Should governments vaccinate computers the same way they vaccinate children?
newscientist.com
newscientist.com
He says internet service providers (ISP) should have the power to sever internet connections if they detect a subscriber has infected computers
They have that potential now. They just need a service contract that allows them to do so, and it's as good as done. I can only interpret the fact that they're not doing so to mean that ISPs believe the cost of doing so exceeds the costs of dealing with spam, etc.
When an ISP detects that traffic flowing across its infrastructure bears the hallmark of a botnet - such as data being directed to a blacklisted address or sudden torrents of email traffic from a single machine - they would be empowered to quarantine their subscriber, destroy any malware found on the user's machine, and vaccinate it by installing the latest security software.
What a horrible idea. Cutting the user off is one thing. Forcibly applying security software is something else entirely.
Without a knowledge of how my system is set up, they're as likely to destroy it as to fix it.
For them to do this in the first place, they'd need root access to my system. I can't even begin to enumerate the ways this is bad.
And it's probably not effective anyway. If there's an official security software, or even a small list of them, it creates an easy target for the bad guys to work around. They'll build their attack code with the knowledge of what they need to avoid.
Virus writers already do this today. They acquire a bunch of current AV programs, and test the virus on boxes with up-to-date AV. They don't ship the virus until it passes that test case.
But if it were known that, e.g., Comcast has a contract with McAfee to provide AV software, then the list becomes shorter, and may make it easier to target specific populations.
I can't find the link right now, but a story claimed that the top 3 AV programs covered 75% of the market. I don't think dropping to 1 program to test against strains the virus writers significantly.
So on one hand you have a widely-used but broken product (Windows) that needs another usually costly product (the antivirus). Both need to be kinda up-to-date in order to have this run smoothly and virus free.
So I'm not certain the government could just "vaccinate computers" (by upgrading Windows/antivirus): just think of the user-level applications incompatibilities.
But the governments might think about what does it mean to have a critical global infrastructure product that depends only on one (foreign) company: Microsoft. I wouldn't like that... So while nationalizing stuff doesn't sound really nice, perhaps the government(s) should start defining some regulations on the quality of Windows as well as a control body. But this is an even less reliable, corruption-sensitive, bureaucratic situation.
In the end perhaps it's best we leave things the way they are.
If nothing else, more diversity is good against class action breaks.
The simplest solution would be to compel operating system manufacturers (not consumers) to provide adequate safeguards similar to what the FCC does to the airwaves.
It was a pain in the ass, but I'm sure the ISPs appreciated being able to cut off infected PCs from their networks.