There are hundreds of millions of people on Earth who use computers for all types of often legitimate purposes. Many use computers as a tool, just as in the days of the IBM Selectric Typewriter. (Does anyone even remember what one of those looks and sounds like?) Tools are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. The whole point is that the tool does something advantageous, like arrange words or numbers into meaningful and easily understood form. It saves information, transmits data, and the like. The vast majority of people use computers as tools, as a means to an end. You may not agree to the validity of what they do, you may think that somethings people use computers for are silly, stupid or even bizar. But use them we all do. My point here is that the vast majority of people using computers are not now, and never will be, expert computer users. They will never know the difference between ports 80 and 443, but you do, don't you. You know one is more secure than the other. (More secure, not absolutely secure, btw.) Software developers in general, and OS developers and manufacturers, specifically, do know the difference. It is this knowledge that I believe makes it incumbant upon developers to develop software that is as secure as presently possible. It is incumbant upon M$ to make general purpose operating systems and software secure against this so-called Internet pollution. Sure, many of us, who subscribe to SecurityFocus and are above average in our relevant skills, do have a good working knowledge of such things. However, anyone who even suggests that all computer users, including the likes of auntie Fern and my 80 year old dad, must either stayoff the Internet or become highly versed in computer security is fooling themselves and way out of touch with the realities of the common computer user. It is all fine and well for computer geeks to say such things, but eventually they too will need to wake up to modern realities demanding that software products must be developed such that high levels of security are afforded to even the most ignorant user, without a lot of techie config, it's got to be out of the box secure. To touch on the analogy in use in this thread, anti-lock brake systems are, required by law (in the U.S.A.), ubiquitous and work all the time regardless of the knowledge levels of the automobile user. The task at hand is Herculean, but it is no less something that must be done.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/263/28322#28322