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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <E20DADCE7FEE6644A604B600D32338723439DE@windomain.appliedmessaging.com>
From: cherot at appliedmessaging.com (Christopher F. Herot)
Subject: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly 

Actually, the average person doesn't now squat about how to DRIVE a car
either.  The result is that 40,000+ people die every year in this
country from car "accidents."  I'd say the computer industry is doing
pretty well by that standard.
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Smith [mailto:mike@...e.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:54 AM
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> 
> 
> >> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html