full-disclosure - [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <003901c38762$a6aa0190$0b01a8c0@sane.com>
From: mike at sane.com (Michael Smith)
Subject: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly 

>> Do you really think you could convince the average user that they need to
>> know this much about security? I mean, most users see their computers
>>(and
>> the network, servers, phones, faxes, etc...) as a tool to do business
>>with.
>> Nothing else. The computers are there to do a job, or help get a job
done,
>> and nothing else. It is not so much that they don't know, it is that they
>> don't need to know.
>
>This argument is a total crock.  Most people manage to drive cars that
>remain operational, because they either learn how to do the maintenance
>themselves, or they outsource it to a guy called a "mechanic".
>

I think the point is that most people expect their cars to be operational
and do NOT do the maintenance themselves... they DO outsource it to a
mechanic.  The average user has A LOT less control over their car than their
computer.  A car is basically a single function unit, point A to point B.
Computers never have been nor ever will be that one dimensional.  At the
most, I think we could hope for users who learn to know better than to try
to do the 'maintenance' on their computers themselves.

>Here.. let's do a s/computer/cars/ on that paragraph:
>
>> Do you really think you could convince the average person that they need
>>to
>> know this much about fuel injectors? I mean, most people see their cars
>>(and
>> the network, servers, phones, faxes, etc...) as a tool to do business
>>with.
>> Nothing else. The cars are there to do a job, or help get a job done,
>> and nothing else. It is not so much that they don't know, it is that they
>> don't need to know.

>I'll point out that the average car no longer comes with a crank to start
>it, or a manual choke button that you have to remember to push back in.
>The average car no longer needs major maintenance every few hundred miles.
>
>So why are we tolerating computers that have cranks and choke buttons and
>need major maintenance every few hundred hours?  

Let's see....  cars have been available to the general public for about,
what, (at least) 75 years?  And computers?  Maybe 25?  I think if you look
at the progression the computer industry has made in that time, it FAR
outweighs the manual choke or crank start...

I think your paragraph above proves the point perfectly....  You'll NEVER
convince the average person that they need to know about fuel injectors.
I'll bet 5$ right now that half the people don't even know if their car HAS
fuel injectors or not.

~mike