So I was browsing my Twitter's feed (which I rarely do), and one particuliar tweet from Kaspersky attracted my eyes.https://twitter.com/kaspersky/status/604019327239479296
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?