TechCentral to your inbox


TECHLIFE
Email Print
Microsoft: ISPs should quarantine infected PCs

Clean-up tax propsed to prevent PC 'secondary smoking'


PC & Peripherals | 03 Mar 2010 : 
Microsoft has suggested that ISPs should quarantine and clean-up infected PCs before they're allowed back on to the Internet.

Scott Charney, Microsoft's corporate vice president of trustworthy computing (pictured), said quarantining systems was the only effective way of dealing with the threat of botnets on consumer PCs.

"With medical diseases we basically educate people, and sometimes if you've flown to certain countries they'll scan you for your temperature as you get off the plane," said Charney, speaking at the RSA security conference. "If you seem to be infected, you're quarantined and you're treated.

"The question is, why don't we do this for consumers? Why don't we think about access providers who are doing inspection and quarantine, and cleaning machines prior to access to the internet?"

Charney cited the case of his young son and 80-year-old mother, who both blithely click "OK" on warning message pop-ups because they either can't read (in the case of his son) or don't understand the warning.

"The reason governments and enterprises can manage the botnet risk is because they have professional IT staff; this is their job, they manage this risk," he said. "It is much more complicated in the consumer space."

Charney likened the problem of infected PCs with that of secondary smoking. "People used to smoke, and we said, look, you're going to kill yourself, but if you want to die, go ahead. You're causing cost to the health care system; we'll eat those costs, go ahead and kill yourself," he said.

"Then, of course, the EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] comes out with secondhand smoke. Suddenly, smoking is banned everywhere. You have a right to infect and give yourself illness, you don't have the right to infect your neighbour."

"Well, the computers are the same way," Charney added. "We've told people run antivirus, patch, backup your data. But if you don't do that stuff and you lose all your stuff, that's a risk you can accept. But today you're not just accepting it for yourself, you're contaminating everyone around you, right?"

Charney suggests Internet users would have to pay a tax to fund the scheme. "We pay a fee to put phone service in rural areas, we pay a tax on our airline ticket for security. You could say it's a public safety issue and do it with general taxation," he claimed.


Enjoyed this article? Share it with others!

Digg Delicious Reddit Stumble facebook Newsvine Linked In



Please make a comment

I just had to rebuild my system after an attack, so I am all for a system that will help keep everything healthy and if there is a small fee for same why not.


Myles O'Brien on 04 March 2010 16:03:26

what a load of twaddle. this is attractive to microsoft because it propounds the notion of a recognisable system as a "safe" system. quite common rhetoric in many aspects of security but no less non-sense for that. i wonder who this wizz-twit thinks should be responsible for defining who's "infected"? will it be by behaviour instead of profile? will secure communication become outlawed because it can't be monitored; should our ISPs read our email and phone us to confirm that we wanted to send it, or are we part of a botnet? what really galls me is the blatant, deliberate ignorance of liberty in the pursuit of market share. and by the way, my computer is NOT at greater threat because yours is infected; i don't need to "breathe" your "bytes". furthermore, we already pay a "tax" for this to the ISP (lost bandwith) and it is the ISP that decides whether to cut you off or not; it's simply cheaper for them to ignore the problem.


ttw on 05 March 2010 10:10:01

We have been doing this since 1995...but it always means we are playing catch up. You can also limit mail volume and other techniques BUT isn't hotmail and the US still not one of the major sources of SPAM and other similar unwanted activities? But of course you can also seek to use more secure environments, that are much cheaper than the equivelent MS products. MM


M.Maguire on 08 March 2010 13:28:32

I couldn't agree with "ttw" more. The industry (Microsoft) gave us an enviroment, they allowed to be insecure. In the late 90's problems occurred when individuals started to take advantage of it (spam, viruses, etc.). "The Industry's" decision was to allow people to pay to protect themselves by purchasing anti-virus etc. and warned us it was our problem if we got infected. Then "they" decided to market their products to mom and pop, who weren't computer literate. (That was their next revenue stream.) In the earlier 2000's, when mom and pop got infected and things got to much of a hassle for them, they tossed the desktop in the closet and said "screw it". The industry couldn't have that because that would jepordise future growth. So they they came out with "free" help in "anti" virus, "anti" malware and firewalls inwhich people could clean up and help themselves.


none on 10 March 2010 03:48:09

But we still have people that want to buy a product (a computer) that works for what they want to do without having to spend countless hours learning and updating to keep it running correctly. So this is how Microsoft is suggesting that someone else (ISP's) fix the problem, and actually "TAX" the customer that is using it, to pay for it?????????? Time to remind them who is boss and who is in charge again......


none on 10 March 2010 03:51:44


What do you think?

Name:   Email:
Your email address will not be published
Comment:
(Max. 1000 chars.)


(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above image, click here to generate a new one.)