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?"
It sounds like your friend is advocating a type of security through obscurity to me. Being on dial-up won't protect you. You should be using a firewall and have up to date virus definitions regardless of your type of connection to the internet.
Not connecting to the Internet at all is even safer than dial up, and not even having a computer practically guarantees that you won't get spyware and malware. And what good is that? Your friend's advice is ludicrous. Use proper security. Don't cruise the net as root, or the admin user on a windows box. If you have to use Windows as your OS get a real firewall product, hardware even better than software, don't run unnecessary services, don't use IE unless its for the MS site itself. Don't use Outlook. Keep your system patched. Avoid sites like the free game and pr0n sites that are forever infesting computers. Get a useful book on security. Keep proper backups so that you can recover if all else fails, then relax and enjoy the experience. The time you'll save will pay for most of your outlays.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
Its only true in the way that you will be mugged less if you walk naked down one back alley every night instead of twenty. Go ahead and get the faster connection, and get a hardware device (nat box at least, a real firewall would be better though) between you and your uplink line, and you'll be better off than you were before. You can't do that (using common hardware) with your modem in the first place.
No, is the simple answer.
You could get hit by a worm just as easily - they attack by IP address and are indescriminate about where they attack - they don't care how fast your connection is.
As for spyware and the rest, if you're using a slower net then probability is that you'll browse less and be subjected to less risk, but in general the argument used is complete and utter rubbish - there's no additional security to be gained by dialup.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Why go for slightly better security when you can go all the way?!
Forget dial-up. Hand floppies to your friends with instructions on what web pages you'd like to browse. They will return the floppies to you with the pages. You will be extremely secure from viruses... much better than dial-up. Think of it like Netflix for the web.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
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...
Do you know for a fact that you don't have spyware? I have seen many dialup connected computer with spyware and they didn't even know it. Broadband is better. Everyone can be secure if they just follow a few simple rules to surfing the web.
1) Don't download things unless you know what they do.
2) Get rid of IE
3) have a good virus scanner/spyware scanner
Staying on dialup is like saying that a bike is more reliable and therefore better than a car. Cars might break down every once in a while but if you need to get somewhere they're much better than bikes.
Its much more secure if you personally just dialup and squark and squeek at the handset processing all of the information yourself, you can't do this with DSL because its a digitial line so you can't hear what it is saying properly. Personally this form of internet communication, while a little slow (around 2 baud) has never resulted in any security problems.
In summary
Your friend is a muppet, probably Fozzy, potentially Gonzo.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Let's take the question seriously for a moment, for fun.
:)
Is there an argument for this? No.
You can simply unplug your net cable at night. So why be stuck with an expensive slow connection?
I think this ask slashdot question was a trolling experiment.
Broadband + OS X = Problem Solved. Oh NO, someone will mod my post DOWN and it will hurt my KARMA! Oh dear! Now I'll need to sleep with a nightlight.
Music - www.richardmac.com
I fully agree with all the above advice and my 2p's (uk) worth is that at times you can be safer on broadband instead of dial-up. For example if you have a cable modem (dont know how it works on adsl so keeping quiet)then you have NO risk of some dodgy dialler software getting in and changing your dial-up number to a premium rate number because it's not connected to the phone line at all !!!
Enjoy the speed and "almost" always on. broadband
You do have a risk that none of us on broadband have: Dial-up Hijacking. Malware on your computer changes your dial-up settings in Windows, and you end up dialing to a pay number in another country, and VERY expensive. Many people don't notice it, until you get your phone bill. You don't hear about dialers as much now, but they're still out there. Am I just showing my age? http://www.internetbasedmoms.com/articles2/modem-h ijacking.htm
But you can't stop with just dialup. You have to use MSDOS 2.0, and get yourself a good ansi term program to connect to a dialup that gives you telnet, ftp, nn, lynx, pine, etc. Use a 300 baud modem for maximum attack-throttling also.
No-one's gonna be able to hack into my old Amstrad, ha-ha-ha! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, you OpenBSD pretenders!
Why do people rob banks and not homeless people? Because there is money in the bank, but the homeless person is likely broke.
A dial up connections obviously can't put out the same load that a broad band connection can. So it would stand to reason that a zombie net creater would be less interested in the computer. But most zombie net creater's are trying to get a huge number of PCs over a wide region, so while your PC isn't is sweet as a Win 98 box on a 5 meg DSL line, it is still another zombie. and it would likely be harder for the creators to make a filter to ignore your machine.
Same for spy/adware. Your machine isn't the best, but it is another machine.
so this is not obscurity he was preaching, it was desirablility he was preaching, albeit incorrectly.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I've heard this argument before (no really). On the face of it, it has something going for it - OK, now why is it wrong?
;-)
Well if the PC isn't connected, it can't download updates to Windows (patches) and its Anti-Virus/Firewall/Anti-Spam etc. So when it is connected it will probably be a poor position security wise. From a practical perspective has anyone tryed to keep a PC "all patched up" over dial-up? Takes forever to download the patches, it isn't actually practical. So no, getting proper security utilities in place (and setting them up correctly) then connecting via ADSL (or similar) will probably improve the security. One tip though - don't get your friend to set it up.
After I switched my father to Linux, I kept an eye on the logs.
Time from dial up connection to blaster hit: 8 seconds
Time from dial up connection to Nimda Hit: Two and a half minutes
So no, it's not safer.
(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.
What happened to that good old technique I like to call "turning your computer off when not in use" (TM)? It surprising has some side benefits, like lowering your energy bill!!!
To do list for Windows
So you're the fucker who turned the net off last night.