Originally Posted by Joan Archer

OK I suppose that's alright for a business but what about the home owner, especially say, the silver surfer. The majority of them aren't going to be in a position to have servers or even be able to afford the extra cost of such a set up.

I haven't really looked into the Cloud idea but as it's been mentioned I think I'd be inclined to agree that I'd not feel comfortable either having my personal data up in the clouds.

yah i think that too, if just for home.. that's expensive..lol..
but for the secure..that's balance if we spend money for it..

Originally Posted by Corrine

I have not had any issues with UAC with either Vista or Win7. However, I would like the Admin account to be able to designate programs as approved for all users (so elevation is incorporated) or as always requiring approval/elevation. The determination would not be required at installation and would be able to be changed.

I agree, that would be an improvement and a useful feature.

On the subject of Windows security, Steve Gibson has never been bashful in pointing to the raw sockets being available in previous versions of Windows. I have never heard a reasonable rebuttal to his argument that raw sockets were never a necessity and always a source of computer compromise. It has been a while since I caught up with the newest from GRC.com, but I have used his socket utility, UPNP, and Shoot the Messenger on every Windows I have installed or repaired since.

It seems to me the best source for improving security is with the ISPs. (there was a thread on a similar subject at Seven Forums, that I didn't follow) Millions of compromised computers world wide are currently spewing malicious content, filling the web with trash. An ISP can make securing one's computer part of the EULA, sort of like driving a safe auto. An ISP can easily see what computers on their network are spewing trash, they probably do now. I know a local State University that will shut off the network jack if it is seeing above normal traffic. When the computer has been cleaned, the network access is restored. One USA ISP is purposefully limiting traffic to torrent sites because of the increased use of bandwidth. If the ISPs would take responsibility for the users in their network there wouldn't be any "botnets". That threat would be severely curtailed. It would also be easier to pull the plug on offending ISPs that fail to act to keep their networks from being used by "botnets".

Cheers!

Originally Posted by iseeuu

It seems to me the best source for improving security is with the ISPs.

I'm sure we'll never see that. Other than getting all countries to agree, it would also require universal agreement on what would constitute taking a computer off-line when infected. Then, if the computer is off-line, how will they get the tools/updated definitions in order to remove the infection? I do like the idea of controlling access to torrents from a security standpoint.

Originally Posted by iseeuu

If the ISPs would take responsibility for the users in their network there wouldn't be any "botnets".

Better yet, take down the ISPs that are protecting the botmasters. They are the criminals.

Originally Posted by Corrine

I'm sure we'll never see that. Other than getting all countries to agree, it would also require universal agreement on what would constitute taking a computer off-line when infected.

You are probably correct, we may never see it. But look, connecting to the Internet is not a "Universal Right". Not everyone is allowed to sell domains. There are controls, bodies, agencies that administrate or oversee the WWW. Every ISP has to buy its access to the Internet from someone higher up the chain, every domain registrar has to abide by the rules to keep their status. It is no different with individual users and the EULA. An ISP can see which users on its network are using above average bandwidth. A little investigation would show the cause of the bandwidth usage and if is a compromised computer being used by a botnet for spam or denial of service attacks, the owner can either pay to have the computer cleaned or clean it himself. A service call form an ISP tech can verify the computer is clean and secured and network access can be switched on again. Really simple. ISPs might even be motivated to offer security services and education to its clients?

Originally Posted by Corrine

Better yet, take down the ISPs that are protecting the botmasters. They are the criminals.

If we will never see ISPs switch off individual users, I can't imagine how hard it would be to switch off an entire ISP's network. Microsoft has tried this. I have read where offending servers hosting botnet controllers have been disconnected form the Internet only to reappear shortly at another location. The problem is that the millions of compromised computers can be controlled from anywhere. But if you switch off Internet access to the compromised computers, there is no botnet to control.

The nature of assigning domains today allows for anonymous owners of a domain. Botmasters only need the domain for a few hours because they can line up hundreds and move from one to the next faster than Microsoft can track and shut them down. Even legit domain registrars can be used this way, so how do you prove they are culpable and shut them down? Again, if you take out the compromised computers you take down the botnet.

In the end, requiring an ISP to accept responsibility for its user's security as part of it's contract with ICANN or it's service provider seems to be the only way to spread the responsibility around evenly everywhere.

Cheers!

Hello Folks,

I would say UAC should be customizable. In the sense it should remember the selection and act accordingly. MSE cloud version is good !! MSE little more advance like brower intergration etc.

- Captain