scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> If it went far enough, people would send out "here's a zip file with the
> >> password xyz. Unpack it with that password, rename hello.jpg to hello.exe,
> >> and run it to get an important message from your bank" and someone would do it.
> >
> >    Didn't seem to be such a problem in the unix world.

> Because there are a tiny number of unix users who would follow 
> instructions such as "you must run this attachment as admin to regain 
> access to your bank account" from a random email.  Yet there are 
> probably thousands of windows users who would simply run the attachment 
> and click "Yes" when asked exactly the same question by the OS.  If you 
> were a virus writer wanting to make money, which platform would you target?

  Well, that's kind of my point: Microsoft made it easy for viruses and
other malware to spread. The fundamental problem is that Microsoft didn't
"teach" their users to be more conscious about security. Safety thinking
didn't become a second nature to their users because the OS wasn't hammering
it into them by its very behavior.

  And by this I don't mean eg. messages popping up warning the users.
With this I am talking about the very design of the OS. The design itself
should have been such that the users who learn to use it automatically
learn an instinct that protects them from most harm.

  It's a bit like the difference between a "safe" and an "unsafe" programming
language: If the programming language, by its very design, makes it very
hard to write unsafe code, programmers who learn the language will learn
to use it safely, in a natural way. When the safety is in the design, the
language doesn't need to remind the user of it eg. with warnings.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message