Dear Mr. Winkler, you relly seem to have a gift, since everytime i see one of your post you've already unleashed the anger of at least one commenter.

 This comment is for the microsoft "lover". I honestly do not like the fact that Microsoft releases weak operating systems and always claims that the user is responsable for keeping up to date its software. This does make any sense sinnce its proves that what we originally bought (or were force to buy as with new pcs) was not up to meet its original specification.

 But lets face it, in the everchanging world of technology who could do better job?. ?You mention linux and unix, those are great OS, but who is going to teach John Doe how to use its wordprocessors, spreadsheets, databases or other software? Self-learning is possible, but most of the time impractical, not every one is a computer geek.

And suppose everybody turn to linux and forget that windows ever existed, what will prevent someone developing a malware for those OS. Today, this will probably end up as a geek trying to fool another geek, but if large number of people is a matterof time you'll see nigerian mails coming out of a open suource based OS.

Just look at the recent example of firefox and IE, in the beggining everybody loved firefox (i must admit i still do), since it was considered safer than IE. But even this robust free browser now needs more frecuent security updates.

What we need is to develop layers of protections and some sort of a collaborative cyberpolice and/or neigborhood cyberwatch groups. We need volunteers and profesionaly trained (and well payed) people ( plenty of bots will help too) whose work will be to survey and patrol it asigned subnetwork. If not, then all tjhe internet should e start to ve treated as a high crime area, and the iron bars should be put in every door, windows or hole.

"A few years ago, the ISP we use in the office (cbeyond) called us to let us know a computer was infected - relaying tons of spam. We isolated the problem to a specific laptop, which had antivirus and anti spyware/malware running, then we wiped it. How did it get infected? We don't know."

That's the point. MS software is CRAP inviting abuse. The antivirus people can only protect you from a virus once they KNOW about it and take the time needed to write something to counter it. That means the HACKERS that want to OWN YOUR BOX are always a step ahead, and will always be able to co-opt a definite number of PCs per unit time.

The laptop got infected because it was running an inferior operating system - sorry, but I just never will get tired of saying so until "windows" is dead, dead, dead.

COUNT the hours you've spent REMEDIATING something that MICROSOFT BROKE FOR YOU - machine crashes losing hours of work, reinstalling the OS a few times to make it work correctly once, on and on. MULTIPLY that by your desired hourly wage. THE RESULT is the amount of money Microsoft has RIPPED YOU OFF FOR over time.

If maintaining Microsoft Servers is a "good living", why? Because it chalks up a lot of billable hours, right? Well, how STUPID a user do I have to be before I "get it" and look for something better? So that I don't have to support all the MCSEs in my neighborhood - let them find real, honest work.

Dump Microsoft and start finding out how nice computers can really be.

What I find "despicable" is being forced to buy Operating System Software that SUCKS from a company that can't code-author its way out of a wet paper bag, yet makes as certain as it can to stop people using anything else. I also think it's outrageous to blame the hapless users of such software for the SOFTWARE's problems.

Of course, I'm referring to MICROSOFT SOFTWARE, which apart from costing millions of people untold hours of lost work and lost data, also materially assisted the ELECTRONIC VOTE FRAUD that gave this country two false terms of a protofascist megalomaniac ... anyway ...

Yeah, why is it that every time we hear about "damages" we always hear about the "users who failed to protect themselves", but we never hear the TRUTH?

(1) Microsoft Software is a threat to national and international security. it offers an unending stream of exploitable hacks of the nature HACKER OWNS YOUR BOX (see cert.org.) It means that Joe Criminal can send out a virus and end up taking over thousands of PCS and then put them to work SPAMMING YOU ALL DAY (thank Microsoft for the WORLDWIDE SPAM PROBLEM. That's two great contributions to our quality of life, Mr. Gates. SPAM and neocon EVM fraud.)

(2) The alternatives (Unix, Linux, Mac OS/X {sans the MS software}) work better - much, much better, and are not pervious as sponges to hackers.NO NEED for "protection" or $50 per year or anything silly like that. A 24-year old graduate student wrote an OS kernel that is STILL NOW faster and better than ANYTHING MS has written. And most of the alternatives are FREE.

The despicable people, then, to my mind, are the jerks who refuse to abandon Microsoft, despite seeing what a nice world it would be if Microsoft were put out of business. Those people are also jerks that defend Microsoft or the use of Microsoft software - make them pay the damages and they'll change their tune.

"Failed to protect myself", my a**. I use an OS that doesn't NEED DIAPERS AND DAILY CHANGING. Quit living in the MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA WORLD OF DISCOURSE, and QUIT BLAMING ANYONE BUT THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE ATROCIOUS SOFTWARE. You will find them in REDMOND, WASHINGTON. Making a hell of a lot of money off their Garage-ware from PEOPLE LIKE US.

The best "protection" for PCs is to prevent an MS OS from being installed on them in the first place, and that's a FACT.

===

See more (deservedly) angry posts vs. MS in the "Storm Worm threat revisited" thread. 

Insurance.....no. We're already insurance poor, and my guess is that when it comes time to pay up, they won't. And, I have a sneaking suspicion that it would end up cheaper to buy a new computer than take out insurance.

What needs to happen, is for the powers that be to see the people who create the viruses as the threat that they really are. They have to start going after these people, and I don't buy that they're too hard to track, as law enforcement of whatever kind seem to be able to trace back computer users when they really want to.

Then, when they catch these people (and I believe if they work at it, they could get many of them), throw the book at them. No slap on the wrist with a promise not to do it again. Depending on the type of virus they're spreading, they could be treated as a security threat or even internet terrorism threat. But don't just let them walk away. And if the virus creators are international, then go after them as you do any other intnational criminal causing havoc.

I believe the days of some kid just sitting in their room with nothing better to do than to create a virus are not gone, but is also not the average profile any longer. More and more are individuals or groups looking to do harm. And unless the punishment starts fitting the crime, there will be no let up. And while I don't beleive that we'll ever be rid of virus creators, we can eliminate some of them, at least.

So what's the solution? Internet users' insurance? (Per your "relevant" analogy.) How about actual virus spreading? Can people who spread viruses be held accountable for it?

What's the solution here?

...agreed, massive and persistent doses of antivirus simply can't protect you as threats evolve.

White listing coupled with zone alarm is the closest thing to actual prevention. 

A year or so ago, I remember one of the anti-virus companies stating that viruses and such are appearing faster than they can come up with solutions and because of this, a virus could be out for quite a while before there is something available to counteract it.

I lost my laptop to a virus a few years back that was up to date in anti virus. In fact, it had 2 antivirus programs (a paid and a free, both updated daily) as well as a very good firewall. So what happened? It fell within the crack of the new virus not yet having its' cure.

This is why I beleive that unless you know for a fact that someone is out to saboutage another's computer, you can't hold them responsible for a virus you pick up.  

I understand your support for safe surfing.  You just want users to take a few seconds to buckle up before they traverse into cyberspace.

While I totally agree, I think there's a slippery slope when it comes to assessing "losses and other problems for third parties".

Sorry but I really have problems when people counter an analogy with a completely irrelevant analogy.  If you want to use the analogy of a car in the same example you gave, if someone vandalizes a car, you go to the police, report it and whatever else.  If someone vandalizes your garden, then you report it to the appropriate people.  Frankly, facilitating damages to yourself is irrelevant to my arguments

However if you follow the analogy of creating damages to third parties, which is the point of the argument, if you neglect your garden and it becomes home to trash, rats, whatever else, and decreases property values and creates health and safety hazards, there ARE laws on the books that will fine you for your neglect and you could also go to jail depending on the severity of the offense.  Thank you very much for creating a garden analogy that only further helps prove my point.