Jump to content


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.

Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.


[Talk] Is the user able to assume a source is legitimate?

  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 Aura


    Bleepin' Special Ops

  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,697 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:50 AM

Posted 28 May 2015 - 09:01 PM

So I was browsing my Twitter's feed (which I rarely do), and one particuliar tweet from Kaspersky attracted my eyes.


Do you agree with what they say? Do you think that an user can really decide wether a source is legitimate or not? We are talking about every kind of users here, from beginners to advanced (even neophytes). Personally, I think this is true for advanced users, but for beginners to intermediate, I cannot say the same. There's just too many flaws in that statement, I don't even know where to begin and how to put it. All I can do is ask questions:

Can you really trust something without basing yourself on anything?
Can you really trust something without having any experience with that it's related to?
Can you really trust something without knowing the consequences that can occurs if you decide to trust it?
Can you really trust something that is posted on the Internet, a place where everything "exists", but not everything is true?
Why wouldn't it be the user's job to decide whatever a source is legitimate or not? After all, the user is the weakest link (stealing from you quietman, sorry) when it comes to computer security. If the user fail, can the protection behind him really protect him?
What if the user decides that a non-trustworthy source is legitimate, but the protection he have tell him otherwise? Who's right and who's wrong? Whose job does it becomes then?

There's just so many points that are unclear in that statement, so many ways this can be turned around that I cannot see how it can be true. What do you guys think about it?

Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users