Microsoft Wants Infected PCs Booted Offline

[Darkv1]

This would cause so many issues from false positives. Also about the time that a false positive impacted a business there would be suing the likes of which have never before been seen...

 

[rooket]

I used to firewall systems off the LAN so I could clean them up. Good idea but it is always more convenient to still have internet access. Can infect a lot of PCs with nasty trojans on USB memory stick and multiply the problem otherwise.

 

[Darkerson]

Maybe MS needs to be booted offline to make them shutup when they come up with these stupid ideas 😛

 

[alphadark]

My father, sister, family in law, etc wouldn't be able to play on the internet.......... I love this idea, saves me a lot of wasted free time.

 

[ctmk]

[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]VPN's can take care of that.[/citation]
sadly VPN also needs internet and/or network connection.

 

[nebun]

it's not going to happen, you can't deny service if someone pays for it

 

[Hilarion]

Another attempt by industry to control our use of the devices that we BUY. I do not "rent" or "lease" my computing equipment. I BUY it.

To work this would have to "spy" on the computing appliance. It could be used to "terminate" the connections of "undesirable" programs.

I wonder when the RIAA and MPAA started funding this outfit?

 

[Shin-san]

[citation][nom]dextermat[/nom]Hey i got a great idea for Microsucks, make an OS that is secured.How instead of paying big CEO bonuses to some that doesn't deserve it or instead of investing useless anti-piracy. Pay to developer better security!!!! If your Os is secured and not shoved down costumer's throats (vista junk). People might be interested in investing money in something that is secured . People might be ready to pay for QUALITY[/citation]
Actually, Windows has gotten to be pretty secure, especially vs Mac OSX. However, virus writers are targeting the OS that's 94% or higher of the market share.

 

[K2N hater]

It has nothing to do with viruses. They've been around for decades now and Microsoft doesn't really wants to end them though it's very possible to fix Windows security. Instead, they're using their own failure to "allow" themselves to control directly which PCs are allowed to use the internet and which ones do not. That implies 2 things:

1. All Windows piracy = booted;
2. Whoever the government dislikes = booted.

 

[smashley]

Granted, this is a ways off and there are many ethical questions and potential pitfalls, but I think this is a good idea to a certain degree. Any virus/trojan/worm/etc that is self-propagating or even the end-user actively sending out to infect others (such as mom forwarding on some infected chain letter) could be identified by the Cloud and cordoned off from the internet at large until the issue is cleared up. Less severe infections that have no immediate threat to others could simply be cleaned up without disconnecting. Of course, this whole theory is open to exploitation at several levels with current technology.

Basically this would involve a cloud a/v with access to a software firewall. When infections are detected, lock down the connection (except of course to the a/v servers to update definitions and clean the pc of infections. This could also be used to educate those that simply don't know better. Give a popup during the cleaning process with a message explaining what is going on and why, and how to avoid re-infection.

Alternately, each ISP could have it's own detection system, probably cloud based as well, and block traffic at their end (using DHCP to place the infected connection on an isolated subnet with limited access?) rather than using a client side firewall. I'm not sure of the legalities, but I'm sure there are some ISPs out there that reserve the right to disconnect customers to protect their other clients. At least this way the ISP would also be responsible for clearing the infection as well. Corporate customers would run into trouble with this though, as disconnecting an entire company would certainly have serious ramifications.

One of the many pitfalls, in addition to those already mentioned by others is that it could take a considerable amount of bandwidth to analyze traffic for suspicious behavior and trace it back to it's origin. Of course with all those people getting kicked off the internet, there would be bandwidth to spare.

In the mean time, as others have mentioned, the best defense is education. I all people should have to pass a competency similar to ecdl/icdl to be able to own/operate a computer, though that, again, would be difficult if not impossible to enforce.

Wow, I really rambled on there. Hope at least some of it made sense. As this concept is still more or less theoretical, I feel like I can ignore some of the more glaring problems for the time being.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

False positives, I've got over 30 on my computer. If they do this all it will do is cause an extreme amount of viruses you be created all at once.

 

[rohitbaran]

[citation][nom]djackson_dba[/nom]Great in theory, but much like medical infections the possibility of false positives is very real. I wonder how Scott Charney would react if his system was booted off the internet on a false positive while he was in the process of last minute updates to a critical board meeting?[/citation]
Not gonna happen. He is a high ranking official and MS won't do it for its own benefit.

 

[someguynamedmatt]

As everyone else has said, it's a good idea, but just won't work. There are so many things out there that appear to send out the exact same traffic that half of the world's population would be without internet. All everyone needs is a good anti-virus suite... or any anti-virus at all... and they'll be fine. I'm running Norton (don't flame...), and it works just fine. We don't go around shooting sick people because we don't have immune systems now, do we?
Simply put, there are two good ways of going about this - a good offense, and a good defense. MSoft is going the offensive route and assuming that we can't handle the viruses that are out there.
And on another side note, I don't care at all what they say, I just don't want anyone even coming close to tampering with my internet connection. I know they will, and it's not that I'm doing anything... err... questionable, but what's on my computer is my own property, and you're damn right I know what's coming and leaving through my ethernet cord. I don't need your eyes on my PC making sure I can handle myself...

 

[Graham_71]

[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]If we licensed and educated these people, and set proper age limits for internet access (i.e. no kids under 14 without an adult), we could solve all these problems, and make the internet a better place for all of us. Instead, everyone is allowed access and we all suffer because of it.[/citation].

So like a driving test but for computers, pay for the education to start with, pay for a test, pay for a yearly check-up, pay if your computer is infected.... That'll keep the tax man happy until they find a way of taxing the air we breath. How about a airflow monitor surgically fitted to the windpipe, mini turbine powered, wifi with its own MAC address....

A better solution would be for ISP's to have the power and responsibility to make sure all their clients have adequate anti virus measures in place before going online. It could make it a legal requirement in ISP's Terms & Conditions that all clients must install and maintain security software either provided by them or an approved 3rd party. This security software would have to confirm it's status every time a user logs on before access beyond the ISP's home page is granted.

 

[eddieroolz]

It is a nice idea in theory, but unfortunately internet is the reason why the computers are infected, and at the same time the way it will have to repair itself. So being cut off from the net would make it very difficult to fix an infection.

 

[matobinder]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]The only reason Linux is considered more "secure" is because nothing of importance runs on it. 95%+ of the World runs windows so where do you think a hacker is going to concentrate his time? Same thing with MacOS.[/citation]

This is kind of true. Windows is the main target for hackers, as most all home computers and executive time business runs on Windows. But the statement that "nothing of importance runs on it(Linux)" is completely false. Your modem/router is probably running Linux.

Many business's have huge install base's of Linux/Unix machines doing very important things. They just are not accessible to the outside world as much. The Windows machines are just easier to get at.

 

[Onus]

More effort needs to be expended on identifying the writers of viruses and malware, AND those who hire them, so they can be proven guilty then executed.
...
Rather than saying "this won't work" (probably true, today), maybe it would be better to try to figure out how it could be made to work, at least in part. For example, something like Clean Access Agent (used by any number of organizations, like my niece's college) could be used to prevent network access unless an approved anti-virus program, firewall, etc. is installed. Yes, there's a small performance hit, but on modern equipment it isn't too bad.

 

[jabba359]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]it's not going to happen, you can't deny service if someone pays for it[/citation]

That's what I keep telling their pimps...

 

[antilycus]

ORRR all the dumb people that get infected can be punished. I've been virus software free for my life and never once have I gotten a virus. it's called smart surfing...try it.

 

[techguy378]

If people don't have antivirus software installed on their PC they should be booted off of the internet. Considering Microsoft offers free antivirus/antimalware software there is no excuse to leave your PC unprotected. People need to stop being lazy.