Slashdot Mirror
Is Obsolescence Good Computer Security?
caesar-auf-nihil asks: "I was recently considering a switch from dial-up to something faster (either cable or DSL) but my friend recommended against it since he said I was more secure staying with Dial-Up. His argument was that my connection's slowness and 'not always on' connection gave me better security since I was less of a target for many security threats. Now, I have never gotten infected, nor do I believe my machine is infested with spyware and/or controlling programs as it runs fine, but I wonder if the obsolescence argument is really good or not. Does Dial-Up really protect you or is this a false sense of security and I should just go ahead and pick a faster service and make sure my firewall is a good one and my virus definitions are always up to date?"
Not quite sure how this question made its way to slashdot, since it seems sort of self-explanatory, but I suppose we can elaborate.
In short, I suppose you would be more secure on dial-up. Less data moving around, less access to situations which may be a threat, less up-time, etc.
That being said, most of the world is already using an always-on connection, and the vast majority of them manage just fine. It's not a daunting task to configure a setup that will secure your home computer to a suitable degree. Just your ordinary broadband router should include a firewall that should be sufficient, and the Windows firewall is also likely sufficient.
If you aren't an expert on setting up your network, then just find one of your more tech-savvy friends (not the one that told you to stay on dialup!) and have them check your router/firewall configuration. There are also websites you can visit (Symantec?) that will perform a check on various ports for basic vulnerabilities.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
(The one I'm getting pretty tired of is "ad hominem", which many people seem to think is Latin for "You hurt my feelings!")
Briefly put, Security Through Obscurity is the assumption that your security holes will not be found because they're in a place few people will think to look. That strategy was never a good one, but it used to be more effective than it is now. Back in the 50s, when few computers were online the effectiveness of STO was merely unacceptable. Nowadays, the effectiveness of STO is pretty much non-existant — as long as the computer is online.
Now a computer using dialup is less hackable than one using DSL, because it's not always available, and because it's harder to probe when it is. The difference has nothing to do with "obscurity" — there's just less bandwidth for a hacker to play with.
Of course, a dialup connection when no security measures is still pretty fucking dangerous. But you're wrong to claim that there's no difference at all.
That is some dangerous and irresponsible advice. Do not allow yourself to believe for an instant that you are below the radar of a zombie master.
The zombie masters don't give two shits about the size of your connection. They do is to release their infections into the wild and will add any and all to their zombie horde. Whether you are blessed with a 5 meg DSL, or have the misfortune of sitting on a 26k dialup connction is unimportant to them. The infection of you machine will be accomplished through an automated process that doesn't care about how you are connected to the internet.
I speak from personal experience. I thought exactly as you did, and my box was infected within a week of getting a dialup connection. I didn't think I'd need that firewall for a piddly 28.8k dialup line that was only going to be used to check email until the broadband was installed. When I finally got the box cleaned and back on line with a firewall, I logged over 300 intrusion attempts in the first hour.