Sick PCs should be banned from the net says Microsoft

Probably this kind of activity would cause IE's perceived share to drop to 30% from below 50% ;)

Paul,

But if it runs on MS software the detecting code will flag: Firefox, Chrome/Chromium and to lesser extent Safari & Opera*. And if it's Linux it's bot ridden for sure. And IE is back up to the 80% range.

YBT

* Do you remember when Opera users had return MS identities to see sites? Think what they will do to the competition that really matters.

Anybody without a personal computer geek would be effectively banned from the Internet. Say goodbye to all those moms spying on their kids Facebook accounts.

It's been said before-- pull all Windows PCs offline, and instantly there are no more botnets, hardly any spam, phishes, malware, and an instant 90% increase in carrying capacity of the entire Net.

Im all for it. Would keep me in a job for life my phone would never stop ringing.

Quoting:Although the conditions to be checked may change over time, current experience suggests that such health checks should ensure that software patches are applied, a firewall is installed and configured correctly, an antivirus program with current signatures is running, and the machine is not currently infected with known malware,

Anyone else see a Catch22 here?

(buzz) You can't get online, your firewall is configured incorrectly! "But I need to go to their website for the instructions."

(buzz) You can't get online, your virus definitions are out of date! "But I have to get online to download current definitions."

Of course exemptions would be granted for emergency situations. Microsoft thinks of everything, you know. I wonder if helpmypchasfallenandcantgetup.com would qualify as an emergency communication.

The bottom line, in this case, is the bottom line of the article:

Quoting:There may be some who would say that Microsoft shouldn't be on the internet until they get their own house in order.

What is their slogan down here "Works the way you want it.." Yeah, I want WGA, I want DRM and I want to be taken offline!!

That whole article is BS and can only have come out of Microsoft. If that's their idea of trusted computing then perhaps there is a reason it hasn't been implemented by default. Lets say we ban grandma from the dinner table at thanksgiving because she has the sniffles or otherwise cannot produce proof that she doesn't have a cold. Since she has no "certificate" then ban her from the house altogether right. Seriously, applying technology solutions to human problems is ... well, problematic. This is why internet companies are not really into shutting off internet service for computers with viruses, and are not blocking viruses from infecting client computers in the first place. When viruses badly affect an operators networks they just slow the network down. These kind of ideas only work in private networks where control is desired.

This proposal by Microsoft comes from a Microsoft position paper titled "Collective Defense: Applying Public Health Models to the Internet". But if we are to apply public health models to the Internet, that is seriously apply them, then what we really need to do is remove the infection vector.... Microsoft Windows.

From how high up does this come? The MSFT expert here, "Scott Charney", left all the full disclosure email lists a few years ago in an enormous huff when nobody would listen to MSFT about "responsible disclosure". Charney called this "information anarchy". All the official MSFT identities left Bugtraq, Full-Disclosure & etc at the same time (small loss, good riddance, really).

And doesn't MSFT risk a lot by asking for this kind of thing? Won't the research eventually get down to the real cause, poor design of Windows? Multiple-rooted file trees, pitiful discretionary access controls (permissions), marking files executable by part of their name (.exe), an unknowable list of extensions that make files executable (.LNK anybody?), confusing file format with file type and ownership, the list is almost endless.

I really, really do not want politicians deciding what is and is not "allowed" inside my PC.

I've long wondered when Microsoft would make a bid to have the Government declare all software other than Microsoft software to be illegal. This looks like a step in that direction.

It would be analogous to the "natural monopolies" said to exist in telephone service, electric power, water, cable etc.

> It would be analogous to the "natural monopolies" said to exist in telephone service, electric power, water, cable etc.

The justifications certainly would be, true. But those justifications come when the question is turned over to politicians.

Would that people would educate themselves about the concept of "natural monopolies" before it reaches that point, so they don't get fooled again.

Quoting: [...] Won't the research eventually get down to the real cause, poor design [*] of Windows? Multiple-rooted file trees, pitiful discretionary access controls (permissions), marking files executable by part of their name (.exe), an unknowable list of extensions that make files executable (.LNK anybody?), confusing file format with file type and ownership, the list is almost endless.

Oh, more nit picking. Show me real evidence. Cash in an envelope or a day on the links [golf you idiot, not the net] and good company along with an excellent meal thrown in just has more impact.

Facts, fooy on your idealism.

YBT

* Hasn't so far, except among the Egghead Elitist Class. Why should it now?