Do you have a licence to use this computer, sir?

[Curley_Boy 0]

I think this must have been discussed by me (or some other person) before, so if it has forgive me, but I have something to get off my chest.

 

I've just helped my dad upgrade his Quicken software to the latest version and it was a *painful* process. I had to prompt him EVERY step of the way. He is not new to computers he has been using them since the days of the ZX spectrum (and even programmed a few games on that for me when I was little). This is the man to taught me how to use DOS (which for months was a complete mystery to me), and yet this man cannot figure out even the simplist functions of MS's latest and greatest: XP

 

Perhaps it's just me and the XP gui is really unintuative. I've met many people (dad included) who can't get their heads round the concept of an "install wizard". They don't know how easy they've had it since the days of 95! For most people the problem of installing any application downloaded from the web (or wherever) can only begin once they've actually remembered where the file has been downloaded *to* (cue hours of frantic hard-disk searching, and cursing for the lack of an intelligable search function)!

 

I don't know, can we really blame MS for all our security woes, when most people have difficulty getting to grips with even the most basic Windows tasks? Windows XP has a built in firewall, restricted user accounts, a whole host of system repair tools, and even the "evil" IE and OE can be locked down pretty tight (and with automatic updates, the OS installs security patches as they are released).

 

I just wonder if so many of these worm and virus wouldn't be half so lethal if people had their machines set up securely in the first place?

 

Simply configuring XP correctly would eliminate most virus and spyware problems (or at least severely restrict the amount of damage such attacks cause).

 

But in the after-math of any such news-worthy attack everybody points the finger at the programmer and not at themselves.

 

That's why I think before somebody is required to own a PC with internet connectivity (which is most of them these days) they should first have to pass a basic "security awareness" test or something. Starting with how to configure your browser and firewall properly, then "what is a virus-scanner and why do I need one?", "Spam and how to avoid it", "Is this email genuine?" and "If it sounds too good to be true, it is: DON'T CLICK THAT BANNER!" etc...

 

I suppose the simplist thing people could do is get in the habit of backing up on a regular basis, but even that is beyond most of them! (I back up my files in triplicate and have a copy on my person at all times).

 

If you had a car and then you hopped in it one day... did 120mph, on ice, causing a fatal pile-up... would the judge show leinancy because you *really* needed the car for work, but never found the time to take a driving test or get proper insurance? Or imagine the insurance company asked to pay out on a claim by a man who couldn't be bothered to lock his doors and windows each time he left the house.

 

If people have time to use a computer for lesuire, then they have time to learn how to use it "safely". I'm sick and tired of people bemoaning Window's lack of security. In a home-based environment an NT based OS can be made pretty solid and secure without too much work (even 3.x versions, although 2000+ is better). I've been running NT based OSes now for over 3 years, and I have had no problems with viruses, hackers or spyware (even using IE and OE in the early days... and I don't think that was just luck).

 

What do the rest of you think? Could people do a better job of securing their data, or is it down to the software companies to "keep us safe"?

[jmmijo 1]

Good idea however this wouldn't work, i.e., a basic operations test. Why ?!? Well so far the use of a computer, infected or clean hasn't caused any loss of life. Until such a time as it does, the two major effects this has on the rest of us is lost productivity and of course this in turn causes financial loss, both on a personal and professional basis.

 

You would think however that the financial incetive would be there but perhaps until you see a huge loss of any one countries GDP, I don't think you going to see much of a call for something like this.

 

I do however suggest you always give some tutoring on the basics of computer operation to your clients, for a fee of course

[DosFreak 2]

Quote:

That's why I think before somebody is required to own a PC with internet connectivity (which is most of them these days) they should first have to pass a basic "security awareness" test or something. Starting with how to configure your browser and firewall properly, then "what is a virus-scanner and why do I need one?", "Spam and how to avoid it", "Is this email genuine?" and "If it sounds too good to be true, it is: DON'T CLICK THAT BANNER!" etc...

This is done in the USAF before ANY access to their networks. This is also done for any big business that requires computer access. Now for home use....this shouldn't be necessary. The ISP should be the ones scanning/blocking for spyware,adware, viruses. It's VERY simple for them to do and doesn't even have to involve invasion of privacy.

[jmmijo 1]

We should all go back to using an SSH connection along with Pine and Lynx. Who needs all this graphics goo-gaa anyways