Antiviruses, providers, spam and all-all-all
The abundance of spam and merciless DDoS, which has swept the Internet, often like to blame the users of infected PCs, through which the actual flow of malicious traffic goes. This is a completely wrong position. Everyone is to blame: PC makers, Internet providers, anti-virus companies ... all IT brethren, except for the end user. The position is absolutely logical for the user (and at the same time absolutely wild for a computer programmer): it doesn’t bother me and all right, I’m buying an anti-virus; or for example: I have 2 GB of memory now viruses do not slow down etc. And rightly so. it should be. Because viruses should not be. This is a misunderstanding in which PC makers are at fault, especially Microsoft. Because in literate, well-designed, supported and updated operating systems, viruses <= n, where n is the total number of vulnerabilities found (* NIX, yes). How many viruses are known under Linux, AIX, HP-UX, Mac OS? What, rare? And under Cisco IOS, stuck in a myriad of intelligent network hardware? It would be funny if not so sad.
The user should not (and cannot) be a super-specialist in computer security, be well versed in the intricacies of various versions of antivirus software and other uninteresting and boring nonsense. This is not his area, he did not spend years on it. However, he simply must understand such things as, for example, phishing. It is necessary for survival not only in the harsh Internet, because even children are taught not to go after unknown uncles / aunts with candy.
Unfortunately, modern home PC users often require non-trivial knowledge in the computer field. The corporate environment is a separate conversation, there for the entire fleet of cars are followed by special, skilled and highly paid people. The home user is left to himself. With broadband-Internet and “popular” Windows XP, the result is sad in most cases, because even with installed anti-virus software, the computer has every chance of catching the infection! Think about it, a conscientious user who buys a PC, learns about all the horrors of malicious code, honestly pays * extra * money, buys an antivirus, which spends system resources, an Internet channel for endless updates, blinks annoying messages all the time, does not protect the user. The question is, why such an antivirus, why such a computer?
')
Here on the XBox 360 and PlayStation 3, you can also sit on the Internet, and you don’t have to pay for some strange antiviruses. And everything works. And it does not slow down. This is the kind of computer that the user needs so that the head works and does not hurt. Of commercial companies, this position is only, perhaps, Apple with its Mac. But they are few, and the weather they in general do not. As, however, and Linux with its at best 1% on the PC.
Thus, of the huge number of home PCs currently connected to the Internet, about 90% are running Windows. At the same time, neither Microsoft nor PC brokers are in a hurry to solve the problem. Really, that to them to users, they already received the money.
What do providers do in this case? There are not so many options as it may seem at first glance.
The first and very, very popular option is to shut yourself off with laws and rules, close your eyes to everything and react only when absolutely necessary - when viral traffic clogs the entire channel, when higher providers break the feast in the fight against DDoS ... small providers have such a painful blow to pocket The problem is that this position is often taken by "heavyweights", which is simply simply financially beneficial. The channels are rubber, and lawyers will shut up any poor fellow who gets a bill.
The second, almost never occurring option is to strictly filter user traffic, immediately cut off infected computers from the network “until recovery”. Yes, from such a provider, all customers immediately run away!
Compromises are needed, but control cannot be too weakened, otherwise there will be no sense. First, if the Windows client, you need to provide it with antivirus. At the expense of the provider. Corbine Telecom zach0t service is. The rest, auuuu! Secondly, it is necessary to filter the ports. You can argue endlessly (and argue, argue constantly) but this is a fact. Ports of windows need to be cut unambiguously, with this the majority do not have questions, much more interesting, more attractive (how many copies are broken, incomparable) is the 25th port. SMTP protocol port.
The arguments of opponents of the closure of the port are as follows:
1) We have no right, we are sued, we are not fascists, etc.
2) The user needs this port to work with mail, user convenience - the law.
All this nonsense, covering the reluctance to at least do something. Since the provider itself draws up a contract with the user, the legal aspects cannot be an obstacle. This port also didn’t give up anywhere for the users.
I will explain in more detail. At best, 90% of home users are sitting at 10k, with a maximum of 20k free mail servers. Before them, this port can be left open. Let mail.ru admins have a headache about this, this is just their profile. In addition, almost all free services provide access on port 2525, just for customers behind the filtered port. They decided with them. But there are still serious serious people working for a company from home (on weekends for example). With such corporate employees, in fact, everything is simple - they either have a VPN forwarded to work, or they most likely use 465/587 ports for an encrypted connection. There are perverts who want to send mail directly from their machines. Well, such in nature as white albino giraffes are certainly found, but very rarely. In addition, I have absolutely no idea where the letter sent from the network, for example, STREAM, can reach. In my opinion, their ranges are blacklisted everywhere. So the possibility of sending a letter with a positive result even from an unfiltered provider’s network is very, very doubtful.
In general, if providers really wanted a result, rather than sawing loot and inventing hypothetical difficulties for themselves, the problems with viruses and spam would be much less, there were 10 times less.
Something like this.
PS At my house there are no antiviruses. And there are no viruses either.
The user should not (and cannot) be a super-specialist in computer security, be well versed in the intricacies of various versions of antivirus software and other uninteresting and boring nonsense. This is not his area, he did not spend years on it. However, he simply must understand such things as, for example, phishing. It is necessary for survival not only in the harsh Internet, because even children are taught not to go after unknown uncles / aunts with candy.
Unfortunately, modern home PC users often require non-trivial knowledge in the computer field. The corporate environment is a separate conversation, there for the entire fleet of cars are followed by special, skilled and highly paid people. The home user is left to himself. With broadband-Internet and “popular” Windows XP, the result is sad in most cases, because even with installed anti-virus software, the computer has every chance of catching the infection! Think about it, a conscientious user who buys a PC, learns about all the horrors of malicious code, honestly pays * extra * money, buys an antivirus, which spends system resources, an Internet channel for endless updates, blinks annoying messages all the time, does not protect the user. The question is, why such an antivirus, why such a computer?
')
Here on the XBox 360 and PlayStation 3, you can also sit on the Internet, and you don’t have to pay for some strange antiviruses. And everything works. And it does not slow down. This is the kind of computer that the user needs so that the head works and does not hurt. Of commercial companies, this position is only, perhaps, Apple with its Mac. But they are few, and the weather they in general do not. As, however, and Linux with its at best 1% on the PC.
Thus, of the huge number of home PCs currently connected to the Internet, about 90% are running Windows. At the same time, neither Microsoft nor PC brokers are in a hurry to solve the problem. Really, that to them to users, they already received the money.
What do providers do in this case? There are not so many options as it may seem at first glance.
The first and very, very popular option is to shut yourself off with laws and rules, close your eyes to everything and react only when absolutely necessary - when viral traffic clogs the entire channel, when higher providers break the feast in the fight against DDoS ... small providers have such a painful blow to pocket The problem is that this position is often taken by "heavyweights", which is simply simply financially beneficial. The channels are rubber, and lawyers will shut up any poor fellow who gets a bill.
The second, almost never occurring option is to strictly filter user traffic, immediately cut off infected computers from the network “until recovery”. Yes, from such a provider, all customers immediately run away!
Compromises are needed, but control cannot be too weakened, otherwise there will be no sense. First, if the Windows client, you need to provide it with antivirus. At the expense of the provider. Corbine Telecom zach0t service is. The rest, auuuu! Secondly, it is necessary to filter the ports. You can argue endlessly (and argue, argue constantly) but this is a fact. Ports of windows need to be cut unambiguously, with this the majority do not have questions, much more interesting, more attractive (how many copies are broken, incomparable) is the 25th port. SMTP protocol port.
The arguments of opponents of the closure of the port are as follows:
1) We have no right, we are sued, we are not fascists, etc.
2) The user needs this port to work with mail, user convenience - the law.
All this nonsense, covering the reluctance to at least do something. Since the provider itself draws up a contract with the user, the legal aspects cannot be an obstacle. This port also didn’t give up anywhere for the users.
I will explain in more detail. At best, 90% of home users are sitting at 10k, with a maximum of 20k free mail servers. Before them, this port can be left open. Let mail.ru admins have a headache about this, this is just their profile. In addition, almost all free services provide access on port 2525, just for customers behind the filtered port. They decided with them. But there are still serious serious people working for a company from home (on weekends for example). With such corporate employees, in fact, everything is simple - they either have a VPN forwarded to work, or they most likely use 465/587 ports for an encrypted connection. There are perverts who want to send mail directly from their machines. Well, such in nature as white albino giraffes are certainly found, but very rarely. In addition, I have absolutely no idea where the letter sent from the network, for example, STREAM, can reach. In my opinion, their ranges are blacklisted everywhere. So the possibility of sending a letter with a positive result even from an unfiltered provider’s network is very, very doubtful.
In general, if providers really wanted a result, rather than sawing loot and inventing hypothetical difficulties for themselves, the problems with viruses and spam would be much less, there were 10 times less.
Something like this.
PS At my house there are no antiviruses. And there are no viruses either.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/66951/
All Articles