We'll all be rooned Part II

In yesterday's blog, I drew attention to an article in Business Week in which we learned that research by Microsoft had found that 62% of "home and small business computers" were infected by trojans, and that, even after cleaning, 20% had become reinfected within 15 months.

Furthermore, according to the article, other research had found that much the same percentage of large businesses (62%) were also infected, despite almost all having antivirus protection.

But that's not all, the article told us: according to AusCERT, Australia's Computer Emergency Response Team, the reason for the high level of infections is quite simple: the most popular brands of antivirus products just don't work: the catch only 20% of new viruses. The report added, "AusCERT declined to name the AV companies publicly, but in case you didn't know, the leading AV vendors are Symantec, McAfee, and Trend Micro, in that order."

So OK, that's the article in summary. Hidden inside this tale of woe is a can of worms, which we can examine together over the next little while. For now, let's think the alleged ineffectiveness of the antivirus programs.

For those with eyes to see, recent years have provided many clues that something was seriously wrong on the computer security front:

• Webroot Software Inc., makers of a leading brand of antispyware software, claims that as at August 2006, "89% of consumer PCs" were infected with spyware;
   


• Industry analysts Ciphertrust claims that over a quarter of a million PCs at any one time have been turned into zombies, for use by spammers and others. According to a press release from Senator Helen Coonan, Australian Minister for IT, these zombie computers include many run by ordinary users;
   


• Other industry research suggests that up to one in ten computers may be, at any given moment, infected with some kind of virus.

This leads me to wonder: is it actually possible now to keep computers safe on the Internet, and, if so, under what conditions? This is a question I will return to shortly.

(In the meantime, the title of this article comes from a much-loved Australian poem of the type known as 'bush ballads'.)

"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan

While thinking about your firewall, think too about your antivirus program ... and despair!

(By the way, we use NOD32 at the Club, and so far as I can tell, get very few infections. But then, if this report is right, how can I be sure?)

Be safe OR be connected, not both.

As a home user, one sometimes finds oneself having to choose between software that works, and software that is usable. Firewalls are a case in point.

The other day, I noticed an article in PC World which proclaimed, "Free firewalls outclass paid-for ones, test reveals". Intrigued, I decided to investigate.

According to this article (written in the middle of last year, and hence possibly out of date), the very best firewall in the world is a free program called Comodo. OK, so I get and install it. Yep, it sure works well ... provided that you know how to use it!

The trouble is that Comodo, like many other security programs, demands the user make decisions - decisions which often requires advanced IT knowledge. In effect, the firewall makers expect their home customers to be IT professionals, which I assume is some kind of programmer's wet fantasy.

The people at Matousec all but admit this. In their article on "the design of an ideal personal firewall", they write:

"The following article describes the design of the ideal Windows personal firewall from programmers point of view. First of all the ideal personal firewall is secure. [My italics]"

Who cares if the program is usable? Just so long as it is secure!

The average personal user has no idea about programming, and, if possible, even less knowledge about what goes on inside the computer. So asking such a user whether 'qftw.exe' should be allowed to run or connect to the Internet is not merely to invite disaster; it is to demand it! Given such incomprehensible requests, most users will do one of two things:

• Either they will follow the Golden Rule for firewalls (which is, "if you don't know, say no") - in which case they will soon disconnect their computer from the Internet, and then remove the firewall that is the cause of all their problems; or
  
• They will answer yes or no randomly - which begs the question as to why the original programmer didn't just write the program to answer its own questions randomly, and save everybody grief?

By putting the emotional needs of programmers ahead of the practical needs of end users, firewall makers are putting the Internet's security at risk.

The Horrors of Home Editions

Today I write about the companies that make maintenance software for home computers - software such as backup software, firewalls, antivirus programs and the like.

Some of these software makers suffer from a serious and most painful (for other people) delusion. They think that home users are all computer fanatics with PhDs in information technology. Consider, by way of a reasonably typical example, the people at Acronis.com.

Acronis is a company that makes programs concerned with data backup, data security, and hard disk management. These programs, so far as effectiveness and versatility is concerned, are right up there with the best. For many discerning computer professionals, they are very often the brand of first choice.

Accordingly, I don't want you to think I am not one of their fans. I have been personally buying Acronis's software for several years now, and have just purchased some recently. Furthermore, I have found the people at Acronis to be really decent people who try hard to please. It is just that, along with most people in the computer industry, they seem to know more about Martians than they do about home users.

Acronis's flagship product is a data backup program called 'True Image'. This comes in a number of editions, one of which is called 'True Image Home', and is presented as suitable for "Home and Home Office". But exactly who the Acronis people think lives in these homes and home offices, the website declines to mention.

Home users are a mixed lot. Some have formal IT qualifications, and some are dedicated amateurs, with awesome computer skills. But most - probably 90% or more - have only marginally more IT skills than a cooked rabbit. Furthermore, they usually don't want more skills. If they did, they would have taken up IT as a career.

But that's not all. Some home users have higher IQ than others. By definition, half of all people are roughly of average IQ, and some are less. Yet these days, almost all home dwellers are also computer users. If one combines the facts of often lower intelligence and a general lack of motivation, it is apparent that only maintenance software that is 100% 'set and forget' is suitable for home use.

So how does Acronis True Image stack up by this criteria? It fails dismally. Almost as complex as a jumbo jet, it can only used easily by very advanced users. Sure, it will do everything but cut your lunch for you, but it is a nightmare for ordinary users.

To solve this problem, I make the following suggestions:

Firstly, I suggest that Acronis split their software department into two: one half to work on professional products, and the other half to work on home products. The people in the new home software department should then be forbidden to read postings on forums, under pain of instant dismissal. If a person knows what a forum is, then they are by definition not a typical home user.

The next step for the home software department would be to obtain a copy of CCleaner. This has the potential to be the perfect home maintenance tool: it can be set to work entirely automatically, running at preset times, and shutting itself down when finished, and in between times asking no questions. (Its only fault is that the user has to know in advance how to make it do this. If this was the default option at installation time, it would indeed be perfect.)

Anyway, having obtained CCleaner, the Acronis people should study it, and redesign their software to offer two options at installation time: either to run in 'automatic' mode (in which case the user never again has to even think about it) or in 'manual' mode (for those few people who like their hands on the levers).

Obviously, doing this will put a real strain on Acronis's software writers. Instead of getting their suggestions from the IT forums, they will have to go talk to real home users. And then they might learn something about the real world.

Now, wouldn't that be awful!

Bring back the Restore Disk!

My first visitor for the day has a brand new ACER laptop computer. The ACER people have discovered a brand new way of keeping prices down and customers' hackles up.

In The Good Old Days, computer makers used to provide a 'restore disk': a CD or DVD that would re-install the operating system and all the programs, thus 'restoring' everything back to as-new, straight-out-of-the-factory condition. This meant that, if your computer got infected with a bad virus, your hard disk got damaged, or you accidentally deleted your Registry, it was easy to set everything back to normal.

Those clever people at ACER, however, realized that supplying such a CD or DVD disk cost money, so they economized by putting the restore disk on the hard disk itself. By this simple step, they save you, the buyer, the cost of a CD (say, 50c), but leave you without any easy means to restoring your software.

Now, I don't want to single ACER for criticism: Dell and Hewlett-Packard seem to be doing the same thing. It seems all the major manufacturers have decided to thumb their noses at their customers.

And I don't want to criticize any of these companies unfairly: for the technically savvy, and those with lots of money, there are ways around this problem.

For anyone with lots of money, the best answer is quite simple: don't buy from any of these manufacturers. Buy from a supplier that provides a genuine Microsoft Windows disk, or (if such a thing still exists) a supplier that provides a separate Restore Disk with the computer when new. Sure, this might add a whole extra 50c or so to the price, but heck, 50c is a small price to pay for an easy life!

Alternatively, you can go to the companies after you have bought your computer, and ask them to post you a restore disk. You can ask - but you may not get. Indeed, unless you ask very quickly, before your warranty runs out, you probably won't get. But if by some miracle they agree to send you a disk, you will discover that it will cost you something like $60!

Meanwhile, what about for the technically savvy? For such people, there are two major options.

The first option is to burn a copy of the restore disk off the hard disk, and onto a CD or DVD. I tried this recently with a Hewlett-Packard machine. They had thoughtfully put some software on the computer just for this purpose. The purchaser of the machine, who was a first-time user, had absolutely no idea how to use the mouse, let alone how to burn CDs. Presumably Hewlett-Packard expects their customers to celebrate having saved themselves 50c by hiring a technician for $50 to burn them a restore disk. Not that it mattered much, because the software didn't work properly. So in this case I moved to the second option.

The second option is to buy, download and install some backup software such as Acronis True Image, and burn one's own restore disk. For the technically savvy, this is, of course, the very best option - but for somebody who is yet to learn how to use the mouse, it is not exactly a practical choice.

So what is the take-home message?

If you are technically savvy, or are buying for a business with its own IT Department, feel free to buy from any of the big manufacturers. Otherwise, give them a miss. Their prices may look low, but that's just because they skimp on essentials.

In the end, saving yourself 50c may be the most expensive thing you do this year!

Genesis