PDA

View Full Version : Call to banish virus-hit computers from internet



ken_do_san
January 24th, 2010, 11:08 PM
Don't know if it is allowed to post links from news stories (or if I'm even posting in the correct forum), but the link below is an article in one the major newspapers here in Australia. Seems our federal government wants to control our internet even more, other than just wacking us here in Oz with an unneeded internet filter to control our internet habits.

But saying that, in principal it may seem like a good idea, but I worry about the implementation of such a thing, how would they possible know which users to 'switch off' and would they send a formal request first to 'please have your computer looked at'.

Take a look at the story:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/call-to-cut-net-link-on-virus-hit-computers/story-e6frg6n6-1225823060022

Lars Noodén
January 25th, 2010, 12:54 PM
how would they possible know which users to 'switch off' and would they send a formal request first to 'please have your computer looked at'.

Scan the connection, then if it's Windows, there is a 50% chance it is already part of a botnet;
http://blog.trendmicro.com/1h-2009-malware-threat-grows-ever-larger/

Banishing won't happen until the public can walk into a shop and buy a Linux computer (or other system) because the ban would target Windows almost exclusively and users would not be able to take the machines back to the store to have the OS swapped for a better one. That would take breaking the monopolies on Original Equipment Manufacturers.

bodhi.zazen
January 25th, 2010, 05:17 PM
Moved to the cafe.

IMO it would be fantastic if there was a crack down on cyber crime in general and some attempt by IP providers to monitor use / traffic from the clients (and then take action against violators).

I do not see it as happening any time soon as it would involve international law and the techniques of crackers changes faster then lawmakers are capable of acting.

Tristam Green
January 25th, 2010, 05:22 PM
How very authoritarian of you, OP.

Let's banish folks who have the flu to a remote island, too.

madnessjack
January 25th, 2010, 05:24 PM
How very authoritarian of you, OP.

Let's banish folks who have the flu to a remote island, too.
We're not talking actual people and actual viruses here :P

Paqman
January 25th, 2010, 05:28 PM
A draft copy of the voluntary code says the ISPs should identify affected computers and try to contact the users, by phone or email.

The smart ISP would also set up a house-call PC cleanup service to accompany this.

Tristam Green
January 25th, 2010, 05:29 PM
We're not talking actual people and actual viruses here :P

The analogy stands.

madnessjack
January 25th, 2010, 05:31 PM
The analogy stands.
So if I've got an STI I should still be allowed to sleep around?

whiskeylover
January 25th, 2010, 05:33 PM
The analogy stands.


If its something serious like TB, maybe its best to isolate?

Tristam Green
January 25th, 2010, 05:38 PM
If its something serious like TB, maybe its best to isolate?

We already "isolate" virus-laden computers from corporate networks and the like by physical means (turn *off* the network adapter).

Having someone do it for you (your ISP? give me a break) is just ridiculous. It is exactly like saying "if you have a contagious disease, we'll cart you off in a white van if you don't shutter yourself in your house".


So if I've got an STI I should still be allowed to sleep around?

Technically, you're allowed to, but you should be responsible enough to say something about it beforehand. It's not right of us to remove your reproductive organs if you had said virus, though.


I love how post #2 uses its statistics to imply that Linux is more secure against malware attacks, though. It's a nice touch to a thread that started going downhill in that direction since its OP.

danwosere2007
January 25th, 2010, 05:56 PM
At the risk of sounding somewhat mildly political in my rhetoric, i think these ages call for a greater "online responsibility". For example people who are running unprotected wi-fi services, allowing any tom **** or harry to log on anonymously via wi-fi over their connection and perpetrate whatever cyber crime tickles their proverbial fancy.When you consider the internet to be a tool (albeit an extremely powerful tool and for the sake of dramatics let us call it a loaded sniper rifle) it is comparible to someone leaving a gun cabinet in their house unlocked and advertising the fact that it is unlocked to everyone around. Granted a prerequisite is that you need to first be able to use the gun (anonymous internet connection). And even if you do use the gun that is not to say you will do anything other than shoot a few holes in a few cans (surf the internet for free), but there are trained snipers out there who could use such a free tool to perform malignant operations and the likes. You are providing them the means to carry out their trade. Likewise by allowing your computer to be compromised who is to say that computer will not then become a zombie computer and take part in a DDOS attack or other bot-net style attack? At what point is it your responsibility to lock down your computer so that doesnt happen? Perhaps one could say it is almost windows operating systems and the like which arent helping the situation, it is comparible to a car manufacturer making a car with severe defects (like having no brakes) and then wondering why everyone is crashing their cars. In a way Microsoft are to blame for not investing more time, money and research into computer security, but then i wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft has a few software security/anti-virus making companies under their corporate umbrella. If we make things secure then hang on, lots of people who write the viruses for the anti-virus software companies to sell to us would be outta jobs. uh-oh cant have that can we now. It all stinks to high heaven of cash making scams. Time to start taking some responsbility maybe? Meh who knows. - ObiDan Kinobi

P.s Ken you shouldn't assume things dude, it makes an *** out of U and ME! ;)

p.p.s gay censorship man what i cant say *** now? fecks sake :P

pwnst*r
January 25th, 2010, 05:59 PM
The smart ISP would also set up a house-call PC cleanup service to accompany this.

Maybe you don't understand how much that would cost.


We already "isolate" virus-laden computers from corporate networks and the like by physical means (turn *off* the network adapter).

Having someone do it for you (your ISP? give me a break) is just ridiculous. It is exactly like saying "if you have a contagious disease, we'll cart you off in a white van if you don't shutter yourself in your house".



Technically, you're allowed to, but you should be responsible enough to say something about it beforehand. It's not right of us to remove your reproductive organs if you had said virus, though.


I love how post #2 uses its statistics to imply that Linux is more secure against malware attacks, though. It's a nice touch to a thread that started going downhill in that direction since its OP.

...and this^^

whiskeylover
January 25th, 2010, 06:03 PM
but then i wouldnt be surpriused if Microsoft has a few software security/anti-virus mnaking companies under their corporate umbrella.


And no one knows about it, right? You seriously think that a huge company like MS, which is also publicly traded, can keep its secret anti-virus making companies under wraps?

danwosere2007
January 25th, 2010, 06:07 PM
No i didn't say that no-one knows about it man, i'm not saying it like its some sort of consipiracy dude, chill out ;) a brief bit of research would prove me right or wrong, meh i'll leave that to someone else to do though ;)

Paqman
January 25th, 2010, 06:09 PM
Maybe you don't understand how much that would cost.


That's what I mean. People will pay good money to have their PC cleaned up.

Tristam Green
January 25th, 2010, 06:14 PM
That's what I mean. People will pay good money to have their PC cleaned up.

They already do, thinking that's exactly what's been done, to the Big Boxes. Then they discover that their computers work even more slowly than before they arrived at the store, gripe and complain, pay a college student to clean it up for them, and the vicious cycle continues.

pwnst*r
January 25th, 2010, 06:21 PM
No i didn't say that no-one knows about it man, i'm not saying it like its some sort of consipiracy dude, chill out ;) a brief bit of research would prove me right or wrong, meh i'll leave that to someone else to do though ;)

Since you're going to put so much effort behind a FUD statement, I'll go ahead and not bother with the rest of your post.

pwnst*r
January 25th, 2010, 06:23 PM
That's what I mean. People will pay good money to have their PC cleaned up.

Sure, consumers will, but your post sounded like an initiative that was an ISP funded endeavor.

danwosere2007
January 25th, 2010, 06:24 PM
The foolish man built his house on Windows. The viruses crunched away at the walls and the worms undermined the very foundations of that house and it did so fall to earth with an enormous crash.

The wise man built his house on Linux. The viruses could not penetrate and the worms they did fail, for the foundations were solid, and the house of Linux stood strong.

Repent and be saved!!! Cast down your Windows system that is riddled with sin and fatal operating flaws, and instead take upon you the yoke of Linux for it is light and its burden is easy to carry. ;)

P.s Sorry God and Jesus i just thought it was funny, no offense =) ;)

P.p.s i kinda think that almost sounds like something you'd see on Syndicate Wars though. (Well good game ;)

Tristam Green
January 25th, 2010, 06:25 PM
The foolish man built his house on Windows. The viruses crunched away at the walls and the worms undermined the very foundations of that house and it did so fall to earth with an enormous crash.

The wise man built his house on Linux. The viruses could not penetrate and the worms they did fail, for the foundations were solid, and the house of Linux stood strong.

Repent and be saved!!! Cast down your Windows system that is riddled with sin and fatal operating flaws, and instead take upon you the yoke of Linux for it is light and its burden is easy to carry. ;)

P.s Sorry God and Jesus i just thought it was funny, no offense =) ;)

P.p.s i kinda think that almost sounds like something you'd see on Syndicate Wars though. (Well good game ;)

Really? I mean, seriously?

danwosere2007
January 25th, 2010, 06:26 PM
Thats nice pwnst*r but considering you felt the need to point out the fact that you arent going to point out the fact, i consider yourself to be stuck inside a perpetual paradox ;) Good luck getting out of that one man! ;)

pwnst*r
January 25th, 2010, 06:28 PM
Thats nice pwnst*r but considering you felt the need to point out the fact that you arent going to point out the fact, i consider yourself to be stuck inside a perpetual paradox ;) Good luck getting out of that one man! ;)

Since you brought it into discussion and have nothing to back it up with, your statement means nothing.

Paradox indeed.

Icehuck
January 25th, 2010, 06:28 PM
No,

I don't need ISPs or Governments involved in my life any more than they are now.

lykwydchykyn
January 25th, 2010, 06:40 PM
Assuming an ISP can actually identify traffic from a computer as being caused by a virus or malware, wouldn't it make sense just to notify the user first? Why do we have to go to these extremes?

Why not "hey, we see this traffic coming from you, and it seems to be caused by a virus. You have 60 days to either (a) stop the traffic or (b) provide a reasonable explanation of what the traffic is. Otherwise we'll be filtering the traffic in question."

Makes a lot more sense than "We think you have a virus for some undisclosed reason. BANISHED!"

chapman.s87
January 25th, 2010, 06:41 PM
Well from an internet prespective, not knowing what the actually stats are, I would say that the primary concern in the net today is browser security more so that the actually OS itself. I mean its a lot easier to get into computer with a browser and get it to exe code that using an internet connection and hacking into the OS directly. I mean windows is actually a fairly secure OS to my understand. (far better than a mac anyway from the OS side of things). Not sure what the secure of the state of linux is (pretty new to ubuntu here but picking it up pretty quick).

Anyone feel free to correct me.

Basically the government just needs to stay out of it.. I all i can see coming from this is government regulation and nothing less than a slow down in browser innovation because a bureaucrat didn't approve the new technology because of 'security' reasons for one thing or another.

Paqman
January 25th, 2010, 06:52 PM
Assuming an ISP can actually identify traffic from a computer as being caused by a virus or malware, wouldn't it make sense just to notify the user first?

Read the article. That's exactly what's being suggested.

Icehuck
January 25th, 2010, 06:55 PM
"

Makes a lot more sense than "We think you have a virus for some undisclosed reason. BANISHED!"

Yeah, if they did that they would be losing customers left and right. People don't like paying for services they can't use.

danwosere2007
January 25th, 2010, 06:56 PM
Its not that i don't have anything to back it up with, i just couldn't be arsed to see if i did or not, as such it is still hypothetical and the statement is totally relevant. It is merely dependant on being brought into fruition at a later date (when someone researches whether or not windows blah de blah yadda yadda). Just because it does not refer to the current time does not make it any less potent or meaningless. As such i do not consider it paradoxical. It has a point, but its point is in the future......upon digging for a brief couple of seconds....

http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-moves-into-antivirus-realm/2100-1002_3-1015237.html

Oh and whats this my point is suddenly proved? Oh and whats that i was right? What are the chances eh? ;)

pwnst*r
January 25th, 2010, 06:59 PM
Oh and whats this my point is suddenly proved? Oh and whats that i was right? What are the chances eh? ;)

Lol, you're kidding me, right? Usually I'm quite good at detecting sarcasm, but that's a tough one.

lykwydchykyn
January 25th, 2010, 07:00 PM
Read the article. That's exactly what's being suggested.

Yeah, mostly. Though I don't see why they don't stop at blocking the offending traffic, rather than cutting off the connection entirely. I mean, if someone is sending out a bunch of virus-laden SMTP traffic, just cut off SMTP (keeping in mind the user's been notified).

I guess that wouldn't help with zombie pc's, but surely there's some protocol there that can be blocked.

JBAlaska
January 25th, 2010, 07:09 PM
Microsoft HAS been offering free anti-virus for some time now:
http://www.microsoft.com/Security_Essentials/

KiwiNZ
January 25th, 2010, 07:10 PM
I find it ironic that on a software freedom forum people support the removal of freedom.

Unbelievable.

Maybe a better way would be for the ISP's to send an advisory to the affected 'customer' providing info on how to clean and future protect their machine. Its called customer service and is more likely to retain customers.

Giant Speck
January 25th, 2010, 07:23 PM
I find it ironic that on a software freedom forum people support the removal of freedom.

Unbelievable.

Maybe a better way would be for the ISP's to send an advisory to the affected 'customer' providing info on how to clean and future protect their machine. Its called customer service and is more likely to retain customers.

I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement.

Tristam Green
January 25th, 2010, 07:23 PM
I find it ironic that on a software freedom forum people support the removal of freedom.

Unbelievable.

Maybe a better way would be for the ISP's to send an advisory to the affected 'customer' providing info on how to clean and future protect their machine. Its called customer service and is more likely to retain customers.

Kiwi, can I petition to have the "thanks" button reinstated on the Café? If not, I'll just jump on the old trusty "+1" usage.

Paqman
January 25th, 2010, 07:29 PM
Maybe a better way would be for the ISP's to send an advisory to the affected 'customer' providing info on how to clean and future protect their machine. Its called customer service and is more likely to retain customers.

Again, read the article please:


The code states ISPs should cut off internet access only in the "most extreme of cases", when a customer had refused to install anti-virus software

Freedom has limits. Your freedom of speech (famously) does not mean you are free to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Do you think that people should be free to operate zombie machines, refuse all help at fixing them, and therefore make the internet a worse place for the rest of the community?

Lars Noodén
January 25th, 2010, 07:34 PM
The analogy stands.

The analogy is actually a very good one. Humans with viruses, such as the cold or one of the H1Nx variants, are supposed to stay home away from other people. In a lot of countries people show up to work while very ill and end up spreading the illness to everyone else. In other countries with stronger public health practices, people stay home and if they become visible ill while at school or work, they get sent home.

In some situations, depending on the problem, it becomes required to isolate problem individuals to prevent further contagion. quarantine (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/typhoid/quarantine.html) is not done for fun, but for necessity.

That's analogous to what's happening here with the Australian ISPs planning to cut off about half their Windows users.

lisati
January 25th, 2010, 07:35 PM
My $0.02:
I wish to suggest that maybe some basic education on security risks is the place to start. After that, people need to take responsibility for their own actions: if they know something of what needs to be done and are too lazy to do it.....

The ISP I use offers a security suite (McAfee is part of it) as part of some of its packages.

JBAlaska
January 25th, 2010, 07:39 PM
I find it ironic that on a software freedom forum people support the removal of freedom.

Unbelievable.

Yea huh, Kinda like changing someones deliberate misspelling of a name in a post..

Tristam Green
January 25th, 2010, 07:40 PM
That's analogous to what's happening here with the Australian ISPs planning to cut off about half their Windows users.

This does not excuse the practice from being inherently stupid.


FYI: The article does not mention Windows computers explicitly or implicitly, so I don't know where you're getting your misinformation from.

RabbitWho
January 25th, 2010, 08:53 PM
If they can somehow tell when the person connects they have a virus they should automatically forward them to a free-antivirus site.

I'm afraid this would be used as an excuse to shut off political bloggers.



FYI: The article does not mention Windows computers explicitly or implicitly, so I don't know where you're getting your misinformation from.



Right, I could have a windows virus right now and just not realise it because it's not having any effect. Or I guess I could even have a linux virus ha ha.

Lars Noodén
January 25th, 2010, 09:58 PM
@ Tristam Green : The article implicitly fingers Windows users through the description of the malware, which is currently Windows based. That's backed by the fact that between 33% and 50%, approximately, of the Windows machines are part of botnets. That's not the number cracked, just the active ones. The low number is from Microsoft.

{Windows} Malware Threat Grows Ever Larger (http://blog.trendmicro.com/1h-2009-malware-threat-grows-ever-larger/)

Here's a similar problem from the autumn, for those with amnesia:

New {Windows} Botnet May Have Infected Half of Fortune 1000 (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2353422,00.asp)

It's not a new problem and goes back to the NT 3 days. I remember when many university IT departments were starting to move to unilaterally ban Windows from their networks.

Maybe environmental analogies would be better. You have the 'right' to change the motor oil in your car. You do not have the right to destroy the use of your land for those that come after by dumping the oil, nor destroy the right of others to use their land by dumping the oil so it is on or spreads to their land or water. And the fact that your car came pre-filled with oil doesn't mean that it can be dumped.

Getting the Windows machines off the net where the hardware can get cleaned is a public service, just as getting diseased individuals off the streets where they can recover or be treated.

This is a huge marketing opportunity for Ubuntu. linux is already recommended for online banking (http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3843656_3/Consider-Linux-for-Secure-Online-Banking.htm) Ubuntu, and Canonical, can profit from that. It is also a big message to sharpen the development practices going on at Ubuntu and avoid joining Microsoft's race to the bottom in application, system and developer quality.

Tristam Green
January 25th, 2010, 10:29 PM
I remember when many university IT departments were starting to move to unilaterally ban Windows from their networks.

Back it with statistics or be quiet. Given the academic discounts MS provides universities for using their software (any sound company would do it, so everyone be quiet about "they're doing it because they're evil and want to force Windows on teh worlds"), and solely by virtue of the fact that Windows is the most widely-used desktop OS in the world, I call shenanigans.

Private universities? Maybe, but I doubt it. Public universities? Complete bull. Many? If you mean "a handful" then okay, maybe, again. But if you mean even remotely close to 50% or even 25% of colleges/universities, then again, I say good day to you sir.

HoboElectus
January 25th, 2010, 10:34 PM
And I thought the U.K had a bad government. Just wait until they start misidentifying infected machines.

KiwiNZ
January 25th, 2010, 10:53 PM
Getting the Windows machines off the net where the hardware can get cleaned is a public service, just as getting diseased individuals off the streets where they can recover or be treated.

.

You have got to be kidding. That is absolutely abhorrent. As a "diseased individual" I take absolute exception to that as I think anyone in the civilized world would.

Thank again and than come back.

handy
January 25th, 2010, 11:14 PM
Up until over 4 years ago, when I dumped windows, the ISPs that I used were already very good at blocking viruses & malware. Not perfectly but they were getting around 90% of it.

Since I've been using Linux, I don't suffer from any of these problems at all. I also expect that the technology has gone ahead leaps & bounds at the ISPs end.

I consider that there are very few windows users that aren't using a proprietary anti-virus/malware package these days in Oz.

What I personally think, is that this whole topic is a part of a ploy to help substantiate the internet censorship system that the Oz government is going to implement nationally.

I also think that what is happening here is also going to happen in many other countries one way or another.

Deep packet inspection will end up being used, P2P will be strangled, & the internet will start to become more & more like pay per view commercial TV.

Gallahhad
January 25th, 2010, 11:14 PM
Looks like a good idea.
Quarantining computers that are infected would not be a catch all, but it would be a good way to help slow down the spread of a virus.

For the analogy comparing computers being locked out of the internet, to people with the flu being put on a remote island; that is just not a valid analogy.

If the brakes on ones car are broken, one is not allowed by law to drive the car on a public road until the car is fixed. We have laws and regulations governing when a machine is fit to be in public, and when it is not; it is not unreasonable to expect the owners of infected computers to get the computer fixed before emailing their families, friends, and co-workers.

Frak
January 25th, 2010, 11:15 PM
It's not a new problem and goes back to the NT 3 days. I remember when many university IT departments were starting to move to unilaterally ban Windows from their networks.
I don't believe you.

Tristam Green
January 26th, 2010, 02:53 AM
You have got to be kidding. That is absolutely abhorrent. As a "diseased individual" I take absolute exception to that as I think anyone in the civilized world would.

Thank again and than come back.

Eugenics was supposed to have died in the 50s, right?

Paqman
January 26th, 2010, 09:13 AM
You have got to be kidding. That is absolutely abhorrent.

What's being suggested is

a) ISPs try harder to identify bots using their service
b) They contact the owners of these machines and help them repair them
c) Those who refuse have their service withdrawn

Your ISP is a private company, they have the right to withdraw service for any number of reasons. Check you contract, i'm sure you'll find that right now your ISP reserves the right to cut off your connection if you're running a spam server or cracking.

Sensationalist headlines notwithstanding, all the Oz government is really doing is leaning harder on the industry to enforce the standards which already exist, but which ISPs generally ignore because enforcing them is difficult and expensive.

3rdalbum
January 26th, 2010, 10:02 AM
It's a tough one. If malware-infested computers can be discovered without performance penalty, and their users notified, then I'm all for it. Malware doesn't survive without dumb/uninformed users, and it's high time something be done about the people who don't think before clicking.

But on the other hand, I don't trust ANYTHING that comes out of Stephen Conroy's office after his infamous filtering programme, and especially not anything that will likely result in lower internet speeds.

Swagman
January 26th, 2010, 11:55 AM
I think you need to see the big picture.

Forget anti-virus.

Who's been passing bungs to get that billed aired ?

The point being.. Who or what defines an infected computer ?
Coz I get the suspicion that someone ( in the right place.. with a bulging wallet) would deem Tux an unacceptable risk and therefore be banned.

cascade9
January 26th, 2010, 12:19 PM
I consider that there are very few windows users that aren't using a proprietary anti-virus/malware package these days in Oz.

I wasnt. I found the performance hit from running anti-virus all the time just to high. But I do have a good idea of what I'm doing, I ran hijack this every week or two, and I would install some form of anti-virus before I did my semi-annual format/reinstall just to check I wasnt getting hit by some nasty.



What I personally think, is that this whole topic is a part of a ploy to help substantiate the internet censorship system that the Oz government is going to implement nationally.




I also think that what is happening here is also going to happen in many other countries one way or another.

Agreed 100% :(



Deep packet inspection will end up being used, P2P will be strangled, & the internet will start to become more & more like pay per view commercial TV.

This is why I think they are doing it. Its in part a 'we will clean up the wild horrid internet and make it "safe"'. But when they think that DPI is workable, or if its politically advantageous they will start talking about that as well....

madnessjack
January 26th, 2010, 12:39 PM
The problem is that the Internet isn't like one big personal computer - you can't just reformat it and start again after it gets clogged up with porn, trojans, spam and other malware, it is going to have to be actively looked after. If that means kicking folks off for not looking after their machine then so be it!

lisati
January 26th, 2010, 12:49 PM
You have got to be kidding. That is absolutely abhorrent. As a "diseased individual" I take absolute exception to that as I think anyone in the civilized world would.

Well said!

pwnst*r
January 26th, 2010, 02:03 PM
I wasnt. I found the performance hit from running anti-virus all the time just to high.

Performance hit? Any anti-virus worth a damn are pretty light - and I have to say MSE (http://www.microsoft.com/Security_Essentials/) is one of them. It's non intrusive and as resource friendly as any of the other better AV's that I've tried.

So unless you're running 128MB of RAM and an early 2000 celeron, well, technology moves on. Get new gear.

RiceMonster
January 26th, 2010, 02:20 PM
Performance hit? Any anti-virus worth a damn are pretty light - and I have to say MSE (http://www.microsoft.com/Security_Essentials/) is one of them. It's non intrusive and as resource friendly as any of the other better AV's that I've tried.

So unless you're running 128MB of RAM and an early 2000 celeron, well, technology moves on. Get new gear.

Agreed. MSE is great. I don't experience any slowdown at all with it, and it stays out of your way.

Giant Speck
January 26th, 2010, 02:20 PM
Performance hit? Any anti-virus worth a damn are pretty light - and I have to say MSE (http://www.microsoft.com/Security_Essentials/) is one of them. It's non intrusive and as resource friendly as any of the other better AV's that I've tried.

I use Avira AntiVir, and while sitting in the background, it only uses 10MB of RAM. I also have ThreatFire installed on top of that, and ThreatFire itself only uses 2.8MB of RAM. So altogether, my antivirus protection uses only 12.8MB of RAM.

cascade9
January 26th, 2010, 02:41 PM
Performance hit? Any anti-virus worth a damn are pretty light - and I have to say MSE (http://www.microsoft.com/Security_Essentials/) is one of them. It's non intrusive and as resource friendly as any of the other better AV's that I've tried.

So unless you're running 128MB of RAM and an early 2000 celeron, well, technology moves on. Get new gear.

LOL. I was hardly running some POS celeron or 128MB (just out of intrest, mainly it was a AMD 2500+ with a mild overclock, 1GB DDR400)

I used to nLite winXP just to strip it down and get the _most_ possible out of it. Why go to all that work just to lose it from some silly a-v? ;) Not like I had an issue with viruses anyway....

*edit- I will admit to never using microsoft anti-virus, but with (what IMO is) the other junk MS made (WMP, IE, the windows firewall) I was hardly going to use it :P

pwnst*r
January 26th, 2010, 02:43 PM
i use avira antivir, and while sitting in the background, it only uses 10mb of ram. I also have threatfire installed on top of that, and threatfire itself only uses 2.8mb of ram. So altogether, my antivirus protection uses only 12.8mb of ram.

That's too much ram usage.



Banned.

handy
January 26th, 2010, 02:44 PM
The problem is that the Internet isn't like one big personal computer - you can't just reformat it and start again after it gets clogged up with porn, trojans, spam and other malware, it is going to have to be actively looked after. If that means kicking folks off for not looking after their machine then so be it!

I don't agree with you.

We are looking after it fine as it is thank you.

Accept that there will always be room for improvement.

People are becoming educated about computers, & the internet (albeit at varying speeds). If someone isn't computer literate, & they aren't using mal/virus-ware protection, then their windows machines will end up with stuffed registries, & eventually they will have to get someone to fix it for them because it doesn't work properly anymore.

As time goes by most people learn enough, often through costly experience to protect their machines/selves from the virus/mal-ware threat at best they can.

Saying that if people can't look after their systems they shouldn't be allowed on the net is just a tad too right wing for my liking.

ISPs that I have used, have excellent mal-ware & anti-virus software running, next to nothing gets through these days, it is a far cry from what it used to be.

We DO NOT need governments or corporations with vested interests controlling our internet freedom of choice.

Zoot7
January 26th, 2010, 03:02 PM
I honestly don't agree with something like this coming into effect. There's far too much censorship and regulation of the internet going on at the moment, we don't need to add this to the (sadly) lengthening list.

We DO NOT need governments or corporations with vested interests controlling our internet freedom of choice.
Exactly!! Just look at the the tripe the entertainment industry is getting up to at the moment and how it's affecting internet users. Democracy never entered into it for a second.

Paqman
January 26th, 2010, 03:07 PM
We DO NOT need governments or corporations with vested interests controlling our internet freedom of choice.

I take it your ISP doesn't do any traffic shaping then?

Lars Noodén
January 26th, 2010, 03:36 PM
If a kid, student, or employee is sneezing, coughing, or exhibiting other symptoms, he gets sent home both for his own benefit, so he can recover, and for everyone else's benefit so they don't get sick.

If there is a pattern in the same individual or same population, then an effort is made to try to help the improve sanitation or other practices: California's Schools About Preventing the Spread of Swine Flu (http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel62.asp). If it's a minor, the parents are contacted about helping change the behavior.

Same with the computer. If it keeps getting infected or is engaged in a practice nearly guaranteed to get an infection, then the owner needs to be contacted to clean the thing off. Sure there are individuals here or there that boldly claim to be able to keep a Windows machine clean (http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2008/07/average_time_to_infection_4_minutes_1.html) while still having it on the net, then the corrective action is not needed for them -- if they hold up their claims.

That's not what's happening there. Loads of machines are spreading infections: Take them off the net (sending home from school), contacting the owner (informing the parents), swapping Windows for Ubuntu or any other system (improving hygiene or other practices).

Tristam Green
January 26th, 2010, 03:45 PM
If a kid, student, or employee is sneezing, coughing, or exhibiting other symptoms, he gets sent home both for his own benefit, so he can recover, and for everyone else's benefit so they don't get sick.

If there is a pattern in the same individual or same population, then an effort is made to try to help the improve sanitation or other practices: California's Schools About Preventing the Spread of Swine Flu (http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel62.asp). If it's a minor, the parents are contacted about helping change the behavior.

Same with the computer. If it keeps getting infected or is engaged in a practice nearly guaranteed to get an infection, then the owner needs to be contacted to clean the thing off. Sure there are individuals here or there that boldly claim to be able to keep a Windows machine clean (http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2008/07/average_time_to_infection_4_minutes_1.html) while still having it on the net, then the corrective action is not needed for them -- if they hold up their claims.

That's not what's happening there. Loads of machines are spreading infections: Take them off the net (sending home from school), contacting the owner (informing the parents), swapping Windows for Ubuntu or any other system (improving hygiene or other practices).

You still haven't backed your other claims with data, and you're still talking about forcing users to switch to another Operating System to "improve their systems' hygiene". Complete and utter ********, especially given that the replacement is supposed to be an operating system that touts "choice" as its main tenet.

You send children home from school if they're sick; you don't jail them or execute them or tell their parents to go adopt a healthier kid.

Lars Noodén
January 26th, 2010, 03:46 PM
If a kid, student, or employee is sneezing, coughing, or exhibiting other symptoms, he gets sent home both for his own benefit, so he can recover, and for everyone else's benefit so they don't get sick.

If there is a pattern in the same individual or same population, then an effort is made to try to help the improve sanitation or other practices: California's Schools About Preventing the Spread of Swine Flu (http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel62.asp). If it's a minor, the parents are contacted about helping change the behavior.

Same with the computer. If it keeps getting infected or is engaged in a practice nearly guaranteed to get an infection, then the owner needs to be contacted to clean the thing off. Sure there are individuals here or there that boldly claim to be able to keep a Windows machine clean (http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2008/07/average_time_to_infection_4_minutes_1.html) while still having it on the net, then the corrective action is not needed for them -- if they hold up their claims.

That's not what's happening there. Loads of machines are spreading infections: Take them off the net (sending home from school), contacting the owner (informing the parents), swapping Windows for Ubuntu or any other system (improving hygiene or other practices).

whiskeylover
January 26th, 2010, 03:55 PM
Do I hear an echo?

foldingstock
January 26th, 2010, 04:09 PM
Something like this cannot be both effective and fair. To pull this off, ISPs would need staff + training to monitor for "infected PCs" and they would pass this additional cost on to the customers, raising the monthly price. When a "false positive" happens, and it will happen, customers will be disconnected for a period of time. Yes, they should be able to contact the ISP and have their connection restored, but this is inconvenient and time consuming.

Most computer systems that are infected today are run by people that do not have the knowledge to clean and properly maintain the computer in the first place. If ISPs are forced to disconnect the service of these people, chances are high that they will simply go to another ISP instead of paying hard-earned money to have their PC cleaned. Especially if you consider that most PC cleanup services leave a bad image with consumers: "Oh I need to have my PC cleaned up but last time I did that they lost all my pictures so I'll just deal with it being slow."

If ISPs are forced to disconnect users that have infected PCs, then why not take it one step further and require a background check to purchase a PC / internet service? This would insure that someone who was blocked from Comcast for PC infection doesn't jump to AT&T without cleaning their PC, right?

Instead of disconnecting, ISPs could send a notification to users that appear to be infected, letting them know that they should have their PC inspected and cleaned. This would not directly hinder online freedom, but it would cause a spike in the monthly cost. I would prefer cheap, semi-hostile environment to a secure but heavily locked down environment.

One step against user freedom, regardless of whether or not it is for "the greater good," is a slippery slope that will not end well.

chapman.s87
January 26th, 2010, 06:21 PM
The Internet is this wild west of our society. Its something new and a great new frontier and the brightest human minds are currently working to make it better. The last thing we need is the government bureaucrat OR a corporate executive in the way of that mans mind.

I think when i hear things like this i am forced to ask myself Cui Bono? If you can answer the question of who benefits you will probably find a man trying to wiesel his way into a profit he doesn't deserve by manipulating the system to his wishes.

Lars Noodén
January 26th, 2010, 08:43 PM
Given the academic discounts MS provides universities for using their software

That was one of the reactions.

It would not take that much for the ISP to clean up the mess.

Obviously they'd hire Canonical for a custom CD and some training sessions and install-fests. Some of the cost there could be recovered by charging participants.

They already have network administrators monitoring load and perhaps Windows virus outbreaks. It would not be that hard to add rules, if missing, to the IDS to work out the details.

Accounting could send out form letters along with the regular billing. Maybe that would require extra work, maybe tasks could be shuffled.

They would need one or two as liaison with Canonical to get the problem customers over to Canonical's training sessions for repeat offenders.

Tristam Green
January 26th, 2010, 10:20 PM
That was one of the reactions.

I'm not addressing any of the rest of your post until we get past the allegations that "many universities were going to remove (forcibly) Windows machines from their networks because of virus scares."

To think that Enterprise Agreement incentives were a reaction to such (make-believe) maneuvering is laughable. EA programs and academic incentives have been around for a very long time.



Far be it from me, though, to pound the idea of "freedom for everyone" into the head of someone who actually has it in his signature.

Frak
January 26th, 2010, 10:29 PM
You have got to be kidding. That is absolutely abhorrent. As a "diseased individual" I take absolute exception to that as I think anyone in the civilized world would.

Thank again and than come back.
Hark! This man speaks with great wisdom.

Radicc
January 26th, 2010, 10:41 PM
Don't forget the routers that have been botnet'd.

pwnst*r
January 26th, 2010, 10:54 PM
another reason my dmz is fail

handy
January 27th, 2010, 12:05 AM
I take it your ISP doesn't do any traffic shaping then?

The only traffic shaping my ISP does, is if I go over my monthly limit, I go back to 64bit, unless I buy a 5GB top-up.

My ISP is opposed to the national censorship system that will be implemented here (as are all of the other ISPs in Oz).

handy
January 27th, 2010, 12:15 AM
If a kid, student, or employee is sneezing, coughing, or exhibiting other symptoms, he gets sent home both for his own benefit, so he can recover, and for everyone else's benefit so they don't get sick.

If there is a pattern in the same individual or same population, then an effort is made to try to help the improve sanitation or other practices: California's Schools About Preventing the Spread of Swine Flu (http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel62.asp). If it's a minor, the parents are contacted about helping change the behavior.

Same with the computer.

It is NOT the same for a computer.

Your first problem is talking about communicable diseases that people catch, which isolation can prevent.

Your second is based on people's computer illiteracy, or the fact that they have kids in the house who haven't matured to the point where they stop clicking on everything that the internet offers them.

You know the ones, they have half a dozen different search bars added to I.E., they fill the computer with tracking mal-ware, trojans & whatever else can get past the poor old windows computers poor defences.

The kids will learn, their parents will probably learn, & the technology will continue to improve that makes it more difficult to get past the ISP, WITHOUT there being any necessity for governments to be involved.

handy
January 27th, 2010, 12:33 AM
What a joke!

<hypothetical future>

No one is allowed to buy a computer without having first obtained a licence that shows they are not a security risk to the internet.

The license will of course need to be renewed yearly, to keep the population of the country up to date with the technological changes.

Internet users will have to be tested yearly & it will only cost $100-/year (to cover administrative costs of course).

No one under 18 will be allowed to use the internet without the supervision of a licensed user, any security breaches will be met with fines, & points against their license, once 10 points are accumulated the internet is disconnected for 3 months, after which a new license test must be passed, fees paid & a 12 month probationary license will be issued which will be taken away for a 12 months if 3 points are accrued in a 12 month period. After which another costly test must be passed so as to be allowed to join the mainstream of security conscious, law abiding citizens of the internet.

</hypothetical future>

Give me mal-ware & viruses any day as opposed to governmental bureaucratic BS that has ultimately been created to place limits on the peoples' minds & bring more profit to those that have too much anyway.

ken_do_san
January 27th, 2010, 08:48 AM
I find it ironic that on a software freedom forum people support the removal of freedom.

Unbelievable.

Maybe a better way would be for the ISP's to send an advisory to the affected 'customer' providing info on how to clean and future protect their machine. Its called customer service and is more likely to retain customers.

This is what I was trying to convey in my original post.

Gallahhad
January 27th, 2010, 09:16 AM
I find it ironic that on a software freedom forum people support the removal of freedom.

Unbelievable.

Maybe a better way would be for the ISP's to send an advisory to the affected 'customer' providing info on how to clean and future protect their machine. Its called customer service and is more likely to retain customers.
Freedom is not without limits. If freedom had no limits at all, then I would not have a reasonable expectation to find my car parked outside, or money in my bank account, or my home still there for the sole use of my family.

Freedom also relies HEAVILY upon personal responsibility, and because so many people are irresponsible, it is sometimes necessary to make certain restrictions for the good of everyone. I don't think anyone here that supports this idea is calling for a permanent ban, just a quarantine until the infected computer is cleaned up. ISP's would still be involved, and would still offer support I'm sure, and those that fixed a problem quickly and accurately would retain more consumers, and gain a larger market share.

Again, we as humans, in all our strange and varied cultures, governments, and societies, restrict the mobility of machines that are not fit to be in public; this is NO DIFFERENT. A computer is not a basic human necessity, it is a very useful luxury, and an infected computer has the potential to cause grievous financial injury to individuals, business, and government. Quarantining is a very sensible solution.

EDIT:
And please, can we use apples for apples analogies? Human conditions are not the same and Machinery conditions. We destroy or cast off machines when they get old, and while some interesting discussion about nursing homes could ensue, the bottom line is we do not destroy human beings when they get old. See, giving a computer the same consideration as a human is just a bit over the top.

handy
January 27th, 2010, 11:31 AM
Businesses large & small can afford to implement protection & train their employees. Because some people don't they get caught out.

I expect that as computer literacy grows, even if for no other reason than it is the way the world is for the generations coming up, ignorance will continually dissipate in this regard.

There is NO need for government or any other kind of right wing intervention that forces people to do anything due to their computer being infected with mal-virus-ware.

There are so many other ways to sort out this problem that don't apply force.

Protect yourself & help anyone you see who needs it.

macogw
January 27th, 2010, 04:41 PM
Maybe you don't understand how much that would cost.

They didn't say "free" ;) The ISP could make quite a bit of money holding your 'net access hostage til you paid to have it cleaned up.

pwnst*r
January 27th, 2010, 04:45 PM
They didn't say "free" ;) The ISP could make quite a bit of money holding your 'net access hostage til you paid to have it cleaned up.

"They", no, but the person I quoted was assuming so judging the wording in his post.

And I totally agree with Handy - as usual, it boils down to getting the public more literate in home computing. These sorts of initiatives are nothing more than band-aids to a much larger problem.

cascade9
January 27th, 2010, 06:37 PM
Businesses large & small can afford to implement protection & train their employees. Because some people don't they get caught out.

I expect that as computer literacy grows, even if for no other reason than it is the way the world is for the generations coming up, ignorance will continually dissipate in this regard.


You're a positive one ;)

You should try talking to some of the yonger people I have, I've met a _lot_ of them that think that ant-virus....or firewalls....will just 'make the torrents d/l slower'. I've even met a few people who refuse to get microsoft updates for similar reasons, or because they think that WMP is going to tell microsoft/whoever what dodgy d/ls or porn they watch, and people who flat out say 'viruses are a fact of the internet, if your online you've got one so I'm not going to waste my d/l on some useless software'. :icon_frown: :? ](*,) :-#

I dont agree with ISP or the government cutting off your service, but I have been known to berate people who do this (I'm also known to berate some of the.....er.....more promiscuous people I know who dont use condoms, junkies who dont dispose of fits properly, things like that).

handy
January 27th, 2010, 10:29 PM
We all suffer from a great deal of ignorance in a whole lot of areas of different dimensions.

Some people use the ignorance of others to further themselves, I think a lot of this goes on in politics.

i.e. I worked for a couple of small legal firms in the past, maintaining their computer systems. As time went by, due to my exposure to them, I found that there was something that I just couldn't quite put my finger on (I'm a bit slow but I usually get there - I think lol)

Anyway, one day I was talking to the wife of one of these solicitors, & she liked to talk, she was telling me about one of her sons who when he got the results back from his final senior high school exam', said to his mother: "I've been accepted to study whatever I please at any University, I know I'm not really suited to the sciences, I guess I'll go & study law."

He went on to become a lecturer in legal studies at Wollongong Uni'.

Anyway, when she said that, the penny dropped for me. The legal eagles I worked for, plus the car dealers, were all pretty useless when it came to doing anything practical. They were ALL 12 o'clock flashers. lol

They mostly had gone to private schools, as their parents had, they grew up & went through life making money out of their skills with language, memory & a different type of logic than that required for practical solutions.

These people paid "the man & legal secretaries" that did whatever kind of job needed doing, & rarely learned practical skills beyond playing tennis, golf & knowing about wine. lol

In many parts of the world, these are the people in government. They are the ones who have never really had experience at the coal face of life, the place where most people live. Yet they often truly think that they do. They make rules, come up with schemes that are often ridiculous, expensive & counter productive.

The people that do know what is going on, are totally unsuited to political life & rarely ever go there.

No wonder it is such a strange world that we are living in!

Our world is mostly being run by people who are completely unsuited to the practicalities of the job.

How could anyone, in a world of growing human population & limited natural resources, ever see that the business model requiring continual growth could ever have a long term future?

Frak
January 27th, 2010, 10:41 PM
Our world is mostly being run by people who are completely unsuited to the practicalities of the job.

Can't remember if it was the Greeks or the Romans that drafted people to work for the government. Either way, the people making the decisions were the ones who tended to the flock and harvested the grain, not some bureaucrat. I really admired them for that.

handy
January 27th, 2010, 11:10 PM
Can't remember if it was the Greeks or the Romans that drafted people to work for the government. Either way, the people making the decisions were the ones who tended to the flock and harvested the grain, not some bureaucrat. I really admired them for that.

Billy Connelly once said that anyone who wanted to be a politician should be banned for life.

Clever man Billy. :)

KiwiNZ
January 27th, 2010, 11:15 PM
Politicians ...stop voting for them it only encourages them.

KiwiNZ
January 27th, 2010, 11:15 PM
oooops I just broke the rules

Frak
January 27th, 2010, 11:18 PM
Politicians ...stop voting for them it only encourages them.


oooops I just broke the rules

Double post and politics? Kiwi, I expected better of you :?

Kai69
January 28th, 2010, 02:15 AM
Simple stop using a virus loving OS
I had to clean a workmates daughters laptop took 7 hours LOL she couldnt use her lappy because when she went on her page all her shortcuts and taskbar dissapered in less than 30 sec her brother had used it to look at you know what she even had a free antivirus software installed so i left one that does work. Eset nod 32 .

Frak
January 28th, 2010, 02:43 AM
Simple stop using a virus loving OS
I had to clean a workmates daughters laptop took 7 hours LOL she couldnt use her lappy because when she went on her page all her shortcuts and taskbar dissapered in less than 30 sec her brother had used it to look at you know what she even had a free antivirus software installed so i left one that does work. Eset nod 32 .
Windows isn't "virus loving". If Linux had the marketshare of Windows, it too would have tons of malware targeted at it. It's the competency of the user that makes the difference.

Kai69
January 28th, 2010, 02:50 AM
Macs dont seem to have a problem with viruses Ok easy stop the kids trying to find p0rn on internet .:p see my last post also what is it with these scam antivirus programs?

Frak
January 28th, 2010, 02:59 AM
Macs dont seem to have a problem with viruses Ok easy stop the kids trying to find p0rn on internet .:p see my last post also what is it with these scam antivirus programs?
Mac's also don't have 90% or more of the market.

t0p
January 28th, 2010, 03:11 AM
They didn't say "free" ;) The ISP could make quite a bit of money holding your 'net access hostage til you paid to have it cleaned up.

As Sherlock Holmes might have said, if he was a character in "The Wire": "Follow the money, Watson. Follow the money." A scheme like this would be a right money-spinner.

But what really concerns me is that it would involve deep packet inspection, probably traffic-blocking by protocol and other invasive operations. The government say it would be done in the name of internet hygiene; cutting out viruses etc. But our friends down under should beware what their government says. When the Australian government introduced its much-criticised internet filter it said sites would be banned because of child pornography and similar offences. But surprise surprise, it turned out that certain political sites, and sites that campaign for internet freedom, were being banned too. This is prima facie evidence that the government lied. Do the Australian people really want those proven liars poking into their private internet traffic?

There's also the matter of encryption. A lot of malware covers its activities by encrypting its traffic. Will Australian ISPs be told to assume that any computer on a domestic account that uses encryption is running malware? It wouldn't surprise me if they pushed that argument. It would become effectively illegal to encrypt your internet traffic. Goodnight privacy. Bedtime for democracy.

Education is the key to cutting down on malware. Not enforcement of draconian laws. Unfortunately the Australian government has acquired a taste for the draconian.

spiderbatdad
January 28th, 2010, 06:44 AM
Billy Connelly once said that anyone who wanted to be a politician should be banned for life.

Clever man Billy.
Mark Twain's theory as well.

lisati
January 28th, 2010, 06:58 AM
Perhaps those of us who run email servers connected to the world outside our own networks should block emails from products running on "that other os" (easy enough for the more common email clients by including checks of the x-mailer header)....... or at least arrange a bit of friendly teasing and/or education....

handy
January 28th, 2010, 08:26 AM
Mark Twain's theory as well.

In philosophy & the arts, it is so hard to be original... :)