Internet Security Moving Toward 'White List'

ehud42 writes "According to Symantec, 'Internet security is headed toward a major reversal in philosophy, where a 'white list' which allows only benevolent programs to run on a computer will replace the current 'black list' system' as described in an article on the CBC's site. The piece mentions some issues with fairness to whose program is 'safe' including a comment that judges need to be impartial to open source programs which can change quite rapidly. Would this work? The effort to maintain black lists is becoming so daunting that white lists may be an effective solution."

who uses a black list?

[DragonTHC]

My Internet security philosophies have always been drop 'em all, let iptables sort 'em out!

I can see it now

[Colin Smith]

This application has not been signed by Microsoft. Do you want to run this application? Yes/No

Are you sure you want to run this application? Yes/No

Are you really sure you want to run this application? Yes/No

I mean, if it's not Microsoft, it's not really "official", what makes you sure you should be running this application. You probably shouldn't. There's a nice Microsoft alternative which is "official". Wouldn't you like to download that instead? Yes/No

 

Re:Not going to happen

[Architect_sasyr]

127.0.0.1

Re:Not going to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

according to my scanner, that machine is totally compromised

Re:I can see it now

[Terrasque]

Microsoft has not authorized this. Continue? No / Cancel

Re:I can see it now

[bentcd]

Heh.

"This software has been signed by Microsoft. Are you sure you want to install?"

(yes)

"This software has been signed by Microsoft. Are you sure you want to install?"

(yes)

"Proceeding will void your warranty. Are you sure?"

(yes)

"Well, it's your funeral. Please wait."

Re:Not going to happen

[deniable]

Well you should start DOSing it. You should also report the owner to their ISP. They might cut it off until it's fixed.

Also check to see if he's sharing any porn. You never know. You might have similar tastes.

Oh, man, I just thought of this one, too

[thegnu]

GEEK: It sets up the chroot jail or it gets the hose.
N00B: [sobbing hysterically]
GEEK:Yes, it will, Precious, won't it? It will get the hose!
N00B: Okay... okay... okay. Mister, if you let me go, I won't - I won't press charges I promise. See, my mom is a real important woman... I guess you already know that.
GEEK: Now it places the browser in the chroot jail.
N00B: Please! Please I wanna go home! I wanna go home please!
GEEK: It places the browser in the chroot jail.
N00B: I wanna see my mommy! Please I wanna see my...
GEEK: Put the fucking browser in the jail!

Re:Not going to happen

[whoever57]

According to my scanner, there is a whole class A subnet that is compromised:
127.0.0.0/8

Re:Addressing malware.

[ArsonSmith]

Why not? you don't have root owned backups of your home directory taken at least nightly?