Michael Smith wrote:
> But shouldn't everyone use some common sense. You don't take candy
> or rides from stranges do you. I guess we should assume that everyone is
> stupid so we need to code for that. I love to have ten dialog boxes appear
> before I view a file(sarcasm).
>
Well if you can draw a line between candy and a complex OS then I will agree
with you. :-)
People have better things to do with their time then play technocrat. A
business man should not have to watch CERT or be ever leery of technical security
risks just to use a basic business tool. Its not about stupidity its about time
and peace of mind. You are reading way to much into what I said, turn on
doesn't mean turn on only for one message. BTW, how many attachments do you read
in a day? Odds are one maybe? So you are telling me a dialog box with a warning
would be a great hindrance? Heck even in the most intense business environment I
ever worked on doing bid proposals for a government contractor I maybe opened two
or three a day. Face it you just don't get that many. So yea, give me the
prompt every time.
As it stands now with no such warnings in place we are actually telling
people it is OK to read attachments without any fear of harm. After all the less
technical rely on the technical to protect them from harm. If we give them a
tool, and no warnings they will naturally assume its secure. I believe the
concept is called faith. :-)
>
> I am just saying that when you make it easier for the average user
> to develop code(even if it scripting), you are going to have some people who
> take advantage of it in the wrong way. I could send you an attachment that
> appears to be a grep executable and you save it to disk and execute it. The
> key is you are smart enough not to do this. I agree that Microsoft should
> have some kind of warning when a script like this about to execute but the
> user needs to take some responsibility and not click on everything they see.
>
There have been easy ways to develop code ( Scripting ) in UNIX for nearly 30
years. So why isn't this a problem in UNIX? Because in unix a user is isolated
from the core of the OS. It is next to impossible for a script to affect
anything outside of that users space on even the most loosely secure unix
boxes. In worst case you grep Trojan kills a few hundred files, maybe. But
that is only for that one user, it wont be able to propagate to all users on the
system, and will be fairly easy to isolate and remove. The problem with windows
is far more deeper than the e-mail glazing on top, it is a fundamentally broke
security model, arguable it is one of the few OSs that is missing any resemblance
of a security model. Heck even DOS was more secure, but then it was networkable.
>
> I won't speak any further because I know everyone is sick of this
> and we all know we can't change Microsoft.......
>
Ironically, this is becoming more on topic every post. Security affects us
all. This is not a BASH Microsoft thing, this is a proper vs. improper security
thing. Heck this is some of the best discussion on this list in a week or more.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Strider Centaur [mailto:">strider@scifi-fantasy.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 2:57 PM
> To: ">ale@ale.org
> Subject: Re: [ale] Why does everything have to be scriptable?
>
> I totally disagree with this concept of security at the end user level
> in all
> cases. Microsoft has done little to educate the public, such features
> should
> ALWAYS be shipped turned off, forcing the end user to turn them on, with all
> the
> WARNINGs and the Its Your Ars that it deserves.
>
> Microsoft claims they are making computers easier to use for the common
> man,
> well security 101 tells us that Ease of Use and Secure are inversely
> proportional. So we read into to this that it is the goal of Microsoft to
> error
> on the side of poor security where issues of ease of use may be concerned.
>
> Additionally, I can find no reason why a attachment should have the
> ability
> to affect anything outside of a USER space, ideally not even that much. The
> API
> is there, embedded and with little to no way to turn it off or make it
> inaccessible. At least with a gun there are lots of warnings and in most
> states
> mandatory training on proper use and maintenance. Then again a gun is a
> much
> easier to use tool, its designed for sport and to kill, we hope only in the
> case
> of defense. I draw very little similarities between Windows and a gun
> other
> than both can be very expensive to own. :-)
>
> Basically your assertion that its not a issue with microsoft but with
> the
> education of end users falls flat in my book. While education may have
> helped,
> it is no substitution for correct security in the first place. This is not
> just
> a we hate Microsoft nit picking here. The same holds true for all OSs. If
> this
> happened in the Linux realm, because a distributor left sendmail configured
> with
> auto execution of binaries enabled( god save them ), I would be just as hard
> nosed on them. Security is not to be taken lightly.
>
> Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > I think we need to start a campaign like the drug campaign a couple of
> years
> > ago.
> >
> > Just Say No.....to unknown attachments.
> >
> > This "worm" wouldn't have been an issue if people didn't open every
> > attachment without thinking about it. I know that Microsoft made the api
> > available but they didn't click on the attachment.
> >
> > .....This is starting to sound like gun control....
> >
> > I think the government needs to buy back all the Microsoft operating
> > systems. It will probably save lives. Ha.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Heath [mailto:">dave@hipgraphics.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 2:04 PM
> > To: Dan Newcombe
> > Cc: ALE
> > Subject: Re: [ale] Why does everything have to be scriptable?
> >
> > >On Mon, 8 May 2000, David Heath wrote:
> > >> The problem is not everyone running the same software, the problem is:
> > >
> > >That's part of the problem - it makes it easy to know that the exploit
> > >will propagate - like the sendmail worm.
> >
> > It makes it easier, yes, but it is neither sufficient nor necessary
> > for virus propagation.
> >
> > >
> > >> 1) No security model in the most common os!
> > >
> > >It has security, however it comes with a very loose setting out of the
> > >box, and most people don't know to change it. If you change your
> security
> > >setting to "Internet Explorer's Restricted Sites" setting then you'd be
> > >immune.
> >
> > Does windows 98 have a concept of user vs. administrator? I don't
> > know, but certainly >= 99% of windows 98 users run everything
> > (including mail readers and web browsers) will _full_ access to the
> > system. That is what I mean by no security model. It places the onus
> > for security on the application rather than on the OS where it belongs.
> >
> > >
> > >> 2) Unnecessary and dangerous scripting capability being added to
> > >> everything these days. Scripting is fine for the user, but mail, web
> > >> clients, etc, should not accept scripts from the outside world.
> > >
> > >Agreed - well, they can accept it, but it should run like on a JVM - it
> > >only has access to the resources of the JVM, not the host OS.
> >
> > But that misses the point. How many bugs relating to JVM security have
> > been found? This adds a huge level of complexity to what should be a
> > simple task (reading email).
> >
> > The point I am trying to make is that someone in microsoft should do a
> > risk-benefit analysis before features get added. In this case, the
> > benefits of scriptable email (minimal IMHO) don't outweigh the risks
> > (huge, as demonstrated recently). This is just another example of
> > microsoft focusing on adding gimmicks while their base software still
> > sucks (again, IMHO).
> >
> > -dave
> > --
> > To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message
> > body.
> > --
> > To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message
> body.
>
> --
> Strider Centaur
> http://www.Scifi-Fantasy.com
>
> " It is my observation that unless you really understand the issues, you
> are
> hardly in a position to criticize. Nearly all Linux users have used
> Windows,
> but very few Windows users have used Linux. " -- Me
>
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message
> body.
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.
--
Strider Centaur
http://www.Scifi-Fantasy.com
" It is my observation that unless you really understand the issues, you are
hardly in a position to criticize. Nearly all Linux users have used Windows,
but very few Windows users have used Linux. " -- Me
--
To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.