IBM's Lou Gerstner was be-knighted by Queen Elizabeth II
|
|
|
Governments should quarantine infected computers
GOVERNMENTS should treat computers infected with viruses like they do infectious diseases, according to a Microsoft executive.
Speaking to the RSA security conference, Scott Charney, Microsoft's corporate vice president of 'trustworthy computing', said that the health care model of quarantining infected PCs was jolly effective. Charney said that infected computers should be kept off the Internet just like doctors quarantine sick people.
Charney told CNET that when people get diseases and they run the risk of contaminating other people the medical community has devised mechanisms to help ensure the public's health.
Humanity has done this with other kinds of illnesses over generations and it is possible to do in enterprises, too.
He said the idea should be moved to the consumer market, where most of the botnets are. Charney said ISPs could quarantine users who are operating with a botnet signature until they clean up their act.
One of the problems he sees is that users are a little edgy about allowing ISPs into their systems because they are worried that they will be enforcers for the music and film industries. He said that violating copyrights was not a public health issue and so ISPs would have to limit it to the true purpose.
Charney added that in two to five years the government will have to step in. There will be no social acceptance of it so there needs to be a government role in making it happen.
Of course, users removing Microsoft software from their PCs, which hosts 99 per cent of known malware including botnets, would also solve the problem, but naturally Charney didn't mention that. µ
Share this:
Share
governments should quarantine their corrupt MPs - then maybe we can get on with being a civilised society withOUT a corrupt government
Who is this retard?
Since when was it the responsibility of Government to deal with the mess created by Microsoft's crap. bug-ridden code?
If Government are going to be able to "quarantine" people's computers, then they are going to have to have some way of determining which ones are infected and which are not. <cue .
I don't think so somehow.
Some people are just too stupid for words.
A sentence disappeared from the above post. It should have said ....
If Government are going to be able to "quarantine" people's computers, then they'll need to have some way of determining which ones are infected and which are not. This will then be used by Government as an excuse for massive State surveillance of every internet connected computer (purely for your own protection, you understand).
I don't think so somehow.
Won't respond to commands, just want to eat your brain.
It would be FAR more effective to force M$ to turn off all their stupid systems services that are on by default, remove all their "features", and simply OUTLAW IE. Latter is THE major vector, simply by visiting a web site.
Flash seems to be a vector for the unscrupulous too.
ISP's should be able to identify botnets, and should contact the compromised PC's owners. Perhaps with solutions.
"There will be no social acceptance of it so there needs to be a government role in making it happen"
I though the government was representing our acceptance/votes?
If Microsoft made cars, the NHTSA would have shut them down years ago.
Thankfully, they don't make pacemakers, insulin dispensers, or condoms.
sj
yes, break down the doors of whoever hosts an infected machine and cart it off to Quarantine Camps much like they did in the 80s with people who had HIV. oh, wait, that didn't happen, like they did in Germany with the concentration camps for people infected with ??? this should go over pretty good.
Google's OS is full of holes, too. See here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/feature/1594673/popularity-killing-android
It's not M$ making insecure software, popularity makes insecure software. That has been shown time and again. Also consider flash, that's an Adobe product and historically Adobe has been so far up Apple's arse you can't tell where one ends and another begins. For a time, Apple's success was based on photoshop! But Macs were safe because of lack of popularity. Same with Linux.
Think about it: how many people coding M$ viruses/malware are also Linux experts who want to lash out at M$ to show their OS of choice is better? 'Debian is better, I'll write an IE virus to proove it! Bearded tools, all of them!
I don't want to go down a slippery slope whereby governments can "quarantine" computers that are running software that they don't approve of. Yeah, we think of "infected" machines as those that have been affected by malicious code, but what happens when software, like DVD decrypters, CD ripping tools, or other software that may not agree with the establishment comes under the knife? No thank you. I want the freedom to control what goes on my machine and how I use it.
I beg to differ. MS do make insecure products. And popularity doesn't make software insecure.
Apache is the most common web server, therefore it should be insecure. Except it's more secure than IIS.
To assume that Linux and Mac OSX would be as insecure as Windows if they were as popular is wrong.
@ mike
@ wanabee
I agree with Nick...I think that the solution to the botnet security problem is fairly obvious. It would be a ridiculous burden to inflict on taxpayers to insist that their governments now must pay to quarantine infected computers, 99% of which "coincidentally" happen to be running Microsoft's software.
If Microsoft cannot create a secure OS, then governments could fix this problem easily enough by preventing sales of cyber-security risk enhancing software (like Microsoft's), and instead encourage computer manufacturers to include secure OS's like Linux (as well as encouraging home users to dump Windows and help them install Linux). Problem solved.
I imagine that Microsoft will now just happen to come up with a pay-for Big Brother service that scans all Windows PC's (with government permission) and "helps" ISP's deny infected ones (or ones running competing operating systems) Internet access until their hard drives are reformatted and a brand new copy of Windows is paid for and installed by the user. They cause the problem and now look to others to shoulder the burden of their incompetence... unbelievable!
Because once they get started banning computers for viruses, they will decide that anything critical of government is viral.
I'm plenty critical and probably virulently so, but it is with good reason. I'd be the first to get banned.
Stop putting back doors in computers and trying to make it possible for everyone to be able to spy and snoop and track and you won't have to do this. Just keep the NSA away from computers and even security enhanced linux and we'll be alright.
In the case of Spam Bots we are we not missing a quick, cheap and simple soloution?
Most people do not need nor want to run a mail server on their machines or connection so why not make the ability to run an email server on your account at home/ company an opt in service.
That way the majority of IP addresses in the world would be able to be used by the spammers no matter what they did to peoples computers!
This would reduce spam volume greatly.
The ISP could also monitor attempts to send email from your account and use that as an indication of ifection and inform you as such!
Simple!
surely it would be a lot easier and cheaper just to wipe the offeneding computer and just do a freshy. Alternatively noob users could be made to go a quick security training course for their computer - in the same way you have to learn to drive a car before you geta license - you have to prove you not a total phuqnutt before your alowed to put your computer on line - after all, its never the computer savvy whose machines get infected long enough to do damage
so since when do isps all of a sudden become in charge of all this overhead in monitoring? they are a business just
like any other and they continue to struggle to keep up with ever increasing bandwidth demands for many there is no
room for the overhead of deep packet inspection or flood protection and maintaining lists of botnet trends let alone
the overhead of contacting these customers who will barely comprehend the concern in the first place who would then
expect the service provider to "fix it" for them at their own cost and liability in my opinion the responsibility
of maintaining a secure network and computer should fall on and only on the account holder or owner of the
compromised equipment there are so many people who have neglected to even read the quick start documentation for
their equipment and/or software and dont even care about security fixes or even keeping their antivirus updated in my
mind this is obviously neglegence and they should be held responsible for it in addition to that quarantining an isps
customer base is bad business for the isp if a business customer loses money because of a quarantining they could
very well close their account and open it with a new service provider that dosnt solve the problem the service
provider loses tons of potential customers the infections dont get cleaned and the isps STILL have the ludicris
overhead of monitoring every users traffic for "suspicious activity" this problems dosnt get fixed unless indiviual
users take responsibility for their actions the isp offers a contract for data transit not to hold someones hand
because they dont have their ducks in a row
That will only displace the problem to another platform.
Sure, Windows - in whatever version - is a bug-riddled mess just waiting for a hacker to take advantage of it. I know that just as well as anyone else.
Sure, Linux is based on UNIX, which is a much more secure and stable system - for now.
Remove Windows from the landscape and we'll all get 2 or 3 years of peace from the blackhats, who will be busy as bees learning the ins and out of the "new" public platform and will come back with a vengeance once they've found a weak link.
Because there is always a weak link, and most of the time it is sitting in front of the screen.
Meanwhile, we will be free of haxx0rs for a just the time we will need to learn how to use the new OS. And the slower to get to know the system will be the first ones to fall when the bad guys get back into gear.
In short, removing Windows will just displace the problem to another OS. Sure, it'll make things more difficult, but somehow I'm not sure that I really want to see what the bad guys can do to Linux. Leave them on Windows, it's so easy they simply can't get better.