Let's face it, the idea that "Joe average" doesn't know squat about computer security is hardly original. Heck, just read the comments from Granneman's previous column.

However, instead of sticking with that premise Granneman decided to go on yet another anti-MS tirade. Basically the article boils down to: Because MS is so insecure and people aren't switching to Linux we need to train them how to secure their computers.

Along the way he has to repeatably point out that MS routinely needs to be patched. While true, Linux has the same problem and, let's be honest, Linux patches outnumber Windows by a large amount. Patches are the norm when it comes to software, yet MS only seems to get bashed for having them.

He then goes on to complain about every single step MS is taking to make "Joe Average's" computer secure. Let's see:

Automatic updates: These are bad because some patches have broken things? While some patches have in fact broke things, (for all OS's) how is automatically installing an update any different than training every "average Joe" to download and install every patch?

IFC: First people complain that MS is insecure because it doesn't come with a firewall. Now MS's firewall isn't good enough and by default it doesn't shut everything down. Next he'll be complaining that by including a firewall that MS is using it's monopoly power to put firewall companies out of business.

Built in Av:
"I would really hate to see Microsoft destroy another software market by bundling new capabilities into the OS (the same concern applies to personal firewalls in the previous paragraph)."

Oops, I guess I spoke to soon on the putting companies out of business thing. I never understood why MS including IE Explore is a deadly sin but every other OS out there can include a browser and it's okay.

Email Attachments: Lets face reality here, No matter what you do people will run attachments. Contrary to Granneman's assertions in his last column adding more hoops for Joe average to jump through will do nothing except make Joe average download a free spy-ware loaded program that removes the hoops for him. This would be the case in any OS. Granneman's suggestion the Linux wouldn't have these problems because it takes more steps (hoops to jump through) is misguided at best. Joe average wants convenience not security. If Linux is ever going to make it to Joe averages desktop it will need to be made more convenient.

Now let's dispense with the Linux Vs Windows crap and look for real solutions.

Personally I recommend to friends and family to keep up to date with patches and use an up to date A/V program.

Interestingly enough MS advocates the same thing and even offers simple step by step instructions that Joe average can follow to ensure they have those things. In other words they are training Joe average just like Granneman wants.

Ideally this would all be handled in the background so that Joe average who couldn't be bothered won't be bothered. Which is the path MS is taking and one I completely agree with.

It's too bad that Granneman's anti-MS attitude is all that came out in this article. We need real solutions for these problems not bashing. MS seems to be headed in the right direction - security without removing convenience. Too bad Granneman doesn't get it............



[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/193/23358#23358