Facebook the Most Dangerous Social Tool For Businesses 142
wiredmikey writes "According to a recent study Facebook is by far the most popular and most dangerous social media tool among small-to-medium-sized businesses, with 69 percent of respondents reporting that they have active accounts with this site, followed by Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Facebook is also the top culprit for malware infections and privacy violations, e.g. the leaking of sensitive company information. YouTube took the second spot for malware infection, while Twitter contributed to a significant number of privacy violations. For companies suffering financial losses from employee privacy violations, Facebook was again cited as the most common social media site where these losses occurred, followed by Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn."
Slashdot in 2010 (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost all of the last 20 or so stories have been about either social networking sites or Google and its products. Man, I remember when programming topics actually used to make it to the front page. You know, news for nerds.
Re:Slashdot in 2010 (Score:4, Insightful)
welcome to being a market demographic.
Re:The point is... (Score:4, Insightful)
IT's bigger then that. Human behavior is evolved to a social paradigm. With that certain expectation have become intrinsic to human interaction.
Not the internet has made it easy for a few jackasses to violate those rules of behavior in a massive and automated way.
This means people need to learn to ignore and change certain expectation. Not something that comes easy.
The Most Dangerous Tool (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oooh! A talking moose wants my credit card number. That seems fair!"
The most dangerous tool is the one sitting in the chair.
Is it Facebook or Windows which is dangerous? (Score:1, Insightful)
Facebook and similar sites attract a lot of malware, true. How about not using a platform known to be hypersensitive to this malware when accessing these sites? Why is this simple and effective solution never proposed?
Why oh why oh why does the average IT person not contemplate this effective, cheap - yes cheap - and sensible solution? It is almost as if there is a religious dogma against pointing a finger at Windows. Even the most die-hard Windows fanatic surely should see the sense in this approach? If you want to navigate the high seas you'd use something which withstands salty water and is known not to leak. It would be... wise... to use something which withstands malware and is known to survive network contact when navigating the cesspool called social networking.
I am truely flabbergasted by this resistance to change. If you stand to lose ${many} by allowing Windows on the 'net... why not prevent that loss?
Re:People think its ok to use facebook at work? (Score:4, Insightful)
then unblock facebook on that one persons or groups computers, not site wide. should be easy to implement.
Securityweek is pants (Score:4, Insightful)
To summarize: Alarmist e-zine for PHB's confirms their suspicions that Facebook and YouTube are, in fact, the devil. Why is this on Slashd...oh, it's samzenpus. Never mind...
Re:"Dangerous" is ambiguous (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are the survey respondents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again we have another poll which is somehow supposed to represent actual facts.
This is a "study" by a company that sells computer security "solutions" to small and medium-sized businesses. Haven't we all learned by now that these reports are largely designed to scare PHBs into buying the products and services these companies peddle? There's absolutely nothing in TFA that enables us to determine how the firms were chosen, who was interviewed, how they were selected, and whether they have even a clue about how sites like Facebook and YouTube might be the culprits.
Enough breathless reporting of stupid press releases, Slashdot editors. Just because SecurityWeek has no editorial scruples doesn't mean you shouldn't have them.
Re:Is it Facebook or Windows which is dangerous? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I might be considered a troll, but why oh why does the average Linux person (see, I can generalize as well!) always try to fix the tool but NOT the user?
Irony apart, the issue with getting "infected" doesn't get solved by switching the Operating System. It might get partially solved or it might help somehow, but it's not a solution. There's no permanent solution, there's just common sense and its lack thereof.
I am a Windows user. I don't get infected with malware. Last time there was a virus on my machine, it came via a "brand new" external hard drive which apparently was used by the company that sold it to me. The antivirus yelled when I opened the folder containing the infected files (my intention was to delete everything in there). Last time my machine was infected by anything else... well, there isn't one.
It's all about being informed and having some common sense. People who don't have the former will still be okay, but they need extra care in checking what they're about to click on. People who don't have the latter... they will likely get infected. Those who don't have either... why on Earth would you assume they would know how to use Linux? Come on
Saying Windows is dangerous is like saying a gun is dangerous. A gun ain't dangerous, not unless some moron holds it. Only then things begin to become interesting. Is Windows prone to being infected? Certainly! Is this mainly generated by dumb people who click stupid links? Oh yeah!
Repeat after me: NOT the tool, but the person. NOT the tool, but the person. NOT the tool...
Re:Slashdot in 2010 (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, I remember when programming topics actually used to make it to the front page. You know, news for nerds.
Meh, the daily astroturf about Ruby On Rails a year or so back weren't any better. ;)
Re:Is it Facebook or Windows which is dangerous? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would I repeat something which is false? Repeating it does not make it true.
If you want the truth and nothing but the truth you should realise that it is a combination of the tools used and the people who get to use them. If you still have any doubt about which of these tools is more susceptible to malware, well... good luck to you.
About those people... what, in your opinion, is easier to change: habits, or tools? If you say 'habits'... good luck to you again.
Re:"Dangerous" is ambiguous (Score:1, Insightful)
Because it's easy to prevent a system administrator's account from modifying the system with magical security voodoo. If you believe that kind of bullshit go buy two copies of Norton AV so you'll be twice as protected. It also whitens your teeth!
Re:Youtube? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it Facebook or Windows which is dangerous? (Score:1, Insightful)
The iPhone "jailbreak" was actually a FreeType exploit [cert.org] delivered in a PDF container. By reports it affected Debian, Gentoo, SUSE, and probably every other platform that supported FreeType. This meant that Linux PDF renderers, like Okular, were crashed by the exploit.
The difference with Linux and Windows is that (AFAIK) Adobe would be crucified if they installed Reader into Firefox, for example. On Windows, Adobe gets away with it no questions asked.
"Dangerous" in the hands of HR (Score:5, Insightful)
We take things like facebook too seriously. Nobody in the workplace should care about a teachers "drunken pirate" costume party photo for example, let alone the teacher losing their job over it.
Re:"Dangerous" is ambiguous (Score:2, Insightful)