Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Corporate Anti-Virus strategies



On 15 Aug 2003, Seth Gordon wrote:
> Has anyone written an essay that explains, in a level-headed tone rather
> than in a slashdot-like polemic, how the *design* of Windows, Office,
> Outlook, etc. make them hard to secure?  I have my suspicions, but I'm
> not familiar enough with Windows programming to be sure.

It's a good question.  Education is always a good thing.  Unfortunately
you have to wonder whether people care to be enlightened.  If you just got 
whacked with a virus at home, and I either said to you "Here's a program 
you can run so you don't get viruses anymore" or I said "Let me explain to 
you why viruses happen...." I think that your typical home user wants the 
first one.  Immediate gratification.  "If I buy this Linux thing then I 
won't get viruses anymore, right?  Here's my credit card."

> Well, you could write your essay at your leisure and just keep
> sharpening up your language until the next Windows worm hits the front
> pages.  How much longer could it take?

:)  I belong to some other non-techie groups (writers groups, etc...) and 
every time they mention "email viruses" I point out that this usually 
means Outlook, and one cheap and easy way to avoid Outlook viruses is to 
not run Outlook.  Sometimes I get a nibble and people come back around 
saying "What other email programs could I run?"    So it works, in theory.  
I figure it can work on a bigger scale -- "If you're frustrated enough 
with Windows viruses, one solution is to get off Windows."  For many users 
who only use the PC for net browsing and email, they might be tempted to 
give Linux a try.  Especially if I can point them to their local Linux 
User's Group for help, and recommend a distribution that focuses on ease 
of setup.

I think part of the key is not telling people "You *should* run Linux", 
but rather "You *could* run Linux."  The former implies that they've 
already made a mistake and puts them on the defensive.  The latter just 
implies that they have options.

Duane






BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org