Ted Roche writes:
> A manufacturer of kitchen appliances wouldn't consider
> shipping a device that doesn't have mechanical and electrical
> interlocks and safety devices to prevent most foreseeable
> accidents. Yet all the manufacturers ship IE in an easily
> exploitable configuration. That's irresponsible.
And I wonder how the manufacturers are shipping XP SP2 on their
new systems: is the firewall in its most stealthy and secure
state, or still off by default?
> Conversely, anyone who's listened to the news in the past few
> years knows there are all sorts of computer nasties out
> there. The consumer needs to be responsible enough to see out
> help. If they don't know what to do themselves, they ought to
> seek help from knowledegable friends, associates and
> professionals. The cost of prevention (AVG anti-virus, Kerio
> Firewall, Spybot S&D, FireFox, Thunderbird, perhaps a cable
> router/NAT/firewall) would have been a fraction of the cost
> of repair.
Prevention, or lack thereof: a common theme in our culture in
general. We wouldn't be fighting over abortion rights if we
could just agree that it is a great idea to show our kids how
to use condoms, we could have prevented this stupid war in so
many ways, and the health care industry profits immensely from
lack of prevention - people eating fast food etc.
> > IOW, should the user have known better than to
> > let this happen, or should the various vendors involved
> > (Dell, Microsoft, the ISP, etc.) have provided a more
> > secure environment from the start?
>
> Both. I think there's enough blame to go around.
So what do we do about it...
--
Paul McNett
Independent Software Consultant
http://www.paulmcnett.com
©2004 Paul McNett |
