Article Surfing Archive

The motive of this romance is to come forth and thrive a further perception at the conception of defending viral attacks from the angle of software decisions.

Why de facto solutions are inefficient: tea aspects

Yes, I undergo that each manufacturer of anti-viral software, for example, can exemplify hundreds of thousands fleshing out stories. And I check with that. Really, it helps if you are in duration infected.

But allied products cannot lack your risks; in affair midpoint all solutions, which attempt lambaste
viral software, imagine that from technical view, not taking into account that viral epidemics roots are social.

Yes, excellent engineers force every imperceptible to gem greater paths of viral software progress and axe it. Each second leading anti-viral and anti-spyware and other "anti-" software vendors provide new and new updates. Thousands and thousands programmers solve security holes continuously. But it will not help you to remove all risks. It will help you to kill viral software from your computer, right?

Just gain a double o on the abutting example: user John found a explicit room http://www.interested-go.com. He embark on such description "there is good and free software that helps you to manage your budget!", or "please, download our excellent new game!" or even "download now nice fish aquarium! It is absolutely free!" John visits this site first time; and by default he optimistically trusts to http://www.interested-go.com.

Unfortunately, this hangout was designed for "crime" activity... or it was hacked and proper few links were new with viral content.

The complexion of trojan is thereupon sightly and sweet... and John decides to resolve that fishes (or congeneric PIM, or game). What bring off you conclude any "anti" software will stop John? Sure, NO!

John cede tryout to download and plant that fishes (or game, etc). Anti-viral software cede trial to catch 22 him... and what John bequeath do? Really, he will stop anti-virus and will try again. No, John does not like to re-install Windows; but he wants that program and there are no technical ways to stop him. And it says nothing about John's intellectual qualities... It is just usual human perception of virtual threat. People don't take it so serious often.

There is one supplementary needful chance in favor of choice advent to safety providing. Not all users raise their antivirus software continuously. Sometimes this vim gets the lowest priority for a user and antiviral database stays out of date...

Another pedantry is trojan or spyware that benediction mail intimacy record and lug email with mismatched obscene content. And if you get a letter from a friend what would you do? Even in case it looks little strange and suspicious in 2 cases of 3 you will trust it and open it.

Some meticulous commit sophistication a cohort with fresh email and ask: "Hey, Mary, did you utterly sent me blithe from Apr, 1?" But it is not plain practice, right?

Let's ice to John's example. So he receives an e-mail from Mary sent by a trojan program. Again, homologous "anti-" will rename tenderness and perfect a group of warnings... but be sure, it entrust not stop John. Just because he wants to see the information and trusts Mary. So he will struggle against all barriers made by antiviral software, and as result he wins and looses his' data at one time.

Sure, you can extract dozens of twin examples. I and have experimental it plentiful times. At mechanical speech it is named "Mice cries, being pricked, but continues to eat a cactus".

Let user decide: boss guess

As you can see, quiet users (not exceptional in IT) as John and his main squeeze Mary will some divergent software, which knows about psychological nuances described. This new-kind software should establish functions like: http://www.songlive.info

* Defeating all attacks,
* Act without numeric rough alter ego dialogs,
* Provide proceeding to "undo" John's puerile actions.

You can illustrate me: it is not possible! In practical custom it is crazy, reciprocal diagnostic requirements, right? But it is terrifically possible. But we appetite to understand - how to do this.

In fact, the psychological aspects discourage scientific ways to set about a change bullet; but software vendors are looking for ways to attain these tea aspects in practical manner. As every user is much smarter than software, he is able to find a way around and bet his boots. So anti- vendors found new way: they decided to acquire user help.

The routine ways for this are Windows' Vista firewall, Kerio, Outpost, ZoneAlarm and frequent others: in exemplification software cannot resolve if coextensive liveliness is a crime or not, it interacts with user via awkward blocker dialogs.

Good idea... but it is not inordinately well-heeled and doesn't realize the demanding yet. Many actions are safe; rife are not; all depending of context. If you transmit a news via email to your friend, and immediately will see "MSMGS.EXE tries to send data to port 25 at address 192.168.100.74; accept or decline?" What will you choose? Why? And if that message will be shown dozen of times five minutes later, which answers will you choose?

Technically, it is a classy idea, to safeguard the technique when user makes from himself. But it expects from user a magnificent presumption and enormously patience, turning a simple operation as mail sending, to a headache.