Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: Security and the Under 30 User
From: Brian Altenhofel <brian () altenhofel com>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:01:52 -0600
I fall into the Under 30 category (I'm 21), but I don't belong in the group. I've been into IT security since I was 12. There's a reason that I haven't been a victim yet: security. I have friends about my age that have had their bank information intercepted by someone multiple times. The reason they give: "the bank got hacked and my information was stolen." It's impossible to get them to understand that using the school's WiFi (or any other open access network) for sensitive transactions such as those dealing with financials, e-Bay, MySpace (for some people, they feel worse about their page being changed than they do losing a few grand), etc. is not a good idea. They say "who's gonna listen in?" Even if I show them that all I have to do is sit down with my laptop and pick up everything that is being transmitted across the network, they still think that out of the 12,000 students on campus that no one will listen in. It's hard to explain that certain people are bored and enjoy doing that (plus, you can make money at it.) I've even put on my MySpace page (which has not been updated in forever) a CSS script where you normally put your templates that people use. It changes the "Home" link to NASCAR.com (I'm a big fan). I show them that 99% of the time when their MySpace page has a bunch of crap added to it, its their template. They say that someone bought a bunch of stuff on eBay with their account. I first ask them if they pissed anyone off, and then if they used public internet somewhere. Usually, if they pissed someone off, they also have a password of abc123 or (this one made me laugh) 1234567890qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm. If they used public internet access somewhere, I tell them "it's your own damn fault." People are stupid. That explains every bit of it. Have you seen "Idiocracy"? Yeah, I know, it's a Mike Judge movie (Beavis & Butthead), but it's my generation. You know, what eventually happens in that movie might be an exageration, but it's what is happening. It'sa fact of life: idiots reproduce faster and more frequently than people who use the head which is on their shoulders. Look at the couple with 9 kids within 8 years. They generally fall into that category. Where am I going with this? The answer to your question about under 30's is that people are stupid, naive, and just plain dumb. Any more with the education system we have, we are taught that it is never our fault and the government will always make it right. We're also taught that you do not have to do anything to succeed. That's why I skipped my junior year of high school (graduated in only 3 years rather than 4... and only had to take one class outside of 3 years worth to do it) and quit college after a semester. School was loaded with BS about not going to fast for the other students, and college had even more of it. People read what is on the box and assume it is right. "This is supposed to remove spyware..." Why does Spybot find 14437 infections that the box you paid $39.95 for doesn't???? People assume that if it is available, there must be nothing wrong with it because the government as already taken care of it, right? Its along the same lines as having children to increase your disposable income. If it came in an email, it must be true. Most of my peers are basing their votes on email rumors. I told a friend of mine that I voted Obama in the primaries. He forwarded me an email about how Obama is a member of al-Qaeda and said that was why I should not vote, the proof is in the email. We are taught to believe that if it is in print of some kind (whether it be newspaper, email, junk mail) it is true - just don't believe everything you see on the 10 o'clock news. (We are also taught that if we do our own research, it can't be right. I need to cite a reputable source that shows that I did my own research. That's a whole 'nother deal there.) I've never understood why people can be so dumb. I can tell someone the password to their email account, and they ask how I knew, and I tell them "it's your girlfriend's name" or "it's your car" or even show them that I can sniff it on the network, and they say that I must of hacked it somehow. To me, that's not hacking... that's just playing around. I wouldn't mind if we took warning labels off of everything. It might rid us of many of our problems. Then again, we might end up in a world of radioactive idiots reproducing asexually. (Think crystal-meth trailer trash crossed with John Cusack's character near the end of "Fat Man and Little Boy" dividing randomly in public.) Not a good visual. --Brian Altenhofel On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 09:25 -0800, net sec consule wrote:
Hi, First, the disclaimer: I am over 40, have never been 'cool' and I have always been considered 'the tall, lanky, four-eyed geek.' But I don't get the under-30 crowd's attitude towards IT security. Can someone please give me a clue? I am at a loss how to respond to the attitude I hear, and it impacts my client's security and my credibility. I have been doing network security consulting for over 15 years. I also do several public service IT security presentations to community and professional groups each month. In either environment, I consistently get a hostile reception from those under 30. The attitude I get is "IT security is a bunch of moronic bull (expletive deleted) dreamed up by paranoid moronic geezers to justify their existence." I my consulting practice, I often find where under 30 users either don't have anti-virus or anti-spyware installed. Or, if their company has installed it, they have disabled it. They label the AV concept 'stupid' and believe that malware is just a fact of life and you should 'get over it', and that it really isn't as bad as 'people like me' claim it is. I also find that the majority of the younger crowd has either disabled the anti-virus that came with their personal computer or did not renew the subscription when it expired. You mention key stoke loggers and other spyware, the attitude I get is "If you don't have anything to hide, then you have nothing to worry about." Or, "Why should I worry about privacy? Every aspect of my life is already out there for anyone to read in my blog on MySpace." If you bring up all the malware slowing down their computer, you get arguments that AV software slows it down worse. I also get the attitude that "Everything I need to keep is on my flash drive, so what whenever my performance starts to (expletive deleted), I just blow away the hard drive and reinstall." Mention Joe Lopez and his loss of bank funds, and the attitude is that his case is an anomaly; "Why haven't other cases made the news? He must have done something to p-o BoA." And it never fails that someone claims to have a friend that had money stolen from their bank account or credit card, and the bank put the money back. I bring up that we are all paying for such losses by lower interest rates on savings and higher credit card and bank free rates, they could care less. (A couple of side note to banks: 1) I have had many people claim that they would be willing to pay $5 to $25 per transaction just to be able to continue to use online banking if that was what was required to offset the fraud costs. When probing deeper, the per transaction cost appears to be about one-half hour's pay. Just for the convenience of not having to write a check or use snail mail. 2) I have heard several of the younger crowd claim that it is common practice that when you get mad at your bank, just post your credit card information on-line so that the bank gets a bunch of fraudulent charges against the card and cancels it. They see it as a way to punish the bank for upping their interest rate or imposing late fees.) In the corporate world, the attitude is even worse. I have a client that recently implemented web content filtering that blocks the social networking sites, blogs, chat rooms, and other non-business content. That resulted in the mass resignation of under 30 staff, because "I can't work here if I can't keep in contact with my friends while I work." Some are even screaming "age discrimination" because sites like FoxNews or CNN 'that the old geezers use' were not blocked. Can someone please explain this attitude? Why the fierce resistance to anything relating to security? Why the "I don't care about privacy" attitude? Why do they have to be in constant communication with their friends, to the point they would rather be unemployed than out of contact? I do not understand and cannot comprehend these attitudes! Please enlighten me! Thanks. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Current thread:
- Security and the Under 30 User net sec consule (Feb 07)
- RE: Security and the Under 30 User Dan Denton (Feb 07)
- RE: Security and the Under 30 User net sec consule (Feb 11)
- Re: Security and the Under 30 User Jason Thompson (Feb 12)
- RE: Security and the Under 30 User net sec consule (Feb 11)
- RE: Security and the Under 30 User Dixon, Wayne (Feb 07)
- Re: Security and the Under 30 User Patrick Hendrick (Feb 08)
- Message not available
- re: Security and the Under 30 User Jon D (Feb 07)
- RE: Security and the Under 30 User Dan Denton (Feb 07)
- Re: Security and the Under 30 User Brian Altenhofel (Feb 07)
- RE: Security and the Under 30 User Malhoit, Lauren (Feb 08)
- RE: Security and the Under 30 User Worrell, Brian (Feb 08)
- Message not available
- Re: Security and the Under 30 User Chris Pick (Feb 08)
- RE: Security and the Under 30 User Mason, Samuel (Feb 11)
- Re: Security and the Under 30 User Mike Hale (Feb 11)
- Re: Security and the Under 30 User Chris Pick (Feb 08)
- RE: Security and the Under 30 User Timmothy Lester (Feb 11)