Sick PCs should be banned from the net says Microsoft

Toggle sidebar
Bill_KY

Bill_KY

SatelliteGuys Pro
Original poster
Apr 2, 2008
713
0
Northern Kentucky
BBC News - Sick PCs should be banned from the net says Microsoft


"Microsoft said that to make its plan work it would need four steps, including defining a health computer, creating a trusted system for health certificates and finding a way for ISPs to process and act on them....Relevant legal frameworks would also be needed, it said."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments...

What they are saying is that sick computers should not get on the internet. While it certainly sounds good in theory. This proposal is from Microsoft is to issue "health certificates" to "prove" the computer is "worthy" to use the internet".

One could see a possible back door proposal to ban computers from the internet unless they are approved by Microsoft or some "official agency".

What If one is running Linux or Mac, no anti-virus is normally needed and since it is not Windows ...How would a "health certificate" be issued to a Linux or Apple computer since it is not run by Microsoft? How much would the "health certificates" cost? Would they be limited? Would a government agency administer it?

More importantly, could this proposal be a back door to registering computers on the internet? And keeping non Microsoft computers off the internet? Non government approved computers would be unable to connect?

In my opinion, I hope this idea is shot down before someone decides to make this into a proposal for law. While one might easily dismisses this as paranoia or pure speculation, this story is from the BBC with Microsoft as the one proposing this.

Please remember all the news stories and concerns about government regulation and censorship of the internet in the last couple of months. If this proposal came from some obscure company and the web was not under threat of censorship...then it would be easy to dismiss it.

In my opinion, this is a bad idea and I hope it never comes to pass.
 
Good idea in theory, but in practice I see it going horribly wrong. I don't care who is behind it (I have no beef with MS anymore than I do with Apple or Oracle/Sun), it can't be done correctly cause lawmakers would be involved and consumers woiuld suffer.
 
Bill_KY said:
What If one is running Linux or Mac, no anti-virus is normally needed...
Click to expand...
And where does it say MS is offering to issue "health certificates" for anything but Windows computers?

In theory, I think this is doable on the ISP level in a very formal way: you send 1000 e-mails within an hour - you're of the internet. Something like that.
But everybody except lawyers will be against it: ISP, users, FCC, etc.

Diogen.
 
Nothing cracks me up more than the Mac/Linux people who think they are automatically immune to viruses only to be astounded when one takes out their system.
 
Perhaps a complete ban is going too far, but the access to the internet should be restricted. If they start participating in DOS attacks and such they should be blocked for a while. The user attempting to look at a web page should be redirected to a warning. Simple things an ISP should notice would probably clear up a lot of bot nets.
 
Again, in theory, it shouldn't be too hard to identify a "hostile" PC.
I wouldn't mind letting Google come up with an algorithm for that and run it
(they are very good at identifying spam in GMail, I haven't had any for over a year).

The problem is, as soon as there is an entity deciding between "good" and "bad" it will be misused.
For the greater good if for nothing else. Either by companies or Homeland Security. Or hackers. Or bad coders (StreetView).

And that by itself makes this idea preferably never being implemented...

Diogen.
 
Given the rise in viruses for mac and linux/unix boxes plus smart phones and pda's plus smart appliances ( rather the potential for them ) plus custom o/s for infrastructure and government I can see both a need to have security software on all of these devices and a law requiring either the devices to have them or purchase them which I have to say I have no problem with though I'm sure those who fear the mysterious shadowy figures and black Huey's in the midnight sky will chime in on how this is an invasion of privacy and an act of communism blah blah blah. Seriously its the unprotected that get infected.
 
It would be nice if systems were in place to notify a person if their computer was infected and tell them that their computer was disabled until they fixed it.

It would be interesting to require some sort of internet driver's license requiring people to pass a test before getting access and having it revoked when they did something profoundly stupid. Running an antivirus program, applying all updates, service packs and knowing when not to install the thing that tells you it is an antivirus program, should all be required.
 
If a system is put in place to ban users from the net then they should also put a system in place to resolve the issues within the computer when such issues occur.
 
and microsoft should continue to support all their OS. A vulnerability found in an older OS would render it invalid...gotta buy a new OS folks

Hmmm I wonder where this might be coming from???
 
Microsoft IMO has a pretty good timeframe they support their OS's Heck they JUST discontinued support for Windows 2000 in July of this year. In no way do I expect any company to support a product like an OS or application forever.

Perhaps you would prefer a warranty like auto makers? 3year 36,000 web pages? Possibility to buy extended warranties? Seems silly to make them support a product forever.
 
I think sick CEO's should be banned from working too. Steve Balmer has done nothing at Microsoft to make it great since taking over. I will give him credit for not driving the company into the ground but there has been no growth. Additionally, he should never again go on stage. His enthusiasm is so phony. He tries to sound and act like Bill Gates but he is no Bill Gates.
 
This maybe dumb to say on my part but servers, websites, internet browsers, isp's and the like should have to have some sort or form of certification maybe. Correct me if they already do. The average Bob or Bobette who wants to surf the net nah......
I have often wondered if the people who create the bugs that infect our computers are not the same ones who sell us the protection software programs. The evil ones although misguided, are not dumb people.​
 
Last edited:
Frank- Your suspiciaon is well founded. But, not for the majors, at least what I can see openly. Recall all those "Speedup your PC" popup ads that popup and announce- your computer is infected and we can fix it for you, just click on here and enter your CC info to buy the fix. Clearly these guys are scamming you with real or fake infections.
 
Van said:
Seriously its the unprotected that get infected.
Click to expand...
I would disagree. We use a well-known corporate antivirus solution at work and we have people getting kruf from drive-by ads and clicking on attachments (I know, I know, DON'T CLICK ON ATTACHMENTS!!!, but for some reason they still do...). The point is, the AV doesn't catch the initial infection because it is something that the AV vendor hasn't issued a definition for, or, if they have, it hasn't passed internal ITIL Change Management controls. After the defs get updated to include the downloaded malware, the kruf gets detected and deleted by the scheduled scan.

So, even with the latest and greatest AV product and definitions, there is a lag between the appearance of new malware and your AV provides protection against it. Viruses aren't just for the unprotected.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top