From: exibar at thelair.com (Exibar)
Subject: AW: 9/11 virus


So are you trying to tell me that Peanut Butter is good or bad for my car's
engine?   What if I have a diesel engine?  Can I use Peanut Butter in that
case?  I would think that refined peanut oil will work, but what about
straight peanut butter?

  ^--^

Exibar


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <l8km7gr02@...akemail.com>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: AW: [Full-Disclosure] 9/11 virus


> >Tom Vogt:
>  >
> > It ain't a user-dependent vulnerability. It exploits shortcomings in the
> > interface. It exploits the fact that what the machine does is not what
the
> > user wants or expects it to do.
> >
> > User:
> > "I want to see this picture."
> >
> > Machine:
> > Ok...
> > ...oh, it isn't a picture, it's an executable...
> > ...so, let's execute it.
>
> Hi Tom.
>
> On this point, you and I agree -- a user should never receive
> indication from the UI that an executable is a picture, and then
> surprise the user by executing something which wasn't really a picture
> after all.  Implementing a UI which uses an arbitrary file naming
> convention to indicate the executability of a file, /and then going
> ahead and hiding the file extension by default/, is unbelievably
> braindead.  It's like they *tried* to blur the line between program and
> content.  Hmm.
>
> > The user never wanted to execute a file, he wanted to see a picture.
It's a
> > miscommunication issue, not stupidity of users. A better interface would
> > prevent it. For example, imagine for one second that there were no
implicit
> > actions, i.e. there is no "doubleclick and the right thing will happen",
but
> > you always have to state WHAT you want to do.(*)
>  >
>  > ...
>  >
>  > (*) And don't tell me users wouldn't accept that. Every other
>  > electronic device works that way. You don't press POWER on your TV and
>  > expect it to know which channel you want.
>
> I maintain, though, that there is a lack of user comprehension involved
> (you said 'stupidity', not me) -- a user needs to know what an
> executable is, before they can understand there's a certain amount of
> danger involved with clicking on them.
>
> As to your suggestion that the implicit behaviour of a doubleclick is a
> problem, I think you're a bit off the mark.  Users know that a
> doubleclick will 'Open' whatever they click on, there's no ambiguity
> there.  The confusion only occurs when the user doesn't exactly know
> what it is they're doubleclicking on.
>
> > It's not a user issue. Users aren't stupid, they just have a limited
need to
> > know. You'd be shouting at your car mechanic if he told you that it's
your
> > fault that the car burst into flames because that's just what it does
when
> > you open the trunk while the headlights are on and the gear is in
reverse.
>
> I think a (slightly) more appropriate analogy would be a mechanic who
> explains time and time again that one should *never* put fuel into a car
> unless they know for certain it's unleaded and from a 'safe' source (and
> actually fuel and not peanut butter!)
>
> I think we agree on the main points, but have slightly differing senses
> of what a user 'needs to know'.  In order to function responsibly in
> this e-mail enabled world of ours, users must be able to differentiate
> between executables and documents.  Period.  To that end, however, user
> interfaces must be clear and explicit when it comes to helping the user
> differentiate the two.
>
> > But hey, it's not like we haven't known this ever since the first
Outlook
> > worm, and it could've been solved for years.
>
> Oh, sure, MS completely dropped the ball on Outlook and OE -- but
> consider that this would only prevent e-mail worms, not user-distributed
> 'old-school' viruses.  Only user education could stop those.
>
> take care,
>
> Cael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists