Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly
From: "Schmehl, Paul L" <pauls () utdallas edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:30:06 -0500
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Smith [mailto:mike () sane com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:54 AM To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com Subject: RE: [inbox] Re: [Full-disclosure] CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly I think the point is that most people expect their cars to be operational and do NOT do the maintenance themselves... they DO outsource it to a mechanic. The average user has A LOT less control over their car than their computer. A car is basically a single function unit, point A to point B. Computers never have been nor ever will be that one dimensional. At the most, I think we could hope for users who learn to know better than to try to do the 'maintenance' on their computers themselves.
Oh come on. We don't expect our mechanics to brake and steer for us, fer cryin' out loud. We're not talking about *maintaining the computer. We're talking about *operating* it. Things like passwords, awareness of attachment dangers, the need for routine patching (think oil changes) and up to date antivirus software (think gas). The car mechanic takes care of repairs and maintenance, yes, but the driver is the one who has to bring the car in. That means they have to be *aware* that maintenance is required. They have to realize that if they don't change the oil every 3000 miles they will have long term problems. The same thing is true in computing. Users must realize that maintenance is required, and it's their responsibility to "bring it in" for maintenance. They can't just blithely assume that IT is doing it for them. They need to *know* if it's overdue (think missing patches) or requires an overhaul (think new OS.) We don't let people drive cars without some proof that they know how. We don't even let them neglect the maintenance any more (think emissions inspections.) Why should we let people use computers with no training, no awareness of the potential trouble spots, no idea what they're getting in to? That's insanity. And that's why we have hundreds of thousands of infections with every new iteration of a worm or virus. And IT people contribute to the problem by throwing up their hands and saying that the users don't want to learn or can't be taught. They *must* be taught. There is no other way to solve the problem. Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly Christopher F. Herot (Sep 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly Schmehl, Paul L (Sep 30)
- RE: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly Michael Smith (Sep 30)
- User responsibility [was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly] Gregory A. Gilliss (Sep 30)
- RE: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly Ron DuFresne (Sep 30)
- Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Cael Abal (Sep 30)
- Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Mike Griffin (Sep 30)
- Re: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly Gary Flynn (Sep 30)
- RE: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly Michael Smith (Sep 30)
- RE: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly Schmehl, Paul L (Sep 30)
- RE: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly Ron DuFresne (Sep 30)
