Slashdot Mirror
Most Home PC Users Lack Security
Ant writes "CNET News.com and MSNBC report that a survey of home personal computer (P.C.) users found 81 percent lacked at least one of three critical types of security. However, the number of consumers using firewalls and updated antivirus software is improving, according to a report released Wednesday. The vast majority of consumers surveyed were found to lack at least one of three types of critical security--a firewall, updated antivirus software or anti-spyware protection, according to a report by America Online and the National Cyber Security Alliance. Of this group, 56 percent had no antivirus software, or had not updated it within a week, while 44 percent did not have a firewall properly configured, according to the report. Meanwhile, 38 percent of survey respondents lacked spyware protection..."
After witnessing how easily most consumer firewalls were abused by Sony's DRM I'd say that firewalls are no longer an indicator of computer security. At least on the Windows platform.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
They're missing the most important type of security; a browser which is not Internet Explorer.
"Well Duhhhh!!!!!" category?
Patrick
The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
We KNOW home users don't have security. Windows has been brought kicking and screaming from a single user insulated space into the big wide internet world.
Home computing has evolved just like personal motoring has.
Seat belts and safety features in cars used to be an addon luxury that not many people had or used, now every car comes with them and airbags and strengthening supports as standard.
Spyware protection is a new tact, and should really be dealt with in the same malicious software category viruses fall into - it basically uses the same engine, and its only the AV companies themselves who made a distinguisher between installed with vague permission and none whatsoever.
liqbase
That isn't a good sign that security is improving, it is just a sign that people have gotten so used to Windows that they think needing anti-virus software is perfectly reasonable and normal. Better security would mean less people NEED such tools because they aren't running Windows.
Everyone gets mad at Microsoft for bundling more products together, but it's obvious most people are too lazy/uneducated to install this type of s/w.
By those metrics, Linux, BSD, OSX, well anything that isn't Microsoft is an insecure platform...
Antivirus, antispyware ? What do you mean ? Is that only in the New Oxford American Dictionary ?
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
You shouldn't need an external firewall to protect your machine from hostile incoming connections -- your machine shouldn't be listening on ports it doesn't need to, and when it does listen, it shouldn't be possible for incoming connections to subvert it. You shouldn't need add-on antivirus software -- your machine should have a basic "immune system" of its own and shouldn't be vulnerable to the effects of running untrusted external code.
It is possible to design operating systems that are inherently secure in these ways. One of the larger crimes committed by the designers of the currently-popular consumer-grade operating systems is to have convinced large swaths of the population, via ubiquitous, crashing mediocrity, that it's somehow an "impossible" problem. It was largely a solved problem 20 years ago, if anyone had listened.
Normal computer users shouldn't have to cope with all this stuff.
Why should they need a firewall? The OS simply shouldn't have dozens of unneeded services that listen on the network on by default.
The sad fact is that the OS most people are using lacks basic security out of the box. Acting as if it was the users falt won't make this simple fact go away.
Amazing... now who was surveyed? Are Linux and Mac users concerned by the survey? Or they aren't worthy of the title "home PC users"? That's like 10% of the home PC userbase that would probably answer "no" to all three types of security. But wait, the report is carried by MSNBC ? Ah, all makes sense now.
Bah, methinks the whole article is shameless self-promotion, marketing bullsh*t if you will:
The improvements were attributed to the default firewall that is installed with Windows XP Service Pack 2, according to the survey.
I agree. Consumer anti-virus,firewalls, and anti-spyware are not a good metric of security. Most people can't stand blocking and unblocking programs for their outgoing firewall all day. And really, the average consumer doesn't know what's safe and unsafe. Incoming protection is pretty pointless too since so many computers are behind a nat router. Anti-virus provides protection for old viruses, but the 0-day mass speading ones generally beat anti-virus anyway. Anti-virus provides retroactive protection of viruses already written. It doesn't generally provide a means of stopping a suspected virus. I've seen some that can, but the general home user anti-virus doesn't or requires training from users not skilled enough to train it. On top of that, there's so much political bullshit that goes on within the ranks that something could be malicious to your computer, but the supplying company complained it was legit and they let it through anyway. Also! They generally provide little/no spyware protection. So you've got a bloated piece of crap anti virus program that slows down your computer almost as much as the virus itself that doesn't really work all that well.
The only retroactive solution I think is worthwhile these days is spyware scanning your box once a week. And rotate which scanner you use.
On the other hand, there is A LOT you can do not to get spyware and viruses in the first place. First, DON'T USE IE. All the fanboys will cry foul here, but it's true. I don't care if alternative browsers are just as hackable but they aren't being exploited blah blah blah... We'll cross that river when we get to it. For now, using almost anything besides IE will stop the bulk of your spyware. Also, in whatever browser you use, don't allow in browser media to be played. Flash, movies, music, etc etc. Or at the very least, make sure it prompts you first so you have the choice to only do so from websites you trust. Also, don't go to sketch sites. Plain and simple. Let's see... don't use outlook, EVER. In your MUA make sure it it either doesn't display html or prompts you to do so. Don't open attachments. It's stupid. It's so incredibly easy to spoof who you are via email that you can really never fully trust an email. Don't use AIM. There are AIM viruses left and right nowadays. Use an alternative like gaim or trillion and never accept to transfer files.
More than anything, just be smart about where you go and what you do. Understand that the internet really isn't a safe place. Security isn't a product, it's a process. I can't stress this enough. Doing certain things yourself will keep you safer than any anti-virus ever could.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
from the news-at-eleven dept.
Bug writes "CNN and Al Jazerra reported in a joint statement that a survey of slashdot articles found that 81% of them lacked at least on of the three critical contents of a newsworthy report. However, the number of dupes has been recently improving, according to a report released yesterday."
Ok, really. Everyone with even the slightest interest in computer security knows that there's not much that's easier than taking over a dozen or so home PCs. Why else, do you think, do prices for botnets range in the cents-per-machine range? Because it takes maybe one cent of effort to break into the average home machine, otherwise those selling the botnets wouldn't be turning a profit. It's probably more expensive keeping other botnet harvesters out than getting in in the first place.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"They probably mean many people use Linux. You know, no antivirus, no antispyware..." - by Crayon Kid (700279) on Thursday December 08, @08:58AM
/ 1639242&tid=172&tid=109&tid=106&tid=218
/ 140203&tid=220&tid=106
Or, they probably mean they just follow what is written here @ this URL below, taking the 1/2 hour to implement its techniques (fully explained):
http://www.avatar.demon.nl/APK.html
THEN, you get what you stated & it works, on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, no questions asked.
Using it, you simply are "closing the doors" to it being possible, or AS POSSIBLE as the default setup of various Win32 OS (specifically NT/2000/XP, since Windows Server 2003 follows much of what is stated in that article) is not as 'strong' as it can be proofing your system vs. various threats online!
(I've been using that setup for years now, & not a single infection because of it - that, & being saavy about opening attachments in emails from folks you know & trust ONLY, & the same with programs you may download also.)
Between good practices, patching your OS + apps (time consuming but worth it) keeping them up-to-date, as well as running antivirus/antispyware that covers email & filesystems AND, not accepting attachments from strangers on networks like IRC) & doing what's in that article step-by-step, you're pretty solid security-wise.
* Keep that all in mind, & you don't get nailed by malware/spyware/virus, etc.- et all, period. Especially patching/updating your apps & libs your apps &/or OS call - they too, in their API's & code, can be vulnerable as well as the core OS files & functions.
By the way - Here @ slashdot not TOO long ago, there was an article stating Windows & Linux security was "neck & neck", see here:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/14
APK
P.S.=> By the way, there are more secured versions of Linux available as well, such as SELinux:
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/
The point it even exists, means that Linux' default installs from other vendors DO present possible avenues of infections/infectors also in their default setup... and, Linux DOES have infectors specific to it as well, see here:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08
"Linux Lupper.Worm In the WIld"
Nuff said! Worms, virus', &/or malware's out there for Linux as well as Win32 OS, period... hence, doubtless part of the "WHY" SELinux exists @ all!
apk
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
When the Fear mechanism is activated, particularly when there is no actual critical event occurring, (like running from a tiger), for which the fear drug pumping through our veins is preparing us to deal with. . , when we buy into the fear and there is no release, we end up in a perpetual state where we are much more open to certain suggestions which lack rational grounding.
"We're going to take your rights away and allow police searches in your living room. Okay? Terrorists! Viruses! Crackheads with guns!"
As has been pointed out, it's interesting that this story comes from MSNBC.
As an aside. . . My computer runs clean and sweet with just a simple little fire-wall. (And what an overly dramatic name is 'Firewall' for a program which asks me if I want to allow things access to my modem). I don't need any of that other junk; Virus scanners are for people who run Windows 2K and up and who open email attachments, which I don't. And Anti-Spyware is for people who run Kazaa and Google tool bars and other nonsense programs.
I mean, come on.
The Voice of Authority telling us that we home users need to run around like panicking headless chickens looking for 'security' on our writing desks?
Silly.
-FL
I believe that the ISP's could do more to protect their users.
At least here in the UK there is a trend for ISP's to bundle USB DSL Adapters with their packages. These devices require that the computer they connect to use the public IP address instead of allowing the host computer to run from a private NAT address. Exposing the computers real public IP address puts the responsibility on the user to install and maintain firewall software. Needless to say many don't know how to do this or simply allow their security software subscriptions to laps.
The argument for this practice this is that many home users do not have Ethernet ports making Ethernet based NAT, Firewalled routers harder to support as the user will have to install a NIC card. This may have had some truth 6 years ago when broadband first appeared in the UK and it was mandated by the incumbent Telco which USB modem must be supplied with the service.
These days every PC and Laptop sold has at least an Ethernet port and in many cases WIFI as well, some routers also support USB. This means the only reason to continue this practice is cost saving.
USB Adapters are less expensive to give away than routers, if an ISP doesn't bundle connection equipment they fear loosing customers to their competitors.
I feel this is a false economy. NAT routers are not much more expensive than USB Adapters and from a support point of view are easier to set up now that Ethernet ports are common place. You just have to pre-configure the router with the customers log-in details and enable DHCP. Pretty much the only thing the customer has to do is plug it in. No drivers need to be installed and updated. Running behind NAT now means that it's a lot less unlikely a malicious attacker can take over a customers PC. Which makes everybodys life easier.
So, it's only going to take half an hour to read, understand, and modify those settings?
I think it might take your average windows user half an hour to understand all the words in the TITLE of each link.
Just because it's easy for you, with years of experience, does not mean it's easy for everyone. No way in hell I could get my parents to do those steps, even if I explained it in very general terms why it was SOOO good for them.
Sometimes making a better choice that is more secure by default means you don't have to do all that work, or worry about it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure