahead of XP.

Your idea of a single button to setup networking is wonderful. Unfortunately
it is also extremely hard if not impossible to program in today's reality.
No one in any OS has achieved it yet. It will be very nice when someone
does.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 05:18:49 +1000, "Ian Semmel"

>We all know that viruses and hackers etc have caused a great deal of damage
>to computer systems and the response has been to increase 'security'.

Yup. Tho I'd look more at "safety" than "security" as I see these
operating at different levels of abstraction, with "sanity" being the
level that "safety" rests upon.

It's no good ensuring only User X is allowed access it what happens
when User X is working is not what User X intended.

It's no good designing safety for User X, so that only what User X
wants to happen, happens, if the working code can be exploited to do
completely different things, i.e. is no sane.

In the above, "no good" doesn't mean "useless to try" so much as
"cannot be relied upon to produce the desired outcome".

>However, when these security improvements result in systems being unusable,
>people tend to turn them off and have no security.

Hands up all of you who are sick to death of reading "if the user was
not logged on as administrator..." as a "mitigation"?

IMO, that user identity model has no place in consumerland.

>It is different for a commercial enterprise which can employ a network
>nerd to twiddle with settings and policies etc, but for the average user
>it is often too much.

Note that these enterprises are unlikely to hire a system
administrator without an MSCE. What's the point of a security design
for consumers that requires an MCSE to manage?

>Look at what happens in Vista. You may have a local network that works in
>XP, you upgrade to Vista and then the network doesn't work any more because
>they have 'improved' the security when it probably didn't need improving.

There's one item I can think of that has to die, and that's a form of
password hashing that old Windows tends to rely on.

>Most people use some sort of router which has a firewall built in, there is
>Windows Firewall and often another firewall such as PC-cillin or Zone Alarm
>getting into the act. It all gets to be too much. To get things to work,
>people will turn the firewall off. Same with UAC.

Yep. We used to have a better way, but MS broke it in XP.

>What we need is a single button which says "I want to be able to have a
>local network on which I can do anything I want, I don't want anyone from
>outside my network to access my computers". Clicking this will result in the
>OS working it all out for you.

Vista does try to do that by design (and IMO a very elegent design it
is, too). Instead of multiple tabs full of checkboxes and radio
buttons, it asks "is this network public, private or (whatever the
third option was, prolly domain-based)?"

Which is sort-of OK, as long as:
- you don't open up your LAN via WiFi
- you have a clear edge between Internet and LAN

We used to have a very easy solution to both of the above:
- use cables, DUH
- don't use TCP/IP on your LAN

But nooo, we had to drop NetBEUI for TCP/IP because the latter was
"better". Less packet traffic clogging up 1000-seat networks!
Ability to route traffic all over the world! Seamless integration
with the Internet! 2 out of 3 things WE DON'T WANT.

So now you're obliged to wave File and Print Sharing (F&PS) over
TCP/IP, and hope your "edge" separates this from Internet access. The
same LAN card carries both Internet and LAN TCP/IP to... what?

A router in NAT mode, you hope, but it could be a router dumbed down
by the ISP's "EZ-Setup" bundleware to act as a dumb bridge, or maybe
you have a "modem" rather than a "router" and one of your
richly-exploitable Windows boxes has to pretend to be the router via
Internet Connection Sharing (ICS).

So now all your firewalls have to fuss with your F&PS traffic, which
it often breaks, whereas before it was on a different network protocol
that was physically incapable of being routed beyond the LAN.


Then let's look at what you share over F&PS over what you hope is only
your LAN, rather than the Internet or anyone in extended WiFi range.

Common sense says:
- share as little as possible
- do not write-share code locations or startup integration points

Instead, we have hidden admin shares waving all of every HD volume for
full access. They are only "hidden" from you any programmer can use
them, the names are always the same, no "inside info" required.

But that's OK, says the party line these shares are not exposed in
Vista (hooray!) and are only exposed in XP Pro if the user account is
not null. But XP's Tasks require a non-null password to work, so many
XP Pro systems have weak account passwords as a paper barrier to
anything that can take a poke at F&PS.


We need a different "security" model in consumerland... let's call it
"trustworthy computing". Imagine if you could trust:
- data not to act as code
- the UI to show you what was data and what was code
- the OS to enforce what the UI showed you
- apps to do only what you chose them to do

Are we close to this? No, if anything, Windows design is moving in
the opposite direction. We still break the first three trust points:
- overy-dumbed-down "Open", not "Run" vs. "Edit" vs. "View"
- code files can define their own icons
- file name extensions are hidden by default
- Vista "opens" on hidden content cues, not extension
- no type discipline, i.e. GIF in a .JPG "opened" as GIF

It used to be as easy as "don't run .EXE, .COM or .BAT files", in the
"difficult" DOS days.

In the new "easy" Windows days, how easy is it to be sure the file you
"open" is just "viewing data" and not running code?

Now let's look at the last item in detail, because this is a new
concept, rather than something we had that got broken.

Imagine if every app had to disclose, in broad easy to understand
terms, what it did? For example...

"Dancing Pigs" is a Screensaver, which:
[_] Accesses user data stores: (Details)
[_] Accesses Internet: (Details)
[_] Automates the system: (Details)
[X] May be automated by the system: Details
[X] Is integrated into the system: Details
[_] Is associated with these file types: None

....and now let's imagine the OS actually enforced these things.

This creates "security boundaries" that are meaningful in
consumerland games can't touch data, accounting apps can't interact
with Internet, downloaded toys don't "call home", apps don't
unexpectedly integrate themselves into the OS, etc.

That's much better than "pretend to be several different people with
different job descriptions when you use your own PC" BS that we get
shoved at us via a "one size fits all" design geared to big networks.

It's not easy to do, though, because there's a large surface area
between these contexts, and context drift exploits are likely. It's
hard enough to impose security zone or user account permissions, let
alone per-app scoping. What happens when different vendors call
common shared code libraries how is the context tracked?

Imagine one thing: That the 95% of spam that is currently spread via
botnets, couldn't be sent from infected PCs because only the
designated (and non-automated) email app was enabled to sent out mail



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Ian Semmel]

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:E63F21F2-A5B6-43B3-BD72-D4503075830E@microsoft.com...
> "Ian Semmel" <anyone@rocketcomp.com.au> wrote in message
> news:OyZVcTZwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> We all know that viruses and hackers etc have caused a great deal of
>> damage to computer systems and the response has been to increase
>> 'security'.
>>
>> However, when these security improvements result in systems being
>> unusable, people tend to turn them off and have no security. It is
>> different for a commercial enterprise which can employ a network nerd to
>> twiddle with settings and policies etc, but for the average user it is
>> often too much.
>>
>> Look at what happens in Vista. You may have a local network that works in
>> XP, you upgrade to Vista and then the network doesn't work any more
>> because they have 'improved' the security when it probably didn't need
>> improving.
>>
>> Most people use some sort of router which has a firewall built in, there
>> is Windows Firewall and often another firewall such as PC-cillin or Zone
>> Alarm getting into the act. It all gets to be too much. To get things to
>> work, people will turn the firewall off. Same with UAC.
>>
>> What we need is a single button which says "I want to be able to have a
>> local network on which I can do anything I want, I don't want anyone from
>> outside my network to access my computers". Clicking this will result in
>> the OS working it all out for you.
>
>
> The problem with allowing you to run with no security (or relaxed
> security) is that when you get infected (and you will) your computers will
> affect mine. Yours will try to infect mine, send me spam, try to steal my
> identity, etc. Even if I have good enough security that this can't happen
> you still use some public bandwidth while doing this.

Yes, but I am not doing it. This is a typical "blame the victim" scenario
which is what is used by the computer industry when viruses spread around
the internet.

The internet could have been made secure (and probably still could be), but
it would require a great deal of work, time and money.

Look at HTML and web browsers. What started off as an extension of the old
'runoff' program, to render text (what does the 'T' in html stand for ?),
now becomes, with its extensions, a means of executing 'code' to achieve all
sorts of things it was never designed to do. Instead of designing secure and
trusted client programs to access web servers, the gurus decided to shoehorn
scripting languages into the design which effectively allow computers to
execute unknown, untested and unverifiable text files. It was all so easy.
Then they decided to allow servers to execute text files as well.

If the only programs that could be executed were trusted programs from a
known and secure source, then most of the security problems we know today
would disappear.


> Now imagine the current situation of XP with millions of infected
> computers each eating up a little bandwidth. Who pays for this bandwidth?
> There are many estimates that 50% to 80% of all Internet traffic is spam
> or malware. Much of this is from compromised XP computers.

Spam could be stopped by ISPs if they wanted to do it.

> If your computers are not connected to anything else then set your
> security however you like. As long as they are connected to the same
> network as the general public (the Internet) you will have to live with
> some restrictions. Windows was never designed with the Internet in mind.
> Vista is the fallout from this. XP cannot be made secure. Vista probably
> can't either but it is light years ahead of XP.
>
> Your idea of a single button to setup networking is wonderful.
> Unfortunately it is also extremely hard if not impossible to program in
> today's reality. No one in any OS has achieved it yet. It will be very
> nice when someone does.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>
>

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:29:51 +1000, Ian Semmel wrote:

> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:E63F21F2-A5B6-43B3-BD72-D4503075830E@microsoft.com...
>> "Ian Semmel" <anyone@rocketcomp.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:OyZVcTZwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> We all know that viruses and hackers etc have caused a great deal of
>>> damage to computer systems and the response has been to increase
>>> 'security'.
>>>
>>> However, when these security improvements result in systems being
>>> unusable, people tend to turn them off and have no security. It is
>>> different for a commercial enterprise which can employ a network nerd to
>>> twiddle with settings and policies etc, but for the average user it is
>>> often too much.
>>>
>>> Look at what happens in Vista. You may have a local network that works in
>>> XP, you upgrade to Vista and then the network doesn't work any more
>>> because they have 'improved' the security when it probably didn't need
>>> improving.
>>>
>>> Most people use some sort of router which has a firewall built in, there
>>> is Windows Firewall and often another firewall such as PC-cillin or Zone
>>> Alarm getting into the act. It all gets to be too much. To get things to
>>> work, people will turn the firewall off. Same with UAC.
>>>
>>> What we need is a single button which says "I want to be able to have a
>>> local network on which I can do anything I want, I don't want anyone from
>>> outside my network to access my computers". Clicking this will result in
>>> the OS working it all out for you.
>>
>>
>> The problem with allowing you to run with no security (or relaxed
>> security) is that when you get infected (and you will) your computers will
>> affect mine. Yours will try to infect mine, send me spam, try to steal my
>> identity, etc. Even if I have good enough security that this can't happen
>> you still use some public bandwidth while doing this.
>
> Yes, but I am not doing it. This is a typical "blame the victim" scenario
> which is what is used by the computer industry when viruses spread around
> the internet.
>
> The internet could have been made secure (and probably still could be), but
> it would require a great deal of work, time and money.
>
> Look at HTML and web browsers. What started off as an extension of the old
> 'runoff' program, to render text (what does the 'T' in html stand for ?),
> now becomes, with its extensions, a means of executing 'code' to achieve all
> sorts of things it was never designed to do. Instead of designing secure and
> trusted client programs to access web servers, the gurus decided to shoehorn
> scripting languages into the design which effectively allow computers to
> execute unknown, untested and unverifiable text files. It was all so easy.
> Then they decided to allow servers to execute text files as well.
>
> If the only programs that could be executed were trusted programs from a
> known and secure source, then most of the security problems we know today
> would disappear.
>
>
>> Now imagine the current situation of XP with millions of infected
>> computers each eating up a little bandwidth. Who pays for this bandwidth?
>> There are many estimates that 50% to 80% of all Internet traffic is spam
>> or malware. Much of this is from compromised XP computers.
>
> Spam could be stopped by ISPs if they wanted to do it.

Seeing that the majority of spam is sent from compromised computers
running spambot software, how exactly would ISPs do this? I actually mean
this as an honest question.

How would an ISP differentiate between a valid e-mail sent from one of its
users and a spam e-mail while guaranteeing that it will *never* reject a
valid e-mail?

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Ian Semmel]

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:U7ednWVgMeI6PA_bnZ2dnUVZ8sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:29:51 +1000, Ian Semmel wrote:
>
>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
>> news:E63F21F2-A5B6-43B3-BD72-D4503075830E@microsoft.com...
>>> "Ian Semmel" <anyone@rocketcomp.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:OyZVcTZwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> We all know that viruses and hackers etc have caused a great deal of
>>>> damage to computer systems and the response has been to increase
>>>> 'security'.
>>>>
>>>> However, when these security improvements result in systems being
>>>> unusable, people tend to turn them off and have no security. It is
>>>> different for a commercial enterprise which can employ a network nerd
>>>> to
>>>> twiddle with settings and policies etc, but for the average user it is
>>>> often too much.
>>>>
>>>> Look at what happens in Vista. You may have a local network that works
>>>> in
>>>> XP, you upgrade to Vista and then the network doesn't work any more
>>>> because they have 'improved' the security when it probably didn't need
>>>> improving.
>>>>
>>>> Most people use some sort of router which has a firewall built in,
>>>> there
>>>> is Windows Firewall and often another firewall such as PC-cillin or
>>>> Zone
>>>> Alarm getting into the act. It all gets to be too much. To get things
>>>> to
>>>> work, people will turn the firewall off. Same with UAC.
>>>>
>>>> What we need is a single button which says "I want to be able to have a
>>>> local network on which I can do anything I want, I don't want anyone
>>>> from
>>>> outside my network to access my computers". Clicking this will result
>>>> in
>>>> the OS working it all out for you.
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with allowing you to run with no security (or relaxed
>>> security) is that when you get infected (and you will) your computers
>>> will
>>> affect mine. Yours will try to infect mine, send me spam, try to steal
>>> my
>>> identity, etc. Even if I have good enough security that this can't
>>> happen
>>> you still use some public bandwidth while doing this.
>>
>> Yes, but I am not doing it. This is a typical "blame the victim"
>> scenario
>> which is what is used by the computer industry when viruses spread around
>> the internet.
>>
>> The internet could have been made secure (and probably still could be),
>> but
>> it would require a great deal of work, time and money.
>>
>> Look at HTML and web browsers. What started off as an extension of the
>> old
>> 'runoff' program, to render text (what does the 'T' in html stand for ?),
>> now becomes, with its extensions, a means of executing 'code' to achieve
>> all
>> sorts of things it was never designed to do. Instead of designing secure
>> and
>> trusted client programs to access web servers, the gurus decided to
>> shoehorn
>> scripting languages into the design which effectively allow computers to
>> execute unknown, untested and unverifiable text files. It was all so
>> easy.
>> Then they decided to allow servers to execute text files as well.
>>
>> If the only programs that could be executed were trusted programs from a
>> known and secure source, then most of the security problems we know today
>> would disappear.
>>
>>
>>> Now imagine the current situation of XP with millions of infected
>>> computers each eating up a little bandwidth. Who pays for this
>>> bandwidth?
>>> There are many estimates that 50% to 80% of all Internet traffic is spam
>>> or malware. Much of this is from compromised XP computers.
>>
>> Spam could be stopped by ISPs if they wanted to do it.
>
> Seeing that the majority of spam is sent from compromised computers
> running spambot software, how exactly would ISPs do this? I actually mean
> this as an honest question.
>
> How would an ISP differentiate between a valid e-mail sent from one of its
> users and a spam e-mail while guaranteeing that it will *never* reject a
> valid e-mail?

Well, maybe 'stopping' is asking a bit, but they could severely nobble it.

What I would like when I get my email is only ONE email with a list of all
the mail waiting for me.
I tick the ones I want and the rest are trashed without me having to
download them. I reckon that 90% of the emails I download are spam.

 

[Kerry Brown]

"Ian Semmel" <anyone@rocketcomp.com.au> wrote in message
news:uFjn$7pwHHA.4736@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:U7ednWVgMeI6PA_bnZ2dnUVZ8sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:29:51 +1000, Ian Semmel wrote:
>>
>>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
>>> news:E63F21F2-A5B6-43B3-BD72-D4503075830E@microsoft.com...
>>>> "Ian Semmel" <anyone@rocketcomp.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:OyZVcTZwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> We all know that viruses and hackers etc have caused a great deal of
>>>>> damage to computer systems and the response has been to increase
>>>>> 'security'.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, when these security improvements result in systems being
>>>>> unusable, people tend to turn them off and have no security. It is
>>>>> different for a commercial enterprise which can employ a network nerd
>>>>> to
>>>>> twiddle with settings and policies etc, but for the average user it is
>>>>> often too much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at what happens in Vista. You may have a local network that works
>>>>> in
>>>>> XP, you upgrade to Vista and then the network doesn't work any more
>>>>> because they have 'improved' the security when it probably didn't need
>>>>> improving.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people use some sort of router which has a firewall built in,
>>>>> there
>>>>> is Windows Firewall and often another firewall such as PC-cillin or
>>>>> Zone
>>>>> Alarm getting into the act. It all gets to be too much. To get things
>>>>> to
>>>>> work, people will turn the firewall off. Same with UAC.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we need is a single button which says "I want to be able to have
>>>>> a
>>>>> local network on which I can do anything I want, I don't want anyone
>>>>> from
>>>>> outside my network to access my computers". Clicking this will result
>>>>> in
>>>>> the OS working it all out for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem with allowing you to run with no security (or relaxed
>>>> security) is that when you get infected (and you will) your computers
>>>> will
>>>> affect mine. Yours will try to infect mine, send me spam, try to steal
>>>> my
>>>> identity, etc. Even if I have good enough security that this can't
>>>> happen
>>>> you still use some public bandwidth while doing this.
>>>
>>> Yes, but I am not doing it. This is a typical "blame the victim"
>>> scenario
>>> which is what is used by the computer industry when viruses spread
>>> around
>>> the internet.
>>>
>>> The internet could have been made secure (and probably still could be),
>>> but
>>> it would require a great deal of work, time and money.
>>>
>>> Look at HTML and web browsers. What started off as an extension of the
>>> old
>>> 'runoff' program, to render text (what does the 'T' in html stand for
>>> ?),
>>> now becomes, with its extensions, a means of executing 'code' to achieve
>>> all
>>> sorts of things it was never designed to do. Instead of designing secure
>>> and
>>> trusted client programs to access web servers, the gurus decided to
>>> shoehorn
>>> scripting languages into the design which effectively allow computers to
>>> execute unknown, untested and unverifiable text files. It was all so
>>> easy.
>>> Then they decided to allow servers to execute text files as well.
>>>
>>> If the only programs that could be executed were trusted programs from a
>>> known and secure source, then most of the security problems we know
>>> today
>>> would disappear.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now imagine the current situation of XP with millions of infected
>>>> computers each eating up a little bandwidth. Who pays for this
>>>> bandwidth?
>>>> There are many estimates that 50% to 80% of all Internet traffic is
>>>> spam
>>>> or malware. Much of this is from compromised XP computers.
>>>
>>> Spam could be stopped by ISPs if they wanted to do it.
>>
>> Seeing that the majority of spam is sent from compromised computers
>> running spambot software, how exactly would ISPs do this? I actually mean
>> this as an honest question.
>>
>> How would an ISP differentiate between a valid e-mail sent from one of
>> its
>> users and a spam e-mail while guaranteeing that it will *never* reject a
>> valid e-mail?
>
> Well, maybe 'stopping' is asking a bit, but they could severely nobble it.
>
> What I would like when I get my email is only ONE email with a list of all
> the mail waiting for me.
> I tick the ones I want and the rest are trashed without me having to
> download them. I reckon that 90% of the emails I download are spam.
>
>
>


Some email clients allow you to browse the headers on the email server and
mark them for download, delete, etc..

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:52 +1000, Ian Semmel wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:U7ednWVgMeI6PA_bnZ2dnUVZ8sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:29:51 +1000, Ian Semmel wrote:
>>
>>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
>>> news:E63F21F2-A5B6-43B3-BD72-D4503075830E@microsoft.com...
>>>> "Ian Semmel" <anyone@rocketcomp.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:OyZVcTZwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> We all know that viruses and hackers etc have caused a great deal of
>>>>> damage to computer systems and the response has been to increase
>>>>> 'security'.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, when these security improvements result in systems being
>>>>> unusable, people tend to turn them off and have no security. It is
>>>>> different for a commercial enterprise which can employ a network nerd
>>>>> to
>>>>> twiddle with settings and policies etc, but for the average user it is
>>>>> often too much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at what happens in Vista. You may have a local network that works
>>>>> in
>>>>> XP, you upgrade to Vista and then the network doesn't work any more
>>>>> because they have 'improved' the security when it probably didn't need
>>>>> improving.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people use some sort of router which has a firewall built in,
>>>>> there
>>>>> is Windows Firewall and often another firewall such as PC-cillin or
>>>>> Zone
>>>>> Alarm getting into the act. It all gets to be too much. To get things
>>>>> to
>>>>> work, people will turn the firewall off. Same with UAC.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we need is a single button which says "I want to be able to have a
>>>>> local network on which I can do anything I want, I don't want anyone
>>>>> from
>>>>> outside my network to access my computers". Clicking this will result
>>>>> in
>>>>> the OS working it all out for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem with allowing you to run with no security (or relaxed
>>>> security) is that when you get infected (and you will) your computers
>>>> will
>>>> affect mine. Yours will try to infect mine, send me spam, try to steal
>>>> my
>>>> identity, etc. Even if I have good enough security that this can't
>>>> happen
>>>> you still use some public bandwidth while doing this.
>>>
>>> Yes, but I am not doing it. This is a typical "blame the victim"
>>> scenario
>>> which is what is used by the computer industry when viruses spread around
>>> the internet.
>>>
>>> The internet could have been made secure (and probably still could be),
>>> but
>>> it would require a great deal of work, time and money.
>>>
>>> Look at HTML and web browsers. What started off as an extension of the
>>> old
>>> 'runoff' program, to render text (what does the 'T' in html stand for ?),
>>> now becomes, with its extensions, a means of executing 'code' to achieve
>>> all
>>> sorts of things it was never designed to do. Instead of designing secure
>>> and
>>> trusted client programs to access web servers, the gurus decided to
>>> shoehorn
>>> scripting languages into the design which effectively allow computers to
>>> execute unknown, untested and unverifiable text files. It was all so
>>> easy.
>>> Then they decided to allow servers to execute text files as well.
>>>
>>> If the only programs that could be executed were trusted programs from a
>>> known and secure source, then most of the security problems we know today
>>> would disappear.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now imagine the current situation of XP with millions of infected
>>>> computers each eating up a little bandwidth. Who pays for this
>>>> bandwidth?
>>>> There are many estimates that 50% to 80% of all Internet traffic is spam
>>>> or malware. Much of this is from compromised XP computers.
>>>
>>> Spam could be stopped by ISPs if they wanted to do it.
>>
>> Seeing that the majority of spam is sent from compromised computers
>> running spambot software, how exactly would ISPs do this? I actually mean
>> this as an honest question.
>>
>> How would an ISP differentiate between a valid e-mail sent from one of its
>> users and a spam e-mail while guaranteeing that it will *never* reject a
>> valid e-mail?
>
> Well, maybe 'stopping' is asking a bit, but they could severely nobble it.
>
> What I would like when I get my email is only ONE email with a list of all
> the mail waiting for me.
> I tick the ones I want and the rest are trashed without me having to
> download them. I reckon that 90% of the emails I download are spam.

That would honestly take me longer than my current method because I'd
actually have to pay attention to the headers!

The way I mostly solve the problem is with very aggressive filtering that
moves everything I want into separate folders ordered by category. That
leaves only the spam in my main inbox which I then just very quickly need
to glance over to make sure nothing important snuck past my filters and
then I can go delete it all in one shot. =)



--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:59:19 -0500, Stephan Rose
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:29:51 +1000, Ian Semmel wrote:

>> If the only programs that could be executed were trusted programs from a
>> known and secure source, then most of the security problems we know today
>> would disappear.

Wrong place to draw the line - "trusted" by whom? "Trust me, I'm a
software vendor"? Or "Trust me, I'm a huge media company, I wouldn't
drop a rootkit on your PC from an audio CD"? Pass.

Instead, I want to know what is data and what is code. Period.

I expect the OS or app to show me that distinction, and I expect iit
to be bound by it. Don't show me ".JPG" and then open as ".GIF" on
the basis of embedded cues that were hidden to me.

And don't dummy down my UI to the point where all I see is "open",
spoofable icons, and no file type info at all.

It would also help if I were the only actor initiating risks on "my"
computer. No OS auto-running junk off removable drives as they are
discovered, no auto-groping of files by background services or when
listing folder contents, no apps auto-running macros, no web browsers
auto-running scripts or auto-installing plugins.

>> Spam could be stopped by ISPs if they wanted to do it.

>Seeing that the majority of spam is sent from compromised computers
>running spambot software, how exactly would ISPs do this? I actually mean
>this as an honest question.

All they can do is alert the users who have unexpectedly high email
output. Just like all those malware "Hi, I'm your ISP, please click
in this link to fix your PC" email alerts we see already.

No again, this is the wrong place to draw the line.

Instead, imagine if Windows systems didn't allow arbitrary code to
send email? Imagine if only a designated email app could send email,
and this app was hardened against automation, as Outbreak circa
Melissa very famously was not?



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Tech Support: The guys who follow the
'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

 

[Possum]

I think "Mailwasher Pro" will do exactly what you want.

http://www.firetrust.com/


"Ian Semmel" <anyone@rocketcomp.com.au> wrote in message
news:uFjn$7pwHHA.4736@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:U7ednWVgMeI6PA_bnZ2dnUVZ8sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:29:51 +1000, Ian Semmel wrote:
>>
>>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
>>> news:E63F21F2-A5B6-43B3-BD72-D4503075830E@microsoft.com...
>>>> "Ian Semmel" <anyone@rocketcomp.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:OyZVcTZwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> We all know that viruses and hackers etc have caused a great deal of
>>>>> damage to computer systems and the response has been to increase
>>>>> 'security'.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, when these security improvements result in systems being
>>>>> unusable, people tend to turn them off and have no security. It is
>>>>> different for a commercial enterprise which can employ a network nerd
>>>>> to
>>>>> twiddle with settings and policies etc, but for the average user it is
>>>>> often too much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at what happens in Vista. You may have a local network that works
>>>>> in
>>>>> XP, you upgrade to Vista and then the network doesn't work any more
>>>>> because they have 'improved' the security when it probably didn't need
>>>>> improving.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people use some sort of router which has a firewall built in,
>>>>> there
>>>>> is Windows Firewall and often another firewall such as PC-cillin or
>>>>> Zone
>>>>> Alarm getting into the act. It all gets to be too much. To get things
>>>>> to
>>>>> work, people will turn the firewall off. Same with UAC.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we need is a single button which says "I want to be able to have
>>>>> a
>>>>> local network on which I can do anything I want, I don't want anyone
>>>>> from
>>>>> outside my network to access my computers". Clicking this will result
>>>>> in
>>>>> the OS working it all out for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem with allowing you to run with no security (or relaxed
>>>> security) is that when you get infected (and you will) your computers
>>>> will
>>>> affect mine. Yours will try to infect mine, send me spam, try to steal
>>>> my
>>>> identity, etc. Even if I have good enough security that this can't
>>>> happen
>>>> you still use some public bandwidth while doing this.
>>>
>>> Yes, but I am not doing it. This is a typical "blame the victim"
>>> scenario
>>> which is what is used by the computer industry when viruses spread
>>> around
>>> the internet.
>>>
>>> The internet could have been made secure (and probably still could be),
>>> but
>>> it would require a great deal of work, time and money.
>>>
>>> Look at HTML and web browsers. What started off as an extension of the
>>> old
>>> 'runoff' program, to render text (what does the 'T' in html stand for
>>> ?),
>>> now becomes, with its extensions, a means of executing 'code' to achieve
>>> all
>>> sorts of things it was never designed to do. Instead of designing secure
>>> and
>>> trusted client programs to access web servers, the gurus decided to
>>> shoehorn
>>> scripting languages into the design which effectively allow computers to
>>> execute unknown, untested and unverifiable text files. It was all so
>>> easy.
>>> Then they decided to allow servers to execute text files as well.
>>>
>>> If the only programs that could be executed were trusted programs from a
>>> known and secure source, then most of the security problems we know
>>> today
>>> would disappear.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now imagine the current situation of XP with millions of infected
>>>> computers each eating up a little bandwidth. Who pays for this
>>>> bandwidth?
>>>> There are many estimates that 50% to 80% of all Internet traffic is
>>>> spam
>>>> or malware. Much of this is from compromised XP computers.
>>>
>>> Spam could be stopped by ISPs if they wanted to do it.
>>
>> Seeing that the majority of spam is sent from compromised computers
>> running spambot software, how exactly would ISPs do this? I actually mean
>> this as an honest question.
>>
>> How would an ISP differentiate between a valid e-mail sent from one of
>> its
>> users and a spam e-mail while guaranteeing that it will *never* reject a
>> valid e-mail?
>
> Well, maybe 'stopping' is asking a bit, but they could severely nobble it.
>
> What I would like when I get my email is only ONE email with a list of all
> the mail waiting for me.
> I tick the ones I want and the rest are trashed without me having to
> download them. I reckon that 90% of the emails I download are spam.
>
>
>