Cybersecurity Chief Resigns 367
Doc Ruby writes "AP is reporting that 'The government's cybersecurity chief has abruptly resigned after one year with the Department of Homeland Security, confiding to industry colleagues his frustration over what he considers a lack of attention paid to computer security issues within the agency. Amit Yoran, a former software executive from Symantec Corp., informed the White House about his plans to quit as director of the National Cyber Security Division and made his resignation effective at the end of Thursday, effectively giving a single's day notice of his intentions to leave.' Yoran is the third cybersecurity chief in a row, after Richard Clarke and Howard Schmidt, to quit the Bush administration citing organizational inability to do his job. Maybe the job can't be done." In a possibly related story, individuals take cybersecurity lightly: Ant writes "This story says that consumers have a casual approach toward cybersecurity and fail to grasp the pervasiveness of online threats, according to a study released Thursday. More than a third of the 493 PC users surveyed by the nonprofit National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) said they had a greater chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning than of being hit by malicious code."
I just don't believe it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they aren't paying any attention. People just aren't knowledgeable enough about the threat of cybersecurity to give a shit. These people think that there is a real threat that their house may be singled out in a dirty-bomb attack because the Bush administration is happy to have them think that. As long as the Bush administration can keep people's minds on a single track of terrorism there's no need to bring to light other avenues of attack. Why should they diversify right now? They might bore the public with their "crying wolf" on dirty-bombs and airplane searches and would need another shiny object to get everyone to pay attention to.
About 90 percent of computer users interviewed remembered the name of the performer from the last Super Bowl halftime show, while only 60 percent knew when they last updated their computer security program.
No fucking way, people remember the name of a performer from the Super Bowl after it was banged into their heads on every media outlet for two months straight? OMFG, I cannot believe it. You mean that these same people who are so concerned with the atrocities being fed to them on TV aren't concerned or knowledgeable about their computer? I can't believe it!
Face it, people don't give two flying fucks about being educated in computer know-how. They want to flip the switch and have it work. If it doesn't work they want to call up their ISP and have them fix it. Their computer is a dumb terminal for their ISP's webpage and http://www.thehun.com. As far as people guessing their chances at being hit by malicious code... They probably seriously believe that malicious code means that they bring home a disk and put it in their drive and run a program that will be an old-sk00l virus. They have no idea that there are programs out there "spying" on them every minute of their surfing experience. They just don't care enough to know. Plus these same people probably do think that their chances of hitting the lottery are good as they are dumb enough to ignore real news for their own realm of importance (Reality TV).
no Digital Pearl Harbors (Score:5, Insightful)
Lightning is like a virus (Score:5, Insightful)
More than a third of the 493 PC users surveyed by the nonprofit National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) said they had a greater chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning than of being hit by malicious code."
The problem is that many PC users are doing the cybersecurity equivalent of what some idiot did near my home about fifteen years ago.
He was in his boat out on a lake when a thunderstorm moved in. When others on the boat suggested that they should go to shore for fear of lightning he scoffed, stood up on the bow of the boat, stretched his arms upward and shouted "Take me now, God!".
God complied.
Connecting an unpatched PC to a broadband connection is pretty much the same thing.
I AM more likely to be struck by lightning (Score:4, Insightful)
Given frequent updates, ZoneAlarm, a firewall/router, precautions about not opening things I don't know about, VPNs, and other things, I probably AM more likely to be struck by lighting than hit by malicious code. But I'm a /. reader... :)
Headline Roulette (Score:1, Insightful)
(Tinfoil cap, check.)
Taking it lightly (Score:5, Insightful)
In a possibly related story, individuals take cybersecurity lightly
To be honest, maybe it's hard to take seriously because we're busy trying to distort its meaning and importance with silly buzzwords like "cybersecurity." Why does everything have to be "cyber"-this and "cyber"-that? In my mind this doesn't sound any different than putting e- in front of everything and trying to market it during the dot-bomb bubble, and I imagine that it has a similar effect on the public. We've been conditioned since 1998 to ignore anything with e- or cyber- as a prefix. Why are we surpised that people don't take "cybersecurity" seriously, when we show by our vocabulary that we don't, either?
Instead of "cybersecurity," how about "computer security," or "personal computer security"? See, it's possible to communicate what you mean in a simple, effective way without fancy buzzwords, and people might even pay more attention. ("You mean my computer might be in danger?")
Security is a hard job (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only imagine the nightmare it must be trying to be in charge of security in a beauracracy like the federal government. If you've never dealt with the feds as an employee or contractor, you have no idea how many layers thick it goes. You can't even fart without pushing paperwork and dealing with red tape.
"an organizational inability to do his job" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I just don't believe it! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think malicious code is comparable to terrorist attacks for most people. Of course, there are life-supporting systems vulnerable to attack, and those should be guarded very carefully. But those systems aren't the ones on the average Joe's desk. For the systems average people maintain, malicious code (viruses, worms, spyware) is an aggravation, not a danger. The worst that could happen is that their credit card numbers are stolen. A real monetary loss, but it'd be a stretch to compare it to a bomb of any kind.
Re:I AM more likely to be struck by lightning (Score:3, Insightful)
A friend of mine is consulting for AOL and he was unable to install Windows 2000 without getting attacked from within their internal network. And from what I've heard the wild Internet is just as bad or worse.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government actually wanted to promote cyber security, the best way to do it would be to put a bounty system on the evildoers and let the market compete to catch them. Microsoft but a bounty on some virus authors and look how fast they were caught! Imagine if we had a bounty on web defacers, worm authors, and other such vermin. System administrators worldwide have the legal right to read their customers mail but until no profit motive, so they don't do it. All that would change. You think 802.11 wardrivers can't be caught? What if information leading to their arrest was worth $50,000 - how many Slashdot readers would be patrolling their neighborhood for wardrivers? It's not too hard to spot the goon with the notebook and the high power 802.11 antenna connecting to every network in his path.
Personally I'd love to put "Internet Bounty Hunter" on my resume. I'd probably start with the goon at 66.35.250.150 who keeps proxy scanning me.
Re:I just don't believe it! (Score:2, Insightful)
I know exactly what you mean. I service several professionals' (CPA's, lawyers, doctors) pc's that feel exactly that way. I try to encourage them to take a basic computer class (copy & pasting, clear printer spool, ipconfig, email attachments, updating software, etc) to make them more efficient instead of calling a tech for every little thing. Their attitude is like, "I know everything I need to know, knowing computers is not my job." Which is unbeliveable when the majority of their everyday job involves using a computer. Then they get pissed when a tech isn't there within 5 mins. Hmm.....maybe I don't charge enough for service calls?
Re:I just don't believe it! (Score:3, Insightful)
I do find it funny that people will shrug off the probability of something bad happening to them if it's less than being struck by lightning, and then go ahead and by a super-mega-lotto ticket.
Bruce Schneier (Score:3, Insightful)
Bruce Schneier [schneier.com] should have this job. As a matter of fact he should be Secretary of Homeland Security.
Re:Headline Roulette (Score:2, Insightful)
A simple way to think about security (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well, here's the thing. Your car needs to be safe, and since 1997, with more highways available, more ISEC 45 systems can't accomodate Goodyear telecons. Car insurances? In your glove box, you can find your insurance info several tachometers. Make sure to astagate the TFGG Nationwide proteases for the next fifteen days, and then every fifteen days -- dirkonite 1997 malfunctions could lead to superfinite hexagon and then your gas mileage Liberty Mutual goes down. But the car is fine, it's a good car. It's going to explode and your dog will die. Just call the state RT-678 system box accelerator engine spark plug twice, after frubbing the seats and air conditioner. So, yes, Ford and Honda are a risk, but you have filters, GM just needs shafts -- in Japan."
That's basically what the average person hears when you start talking about computer security. They seem to understand some terms, but for the most part their eyes glaze over. Then they say "OK" and go back to looking on eBay for that autographed baseball. Even running Ad-Aware is a pain for most people. There's about 20 different options and if they click the wrong one they don't know what just happenned.
Re:I just don't believe it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A simple way to think about security (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people have the samed glazed look when you try to talk to them about how riding the brakes leads to premature wear, why accellerating to 40mph between stop signs kills gas milage, why changing the oil is important, and the relative merit of heading blinking red lights on the instrument panel.
Re:I just don't believe it! (Score:5, Insightful)
What you say is true enough about the the Joe and Jane Consoomer types that are referred to in latter part of the article but the "people" we are talking about here are the govmint folks whose job and is and whose claim on our loyalty and obedience is their duty TO PROTECT US. If those people don't know Internet Protocol from Intellectual Property we should fire their asses rather than let them drive every competant person they can away from the job.
Any body with a cable modem who took a minute to look at their firewall log could tell you how many times per hour their house WAS singled out for molestation by bots and hackers. Watching some pimple working from behind a Korean ISP try to telnet a home computer in Massachusettes IS a little creepy and the kind of thing that would alarm the average homeowner who would be all over 911 if he saw a person physically prowling about in his back yard...if only they were looking!
Odd differences in media representation (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, same old - does ANYONE (I exclude the obvious hardcore security concious techies out there from this, obviously) take cybersecurity seriously? Companies dont. Home users dont. Hell, there are even Sys Admins out there that think security is just disabling the FTP server!
What I find odd though, is the differences in the way the media shows cybersecurity. Although it's been quite common in the media lately - movies (too numerous to bother counting - you know them anyway), news releases on viruses, phishing, etc. all have had (at least in Australia) an increase of media exposure in recent times. There's a lot of very serious attention out there to this issue, but it's not working!
People see a movie that examines cybersecurity, which may be discussing a real issue in the same way every other mainstream movie does (ie. somewhat realistic... Willing suspension of disbelief and all that). What I don't understand though is that movies about other topics make people stop and look at the bigger issue being discussed. People watch a war movie and go "oh hay, war is bad/good/hell". People watch a horror flic and go "oh hay, i'm going to buy me an axe and board my doors up to keep those psychos out". People watch a "cybersecurity" movie (or even news) and go "hah, it'll never happen to me - I know everything about my computer!".
Until we fix this problem, and get across to the public (and hence Governments) that this IS a major issue (and that it isn't going away), the problem is just going to get worse.
I guess part of the problem is the fact that the topics are usually quite abstract. Often, you can't explain how or even WHY these things happen without getting into some fairly abstract details. What do you mean people can talk to my computer? But it's listening to multiple things at once? And some might be good? But why would they want to use my computer to talk to websites?
AAAaaarrrrghhh....
Regardless, something needs to be done, as this is an all to common event.
Joe Average (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the wardriving thing... that's stupid. It's the same thing that got MS to the position it's in today. Why not have official wardrivers that find vulnerable AP's and then go knock on doors, telling people to get them fixed? Hit the root of the problem. Increase the barrier of entry for "hackers", the typical script kiddie crap, and 99% of the problem will go away. But just like any crime, you can't get rid of it completely. There will always be people trying to take advantage of others.
Re:I just don't believe it! (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have none you share none, when you have a little you share that, when you have a good amount you start to keep it to yourself, when you have enough knowledge to say setup a linux box from source, you keep you knowledge closely guarded and dont share shit with the average user.
Why? Because like most things in life when you work hard for somethign you are loathe to just give it away to Dewy Dumbshit who just crashed his system trying to install a video driver for a Nvidia card when his is an ATI. Part of the reason people are ignorant is there is no way for them to learn from experienced users. Thats why we have HR people hiring idiots from places like DeVry and expecting them to be a real system administrator.
So We have 3 groups of users, the haves (have knowledge and know how to use it), the have nots (but may actually want it) and the care nots (folks who want to read their email and dont give a flip about malicious attacks). Everyone was a n00b at one time or another, when was the last time any of you
Re:I just don't believe it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think so?
In all seriousness, charge them what you're worth to them. If they're not interested in learning about their systems, charge them for your expertise. If they want to save some money, offer to tell them how to do some of that basic stuff so they won't need to call you for silly stuff.
Re:So symptomatic of all politics (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well airline security wasn't really an issue before Al-Queda's sightseeing tour of New York and DC, either. "
One quibble about that sentence: Airline security became an issue in the early 70s when hijacking came in vogue. All those security checks and rules are used to at the airport? Didn't exist back in the 60s and earlier. The hijackers would do something like smuggle a gun on board, and they would react by installing metal detectors. Then the hijackers would ratchet up the ante, and the security people would add a new check. Finally, security became fairly good at airports, such that hijacking went down in frequency. So the people who might have tried hijacking now tried, say, putting bombs on board, and the escalation of cat-and-mouse moved in a new direction.
It is a sad irony that people became trained to sit quietly during a hijacking since that was the best way to ensure your safety: wait it out until it was over and you'd be fine. The 9/11 hijackers used that psychology to their advantage. But that advantage is forever gone, for never again will passengers sit quietly by waiting for it to be over. That fact is how I know there will not be another 9/11 incident of the type we saw that horrible day. Instead, terrorists will try something entirely new. Something to think about as you wait in that endless line at the airport, realizing that they are busy chasing yesterday's terrorists, and probably haven't a clue what tomorrow's terrorists might dream up. Depressing thought, but probably realistic, given the history of airport security for the past forty years.
Re:no Digital Pearl Harbors (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't have to be terrorist related, it could be incompetence or not rebooting your aging Windows system once a month, a-la the recent air traffic control blackout. And we're in serious shit if a tech-savvy threat manages to penetrate power distribution, emergency call, or air-traffic control systems, or who knows maybe all three, and shut it all down right before a devestating physical attack. It's a huge force-multiplier, but in addition it can be a force unto itself. Imagine the whole country going without grid power for a month or two. Not a pretty picture.
As usual, no one will do anything serious until there is a major incident (involving loss of life), after which "computer security" will be beat into our skulls every minute of every day, even if it's draconian and won't actually make people much safer, just like transportation security is today.
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I just don't believe it! (Score:5, Insightful)
So when those "terrorists" start sucking money from those compromised credit cards to fund their continuing activities, thats ok because Joe Sixpack thinks "it doesn't affect me, I don't care". Joe Sixpack is in essence the biggest security threat to the US.
To everyone saying people are stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
The average person isn't apathetic or stupid.
Instead, the average person is not you and probably doesn't want to be you.
The average person cares a lot about things which affect their lives. Ask a farmer what he/she thinks about the latest pesticides, or if terracing has conserved as much soil as environmental proponents say. You'll get an easy hour of discussion out of a farmer that way. It'll bore you to freaking tears, but you'll get an easy hour of discussion out of a farmer that way.
Ask a teacher what he/she thinks about No Child Left Behind. Ask an automotive engineer what he/she thinks about the disappearance of shade-tree mechanics.
Kid, you are an elitist geek. The world's a much bigger and more interesting place than you give it credit for.
Open your eyes. Open your eyes and enjoy the world as much as you can while you're young. Don't do what I did and spend the first 25 years as a pessimist before realizing how empty and useless pessimism is.
I'm a cynic. A cynic is someone who's seen enough of humanity's beauty to be thoroughly convinced that it exists--and enough of humanity's ugliness to be thoroughly appalled at how rarely humanity's true beauty shows through.
But take my word for it. The beauty exists, if you're willing to open your eyes. And the beauty will take your breath away.
Have a nice life. Really. I mean that.
Re:Well no wonder he quit! (Score:1, Insightful)
"former software executive from Symantec Corp"
I have NEVER met an executive that has a farking slightest clue as to computers let alone something as complex as computersecurity.
Let's get a restriction that that office can not be held by anyone that was an executive at ANY company.
How about a REAL expert that spend 5+ years in the trenches of a NOC?
oh wait this is the USA, those who can.... do, those who cant, LEAD.
Zombies (Score:3, Insightful)
These are the people whose computers are being used to send spam [theregister.co.uk] while they sleep.
Homeland Security = Gestapo (Score:2, Insightful)
Homeland Security cannot function without the Patriot Act to give it it's power. All of this is just like the purpose, and genesis, of the Gestapo. Back in 1933 it made sense to create new State Police only if you wanted to oppress disent.
And as we know, Homeland Security is really only famous for arresting artists, academics, hackers, musicians, and Tommmy Chong! wtf!
So of course people like Richard Clarke are "resigning"
Re:I just don't believe it! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they sampled enough folks to make this assessment. They didn't even need that many if it follows a standard distribution, right? 30 would be enough in that case, assuming they are sampling the right target.
Remember, they are just trying to draw a graph of probabilities, not learn every minute unique answer.
I shouldn't have to care about malicious code (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn straight skippy! I've been dreaming of this for years
Sure, maybe. Or perhaps they have no idea what "malicious code" is in the first place. BTW: They shouldn't have to care about malicious code! It's like asking Joe-on-the-street what the US strategic and tactical strategies should be in the Middle East. What kind of background/training does Joe have? Why in the world would I give a crap about his answers on any polls.
Ahhh yes, IT snobiness strikes again. The average person shouldn't have to "give two flying fucks" . The PC industry should get its act togeather and deliver "dumb" terminals that do exactly what people expect them to do. Chances are, you don't know anything about natural gas fittings, but you still use a stove. I don't know anything about generating and containing microwaves, but I still eat frozen burritos. Why the hell should we burden Joe-average with patches, virus updates, malicious code, .dll's, conflicting IRQs, etc...? Especially when all they want to do is read e-mail, download pr0n, and play games. It's not like the average PC user is trying to develop a new OS kernel.
blame the user eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont care how my fridge and toaster work, at least on the level of maintaining them properly and repairing them. Along with my car. You're being too geek-centric here and blaming the victim.
Why aren't Mac users having the massive security problems Windows and Unix users have? The problem is the product and the vendor. We are at a point where you can make a safe OS you dont have to babysit. The market has delivered it in the form of OSX, for the most part. Linux is no magic bullet either as it runs so many services, is very user unfriendly, etc. Come on, face facts here before I get modded down for diverging from the "party line."
What people need is a better product, not four CS classes on network security. What people need is to do their work and shut the thing off and not worry about it. What people need and what they are getting from Dell et al are two very different things. If we're going to blame the Bush administration, lets blame them for letting MS go when they could have broken them up into two or three different companies.
For every field there's someone like you who blames the user. Be it the mechanic who is pissed that "stupid drivers" can't figure out how to change a fuse or their own tire. Or plumbers sick of doing midnight calls because landlords put off maintenance and something breaks in the middle of the night. Or local telco/power companies sick and tired of triming your trees for you when your tree breaks a power line.
IT should work for people. People shouldnt be working for their computers. Blaming the user is the wrong way to go about it. Blame the designers for not making a user-centric design. Blame the designers for shipping code riddled with security holes.
My exerience with DHS (Score:3, Insightful)
The people who are in those positions seem more interested in keeping things from changing and keeping their jobs. They want a government paycheck but they aren't interested in actually doing their jobs. The problem with that attitude is that since the DHS is so new, there is no "keeping things the same." It's about growth and forming an organization. It's amazingly ridiculous how things operate (or fail to operate) within the places I've been exposed to.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Boggle. So you think making sysadmins read their users' email is a GOOD thing?
You think 802.11 wardrivers can't be caught? What if information leading to their arrest was worth $50,000 - how many Slashdot readers would be patrolling their neighborhood for wardrivers?
LOL. Wardriving is perfectly legal.
Re:Intractable Problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone tried this at work I would give him a stunned silence too.
Here we are trying to fix a difficult problem with everyone's job on the line and someone want to play Monday morning quarterback by sprouting off comments that does not help, unless you think you can get the entire company migrated over and trained to use Linux in the next 2 hours.
Re:I just don't believe it! (Score:3, Insightful)
When disaster strikes and the backup had not been run since Jan 1, they'll scream bloody murder and then pay you $120/hr, and they'll be glad to.
It's like children and that glowing flame atop the candle. They have to put their finger in it at least once.
Re:no Digital Pearl Harbors (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine if the Federal government did for computer security what it's doing for airline security. Everybody would be required to install Microsoft Service Packs (regardless of what operating system they're running.) Internet-connected computers would be nationalized and the government would assign a federal employee to secure yours. Typing "hacker" into an internet-connected computer would be the equivalent of saying "terrorist" in an airport: a half-dozen burly guys without high school diplomas would tackle you and drag you off. Later, a spokesman would say "we take threatening behavior very seriously."
Re:I just don't believe it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Then usually my wife elbows me in the ribs and announces: "Don't listen to my husband, he can't make good party conversation".
So no, I don't talk security to people. They don't want to hear it.
Then they all blabber about the latest football team this and draft that and did you see that pitcher? At which point I hit the punch bowl and the cashews and sit by myself, running through my head the list of things I need to implement as xmlrpc services.
Lastly, for jane newbie, there are TONS of good sources out there on what to do and how to do it. (Borders bookstore comes to mind, as well as Professor Google).
And generally guru geeks LOVE to talk about tech, they just don't like to be ignored.
No Child Left Behind - i work for a K-12 (Score:1, Insightful)
I work for a large (45 school) district and I can tell you it does more harm then good.
Re:I shouldn't have to care about malicious code (Score:5, Insightful)
But people want to put software on their computers. Hell, if you want a secure system, mount everything but the swap/temp as read only, and boom. Nothing can go wrong. As soon as you increase the complexity of the system, you run into problems.
It's almost as if you think "Hell, we can build a rowboat that anyone can use, why can't we build a Triton class submarine that anyone can use?"
Re:Drop "Cyber" Already!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone that refuses to see the problem that MS is and continues to embrace MS software products in spite of more secure alternatives is stupid, corrupt, owns too much MS stock, or all of the above.
Re:Cyber security needs to be tied into defense (Score:2, Insightful)
There is at least 100 NSA programmers who regularly contribute to various GPL/Open Source projects. The difference is that they don't use nsa.gov email addresses when they contribute.
I'm certain if those NSA programmers had their way, Linux or FreeBSD would be the only desktop OS allowed anywhere in the DoD.
~hostguy2004
Re:So symptomatic of all politics (Score:3, Insightful)
A side note, the US is the only country I've been to that allows non-passengers up to the embarkation gates. Anywhere else, you get stopped at customs and can't proceed without a ticket. Curbside check-in, which I'm still fuzzy on, but as I understand basically puts your luggage right on the plane stright from the taxi, is another huge issue.
Let's face it, the US was always behind in security, because despite the good sense of dozens of other countries (Canada, for example, and the UK, Israel, Holland, and so on), the US didn't care about security until they had to - and even then, the rules were so absurd that they served only to provide an assurance - terrorsts are after your lucky charms, but we've put measures into place to make your cereal safe!
It's all BS. The government only cares about security because it's one more thing they can claim when the election rolls around. They can make people afraid in general, then make planes safe, but still not make people safe from planes. They're trying to have it both ways, and it just doesn't work like that.
--Dan
Re:I shouldn't have to care about malicious code (Score:4, Insightful)
And in this case, the government should step up and say "don't let your PC become a zombie, because you are contributing to massive DDOS attacks againt our critical infrastructure". Unfortunately, it takes an event of 9/11 proportions to wake people up enough to acknowledge the possibility.
So when NYSE, Nasdaq, banking networks, and critical communications infrastructure are brought down by a cyber-terrorist attack, THEN you'll start seeing this top-down focus on more localized security. Sadly, not before that.
Re:blame the user eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time you actually installed Linux as a workstation or a server without installing stuff you don't need? 5 years ago?
I have only seen a couple of services enabled by default on Red Hat distributions since 8.0. These include NFS and SSH, and both are blocked by default by firewall rules.
That being said--- there is no magic bullet, even OS X. To think otherwise indicates that computer crime is somehow analogous to somone breaking into a nice home in suburban Bellevue, WA. Instead, it is like someone breaking into a random house in Bagdad. Don't believe me? I can post my firewall logs here if they don't mind the volume of the logs....
On an average day, I see 60-100 probes against my firewall. This is the equivalent of eyeing a car and checking a door to see if it is locked....
Last month someone did a complete portscan of my system and several tried extensive user account scans against SSH. These are more equivalent to scoping out a house and seing if there are any easy ways of breaking into a house-- i.e. checking all doors, windows, etc. and perhaps trying to enter by breaking a window or two. None of these were successful. So maybe it is worse than residential security on Bagdad.....
Think that services are the only problem? As soon as you install any software that uses an internet connection as any way, you now have a potential hole. Mozilla has had a graphics handling issue, even, and I wouldn't be sure that KHML is invulnerable. Add to this dependencies for libraries which may contain additional vulnerabilities and nothing is unassailable. Think OS X is invulnerable? Think again.
The average user will need to know something about security, just as the average driver needs to know something about road safety...
Re: I just don't believe it! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that we are having this conversation seems to mean that we as software developers aren't doing our jobs properly. We should be writing secure systems, making sure that nothing we do could possibly be a point of entry for malware of any kind. This particularly means the folks at MS, of course, but even app writers need to be vigilant.
But we're not living in that ideal world; we're living in the real one, where the most popular platform has innumerable insecurities in its OS and popular apps... So I guess you're right: we do need to make users aware of these things. It just annoys me, because we shouldn't need to!
Re: I just don't believe it! (Score:3, Insightful)
To use your analogy of the lightbulb, I may not need to read up on emission spectra and the effect of induction on power phase lag in order to change a lightbulb, but it's still important to have certain understandings; it's good for the person changing the lightbulb to know that sticking their finger into the light socket with the switch turned on is 'not advised,' for instance. Sure, that seems like common sense, but that's simply because the education about things such as that
Yes, MacOS X is more secure than Windows in a number of ways; the Keychain is so, so much better than storing passwords in the registry, to do anything system-wide even as an administrator you have to enter your password, and the default configuration is more secure right out-of-box, with far fewer open ports. But the fact remains that writing malware for Mac will hit a far, far smaller percentage of the total users; we're secure in no part simply because we Mac users
Some of it will
Yes, at present the combination of ease-of-development to make malware for Windows and the sheer number of viable targets make it more attractive than writing for Mac. But it's hubris -- and a dangerous hubris, at that -- to assume that just because an OS is 'more secure' that educating the users is redundant!
Just my $0.02.