Excuse for being a poor netizen?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 9, 2006.

  1. Armed police turn up at the door of a lady whose PC is part of a botnet
    <http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/009241.html>, and
    confiscate her machine. She claims she didn't run a firewall on it because
    it was such an old machine, things slowed down too much.

    Do you have any sympathy for her? I don't.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > Armed police turn up at the door of a lady whose PC is part of a botnet
    > <http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/009241.html>, and
    > confiscate her machine. She claims she didn't run a firewall on it because
    > it was such an old machine, things slowed down too much.
    >
    > Do you have any sympathy for her? I don't.


    I do have sympathy for her. If her machine was supplied with a *real*
    operating system, she would not have required anti-virus, firewalls,
    etc. However one has no option but to buy a machine with a toy
    operating system, then you need to add anti virus etc and if savvy
    enough then 'tighten up' your settings. If you want a *real* operatng
    system you have to find and install it yourself - the good news is -
    the cost is almost nix.
    peterwn, Dec 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

    > Armed police turn up at the door of a lady whose PC is part of a botnet
    > <http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/009241.html>, and
    > confiscate her machine. She claims she didn't run a firewall on it because
    > it was such an old machine, things slowed down too much.
    >
    > Do you have any sympathy for her? I don't.


    I do have a wee bit of sympathy, which is tempered buy the fact that she
    could have simply installed ubuntu on her PC or xubuntu if it was really
    old. Then she wouldn't have had any security troubles.

    Regards,
    Jamie Kahn Genet
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Dec 9, 2006
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

    >
    > I do have a wee bit of sympathy, which is tempered buy the fact that she
    > could have simply installed ubuntu on her PC or xubuntu if it was really
    > old. Then she wouldn't have had any security troubles.
    >

    Also these CD based operating systems are just the thing for internet
    banking - you know you have a clean system when you boot it off a CD.
    peterwn, Dec 9, 2006
    #4
  5. peterwn <> wrote:

    > Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > I do have a wee bit of sympathy, which is tempered buy the fact that she
    > > could have simply installed ubuntu on her PC or xubuntu if it was really
    > > old. Then she wouldn't have had any security troubles.
    > >

    > Also these CD based operating systems are just the thing for internet
    > banking - you know you have a clean system when you boot it off a CD.


    Why on earth would you do that past the trying out period, to see if you
    like an OS?

    Regards,
    Jamie Kahn Genet
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Dec 9, 2006
    #5
  6. peterwn wrote:
    > Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
    >
    >> I do have a wee bit of sympathy, which is tempered buy the fact that she
    >> could have simply installed ubuntu on her PC or xubuntu if it was really
    >> old. Then she wouldn't have had any security troubles.
    >>

    > Also these CD based operating systems are just the thing for internet
    > banking - you know you have a clean system when you boot it off a CD.
    >

    My boy have I got a cd based os for you, Free and just so secure I will even
    send you the CD for nothing.

    Insert Tuis Add here

    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 38.2330S, 175.8670E |
    ======================================================================
    Collector»NZ, Dec 9, 2006
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

    >
    > Why on earth would you do that past the trying out period, to see if you
    > like an OS?
    >

    If you do not like the CD system for your general computing experience,
    you should still keep using it specifically for internet banking.

    If you like the general experience and installs a *real* operating
    system, then OK, no need to keep using the CD, unless one is paranoid
    (and that is quite forgivable).
    peterwn, Dec 9, 2006
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    steve Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > Armed police turn up at the door of a lady whose PC is part of a botnet
    > <http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/009241.html>, and
    > confiscate her machine. She claims she didn't run a firewall on it because
    > it was such an old machine, things slowed down too much.
    >
    > Do you have any sympathy for her? I don't.


    I have sympathy to the extent that her PC and privacy have been illegally
    violated by criminals.

    In the same way I would have sympathy for someone who was burgled who had
    failed to construct a concrete and steel Fort Knox and instead preferred to
    live in the usual weatherboard house with courtesy locks on the doors and
    breakable windows without bars on them.

    The armed police at the door was a wee bit of overkill. Why didn't they just
    phone her? The outcome would have been the same.

    --
    Only boring people are bored.
    steve, Dec 10, 2006
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    steve Guest

    peterwn wrote:

    >
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> Armed police turn up at the door of a lady whose PC is part of a botnet
    >> <http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/009241.html>, and
    >> confiscate her machine. She claims she didn't run a firewall on it
    >> because it was such an old machine, things slowed down too much.
    >>
    >> Do you have any sympathy for her? I don't.

    >
    > I do have sympathy for her. If her machine was supplied with a *real*
    > operating system, she would not have required anti-virus, firewalls,
    > etc. However one has no option but to buy a machine with a toy
    > operating system, then you need to add anti virus etc and if savvy
    > enough then 'tighten up' your settings. If you want a *real* operatng
    > system you have to find and install it yourself - the good news is -
    > the cost is almost nix.


    Agreed....but people fear their computers. They know next to nothing about
    them....and persist in not taking the time to learn.

    Linux is easy to use these days....but the enemy of choice is fear of the
    unknown.

    --
    Only boring people are bored.
    steve, Dec 10, 2006
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    thingy Guest

    steve wrote:
    > peterwn wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> Armed police turn up at the door of a lady whose PC is part of a botnet
    >>> <http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/009241.html>, and
    >>> confiscate her machine. She claims she didn't run a firewall on it
    >>> because it was such an old machine, things slowed down too much.
    >>>
    >>> Do you have any sympathy for her? I don't.


    Yes and no. She didnt cause the issue, she was "burgled" If however she
    does not take reasonable steps then she should bear some cost/liability.

    >> I do have sympathy for her. If her machine was supplied with a *real*
    >> operating system, she would not have required anti-virus, firewalls,
    >> etc. However one has no option but to buy a machine with a toy
    >> operating system, then you need to add anti virus etc and if savvy
    >> enough then 'tighten up' your settings. If you want a *real* operatng
    >> system you have to find and install it yourself - the good news is -
    >> the cost is almost nix.

    >
    > Agreed....but people fear their computers. They know next to nothing about
    > them....and persist in not taking the time to learn.
    >
    > Linux is easy to use these days....but the enemy of choice is fear of the
    > unknown.
    >


    Linux is no easier, to secure than a windows machine...given users
    "in-competence". I think I posted in here stats on botted machines
    around 50% were XP with SP2 with firewall...so something is badly amiss.

    ISPs are in a catch22, take a subscriber off line and they take their
    money elsewhere, the only option I can see is legal....require ISPs to
    take infected machines off line and make it a finable offense for a user
    to put a known infected machine on the Internet.

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Dec 10, 2006
    #10
  11. In message <457b5f99$>, thingy wrote:

    > ISPs are in a catch22, take a subscriber off line and they take their
    > money elsewhere...


    Still, though, any ISP that enforced such a policy would at least reduce the
    bozo ratio among its customers.

    > ... the only option I can see is legal....require ISPs to
    > take infected machines off line and make it a finable offense for a user
    > to put a known infected machine on the Internet.


    I'd go along with that. Anybody who puts a machine on the Internet should
    have to have some knowledge of the implications of doing so.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 10, 2006
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    steve Guest

    thingy wrote:

    > steve wrote:
    >> peterwn wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>> Armed police turn up at the door of a lady whose PC is part of a botnet
    >>>> <http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/009241.html>, and
    >>>> confiscate her machine. She claims she didn't run a firewall on it
    >>>> because it was such an old machine, things slowed down too much.
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you have any sympathy for her? I don't.

    >
    > Yes and no. She didnt cause the issue, she was "burgled" If however she
    > does not take reasonable steps then she should bear some cost/liability.
    >
    >>> I do have sympathy for her. If her machine was supplied with a *real*
    >>> operating system, she would not have required anti-virus, firewalls,
    >>> etc. However one has no option but to buy a machine with a toy
    >>> operating system, then you need to add anti virus etc and if savvy
    >>> enough then 'tighten up' your settings. If you want a *real* operatng
    >>> system you have to find and install it yourself - the good news is -
    >>> the cost is almost nix.

    >>
    >> Agreed....but people fear their computers. They know next to nothing
    >> about them....and persist in not taking the time to learn.
    >>
    >> Linux is easy to use these days....but the enemy of choice is fear of the
    >> unknown.

    >
    > Linux is no easier, to secure than a windows machine...given users
    > "in-competence". I think I posted in here stats on botted machines
    > around 50% were XP with SP2 with firewall...so something is badly amiss.


    Linux is easier to secure in the sense that it isn't remotely close to being
    a primary target for infiltration. Having said that, I have seen first hand
    that the rr.com spammers are probing systems with VLC running on port
    5900....seeking to take them over, I suppose. Not sure what they would do
    if they found they were controlling a Linux desktop rather than a Windows
    one.

    > ISPs are in a catch22, take a subscriber off line and they take their
    > money elsewhere, the only option I can see is legal....require ISPs to
    > take infected machines off line and make it a finable offense for a user
    > to put a known infected machine on the Internet.


    I agree.....though let's pursue that liability one step further to the OS
    maker who sells software with known, exploited / exploitable
    vulnerabilities out of the box.



    --
    Only boring people are bored.
    steve, Dec 10, 2006
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    steve Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <457b5f99$>, thingy wrote:
    >
    >> ISPs are in a catch22, take a subscriber off line and they take their
    >> money elsewhere...

    >
    > Still, though, any ISP that enforced such a policy would at least reduce
    > the bozo ratio among its customers.
    >
    >> ... the only option I can see is legal....require ISPs to
    >> take infected machines off line and make it a finable offense for a user
    >> to put a known infected machine on the Internet.

    >
    > I'd go along with that. Anybody who puts a machine on the Internet should
    > have to have some knowledge of the implications of doing so.


    Internet "licenses".

    Not likely until after the coup.

    --
    Only boring people are bored.
    steve, Dec 10, 2006
    #13
  14. In message <>, steve wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <457b5f99$>, thingy wrote:
    >>
    >>> ISPs are in a catch22, take a subscriber off line and they take their
    >>> money elsewhere...

    >>
    >> Still, though, any ISP that enforced such a policy would at least reduce
    >> the bozo ratio among its customers.
    >>
    >>> ... the only option I can see is legal....require ISPs to
    >>> take infected machines off line and make it a finable offense for a user
    >>> to put a known infected machine on the Internet.

    >>
    >> I'd go along with that. Anybody who puts a machine on the Internet should
    >> have to have some knowledge of the implications of doing so.

    >
    > Internet "licenses".


    Doesn't have to be a piece of paper. Think about using the road: even if you
    ride a bicycle, it still behooves you to have some basic understanding of
    give-way rules etc, even though you don't need a licence per se.

    Basic classes on this sort of thing at school would be a good start.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 10, 2006
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    steve wrote:

    > >
    > > Linux is no easier, to secure than a windows machine...given users
    > > "in-competence". I think I posted in here stats on botted machines
    > > around 50% were XP with SP2 with firewall...so something is badly amiss.


    Linux is secure by design - I am not saying that it is a total 'Fort
    Knox', it seems most Linux attacks need to be 'tailor made' to the
    target machine and are are only worth it when large processing capacity
    and bandwidth make it worthwhile.

    Having said that, I would concede weak passwords would leave it
    vulnerable.

    >
    > Linux is easier to secure in the sense that it isn't remotely close to being
    > a primary target for infiltration. Having said that, I have seen first hand
    > that the rr.com spammers are probing systems with VLC running on port
    > 5900....seeking to take them over, I suppose. Not sure what they would do
    > if they found they were controlling a Linux desktop rather than a Windows
    > one.

    If the malicious code was designed for Windows, but tried to infect a
    Linux system, the expected 'port' would not even exist eg there would
    be no buffer over-run. Even if the malicious code was Java and started
    executing, it would need at some point to rely on OS dependent features
    to do its dirty work. If it is the wrong OS then it will not work.
    peterwn, Dec 10, 2006
    #15
  16. T'was the 9 Dec 2006 00:31:16 -0800 when I remembered "peterwn"
    <> saying something like this:

    >If you want a *real* operatng
    >system you have to find and install it yourself


    You hit the nail on the head there big bear. People don't like hassle,
    they really do pay for convenience, it adds value to their life.
    People's lives are complicated enough, without having to learn how to
    install a new operating system. People don't care. Generally. What
    ever happened to DSE selling PCs with Linux preinstalled?
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    Waylon Kenning, Dec 10, 2006
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    steve Guest

    peterwn wrote:

    >
    > steve wrote:
    >
    >> >
    >> > Linux is no easier, to secure than a windows machine...given users
    >> > "in-competence". I think I posted in here stats on botted machines
    >> > around 50% were XP with SP2 with firewall...so something is badly
    >> > amiss.

    >
    > Linux is secure by design - I am not saying that it is a total 'Fort
    > Knox', it seems most Linux attacks need to be 'tailor made' to the
    > target machine and are are only worth it when large processing capacity
    > and bandwidth make it worthwhile.
    >
    > Having said that, I would concede weak passwords would leave it
    > vulnerable.
    >
    >>
    >> Linux is easier to secure in the sense that it isn't remotely close to
    >> being a primary target for infiltration. Having said that, I have seen
    >> first hand that the rr.com spammers are probing systems with VLC running
    >> on port 5900....seeking to take them over, I suppose. Not sure what they
    >> would do if they found they were controlling a Linux desktop rather than
    >> a Windows one.

    > If the malicious code was designed for Windows, but tried to infect a
    > Linux system, the expected 'port' would not even exist eg there would
    > be no buffer over-run. Even if the malicious code was Java and started
    > executing, it would need at some point to rely on OS dependent features
    > to do its dirty work. If it is the wrong OS then it will not work.


    That was what I wasn't prepared to assume.....that is was the wrong OS.

    :)

    --
    Only boring people are bored.
    steve, Dec 10, 2006
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mrzac
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    462
    Leonidas Jones
    Dec 27, 2003
  2. =?Utf-8?B?bm9yZWFzdGVy?=

    Excuse Server - Funny

    =?Utf-8?B?bm9yZWFzdGVy?=, May 5, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    415
    Guest
    May 5, 2004
  3. =?Utf-8?B?dW51c3VhbHBzeWNobw==?=

    Poor reception, poor connection, and dropped signal

    =?Utf-8?B?dW51c3VhbHBzeWNobw==?=, Jun 7, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,811
    Doug Sherman [MVP]
    Jun 7, 2006
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    835
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Rich

    Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late...

    Rich, May 13, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,857
    Bob Larter
    Jun 11, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page