It’s hardly newsworthy that security experts at the RSA Conference this week pointed to malware as the biggest threat facing the Internet today. However, a more thought provoking, if not somewhat controversial idea about malware was put out there by a noted security expert who offered that “the most effective approach to tackling botnets would be to impose penalties on people who allow their computers to become infected, making users take more responsibility.” Read the story here.
While it’s critical that we explore new solutions, the idea of holding consumers responsible for becoming infected with malware is hard to imagine. For starters, given that between 20 to 40 percent of malware is not detected by endpoint security software, is it reasonable to expect every day Internet users to protect themselves from a continual barrage of malware-based attacks? Our best and brightest security experts have been unable to address the Malware: A generic term for a software that is designed to disable or otherwise damage computers, networks and computer systems LookingGlass Cyber (n) - another type of cold that can destroy a computer by latching on to destroy other programs. threat. Will a largely non technical Internet audience significant reduce malware problems because of the threat of penalties?
Clearly, consumers have a responsibility to take reasonable precautions in order to protect themselves from online attacks. But it’ll take new approaches by businesses, security providers and government to really make a dent in the problem. Consumers are the weak link in the security chain. Social engineering combined with increasingly sophisticated technical attacks are too much for the average Internet user to overcome. A big part of the malware solution has to be hardening the consumer against human-based vulnerabilities. Otherwise, we’ll create an Internet that is not practical for use by the average Joe.