what i dont get is that why are your comments have to be so rude? are you intentionally rude because you think you're right and im wrong, or are you just naturally rude? i apologize for my last comment since you should know way more about security compare to me because this is only my first semester taking computer security for my undergraduate program. after all, you are obviously much older and much more experienced in this field, so i respect you. but all im trying to say is that antivirus should not play the major role in security feature because by the time the machine is attacked, its just a little too late. antivirus is not for prevention of attacks, it is there to clean up the mess. and i believe that a system is secure only if you can prevent the attacks. so if im wrong, then whats wrong with correcting me nicely and share your knowledge instead of commenting rudely?
first of all... do you even know what a NAT box is? and for your information... the NAT box makes the IP address non-routable.. meaning that people from the outside network cannot communicate with a machine that has a non-routable IP address. Think about it... how could an outsider send you anything malicious if they cannot get a hold of your IP? NAT will only allows access from the outside network if the non-routable machine initializes the communication. I did not say that you should disregard antivirus... infact, like i said in my earlier comment if you read it right... it is the best way to clean up the user's mistakes if the user were to go to any malicious site. if you want to talk about who's stupid... then i'd say its the person who seems to like to misunderstood of what he's reading in the first place then has the nerves give a comment like what you just did.
Just when the good guys think they got it right, the bad guy gives a smug and says, "really?"
Sometimes we forget that the main motives for hackers to hack are challenge, fame, ideology, and sometimes money...
It does not really matter whether the microsoft came in last because their product is still
adequate enough to be used. We should not rely too much on the antivirus anyway. Sure they
detect malware and stuff, but by the time that happens it just a little too late in term of security concern.
If a user really concerns about security, then the first step to be taken should be getting to know the networks and systems vulnerabilities and how to prevent hackers and malware related from taking advantage of the vulnerabilities. For example, a stand alone machine should use a NAT box so that the IP address becomes a non-routable address and that would keep the malicious programs from getting into the system, therefore you dont really need an antivirus. But that does not mean you should dismiss antivirus altogether. The only way for a malicious program to get to that machine is by tricking the user into going to a website with such program, so here, the user has to be smart in deciding what to download and which sites to go. But just in case that if the user made a mistake by going to a malicious site, then what better to use than antivirus.
But still, antivirus should not play the major role is keeping your machine free from malware if you really concern about security.
The programs on Windows are not written properly and so there's a need for UAC and those other security and safety features. There's just too many complex programs which their functions have long been forgotten and so when Microsoft tries to fix the imperfections by editing or taking out the existed codes, something else goes wrong. Until Microsoft finally starts programming a new OS from scratch, we should expect more and more of these so called security and safety features to be created for us by microsoft. This is why when our machines are infected, Microsoft points finger at us because it is our own fault since they have already provide to us all these security and safety features. Sure there's benefits of these features, but they are inconvience for us since they do bug us on what we want them to do (such as those popup messages).
I strongly believe that hacking is an unethical behavior since it is invading somebody's property as well as privacy. Sure, it was the right thing for carpenter to do what he did to help out on the investigation, and he knew what he was doing could cost him his job, but he still took that risk and it payed. Good for him.
But still, what carpenter did shows a strong security concern. And I dont think he should have awarded that much of an amount. He might had done it with a good intention, but others could also claim the same thing when hacking, even if they have bad intentions. No bad person would ever say that he is bad. Also, his actions could influence others (amatuer) to hack around as they please with reason to look for "something that could help the FBI" hoping they too, could receive such award. It's almost like an encouragement.
Slashdot Mirror
what i dont get is that why are your comments have to be so rude? are you intentionally rude because you think you're right and im wrong, or are you just naturally rude? i apologize for my last comment since you should know way more about security compare to me because this is only my first semester taking computer security for my undergraduate program. after all, you are obviously much older and much more experienced in this field, so i respect you. but all im trying to say is that antivirus should not play the major role in security feature because by the time the machine is attacked, its just a little too late. antivirus is not for prevention of attacks, it is there to clean up the mess. and i believe that a system is secure only if you can prevent the attacks. so if im wrong, then whats wrong with correcting me nicely and share your knowledge instead of commenting rudely?
first of all... do you even know what a NAT box is? and for your information... the NAT box makes the IP address non-routable.. meaning that people from the outside network cannot communicate with a machine that has a non-routable IP address. Think about it... how could an outsider send you anything malicious if they cannot get a hold of your IP? NAT will only allows access from the outside network if the non-routable machine initializes the communication. I did not say that you should disregard antivirus... infact, like i said in my earlier comment if you read it right... it is the best way to clean up the user's mistakes if the user were to go to any malicious site. if you want to talk about who's stupid... then i'd say its the person who seems to like to misunderstood of what he's reading in the first place then has the nerves give a comment like what you just did.
Just when the good guys think they got it right, the bad guy gives a smug and says, "really?" Sometimes we forget that the main motives for hackers to hack are challenge, fame, ideology, and sometimes money...
although this affects the privacy and individual right, its just a small price to pay for the public safety and security.
Beware of the unexpected behavior of a program... it brings joy to hackers all around the world.
It does not really matter whether the microsoft came in last because their product is still adequate enough to be used. We should not rely too much on the antivirus anyway. Sure they detect malware and stuff, but by the time that happens it just a little too late in term of security concern. If a user really concerns about security, then the first step to be taken should be getting to know the networks and systems vulnerabilities and how to prevent hackers and malware related from taking advantage of the vulnerabilities. For example, a stand alone machine should use a NAT box so that the IP address becomes a non-routable address and that would keep the malicious programs from getting into the system, therefore you dont really need an antivirus. But that does not mean you should dismiss antivirus altogether. The only way for a malicious program to get to that machine is by tricking the user into going to a website with such program, so here, the user has to be smart in deciding what to download and which sites to go. But just in case that if the user made a mistake by going to a malicious site, then what better to use than antivirus. But still, antivirus should not play the major role is keeping your machine free from malware if you really concern about security.
The programs on Windows are not written properly and so there's a need for UAC and those other security and safety features. There's just too many complex programs which their functions have long been forgotten and so when Microsoft tries to fix the imperfections by editing or taking out the existed codes, something else goes wrong. Until Microsoft finally starts programming a new OS from scratch, we should expect more and more of these so called security and safety features to be created for us by microsoft. This is why when our machines are infected, Microsoft points finger at us because it is our own fault since they have already provide to us all these security and safety features. Sure there's benefits of these features, but they are inconvience for us since they do bug us on what we want them to do (such as those popup messages).
I strongly believe that hacking is an unethical behavior since it is invading somebody's property as well as privacy. Sure, it was the right thing for carpenter to do what he did to help out on the investigation, and he knew what he was doing could cost him his job, but he still took that risk and it payed. Good for him. But still, what carpenter did shows a strong security concern. And I dont think he should have awarded that much of an amount. He might had done it with a good intention, but others could also claim the same thing when hacking, even if they have bad intentions. No bad person would ever say that he is bad. Also, his actions could influence others (amatuer) to hack around as they please with reason to look for "something that could help the FBI" hoping they too, could receive such award. It's almost like an encouragement.