Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: polonus on November 17, 2016, 04:56:23 PM
-
Read: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/17/google_hacker_pleads_try_whitelists_not_just_bunk_antivirus_ids/
In some boff remarks a Google boffin wants security types to focus on tools such as whitelisting,
hardware security keys and dynamic access rights efforts like Google's Beyond Corp internal project.
Advice on safe internet use is "horrible", he added. Telling users not to click on phishing links
and to download strange executables effectively shifts blame to them and away from
those who manufactured hardware and software that is not secure enough to be used online.
With this phrase I agree "We are giving people systems that are not safe for the internet and we are blaming the user."
I.m.h.o. AV does not provide any incentive for improvement on Internet Infrasructure's security.
We actually should make a divide in three big Interweb categories: "the good, the bad, and the ugly."
1. The good are websites, hosters and cdn's (alas the minority of 'em),
where high security standards have been set, that enable visitors to safely visit such sites,
hosters, AS, and use facilitires of cloud and other services in a secure way.
2. The bad websites or potentially bad websites with an intent to abuse in whatever way
- malware, spam, scam, spyware, or condone such actions and rather report to trespassers in stead of victims
(yes, this happens, folks, and often enough (CloudFlare did).
3. The ugly, that is a category, where security is not been taken seriously,
there where website and visitor's run risk of compromittal.
In the end only category 1. should be entitled for survival,
all the others should disappear, cat. 2 will be first to go, then cat. 3.
All should be done to get the two last categories to come and fit first website classification,
by forcing them to comply with standards or take them down finally, if it seems that nothing else seems to work.
polonus