Serious Discussion Question for the MT community

[blackice]

Post 11 probably sums up best what I'm trying to get at here with the question. Not one single user here in this community has posted they have suffered such events. They all have different levels of knowledge and use different security set ups and combinations/configurations. The question is related to the security stances chosen among the members here that feel there is never enough security and approach it with almost a frenzied state addressing things with "what if" or "just in case".

I think @oldschool covers it best “stay safe not paranoid”

 

[Practical Response]

How did you associate this,

The whole point is that the statistics show that even the most ignorant users that behave and do things in a completely insecure way rarely have any serious consequences from their behaviors & actions.

With the analogy you just made up? Are you even paying attention to the topic? I feel like I just lost IQ points reading that response.

Although an interesting question, I agree with Oldie1950, this is like asking the inhabitants of Beverly Hills whether they have trouble making ends meet and drawing the conclusion that poverty is not an issue in the US of A.

 

[Andy Ful]

I think that it would be easier to find in Beverly Hills some examples of significant financial loss or identity theft than among MT members.
There are only about 1200 MT members (many of them are inactive members). So there are fair chances that no one here was a victim.

 

[Practical Response]

There were many infection events among MT members, but probably none (if I correctly recall) caused a significant financial loss or identity theft.

Search results for query: infected

malwaretips.com

How many times have you have been infected in the last 5 years?

The question is simple. One can include several Antiviruses and the number of infections for each Antivirus. Please notice in the post when the infection was caused by turning off the AV protection.:) I tried to make a Poll, but could not include the choices with different possible numbers.

malwaretips.com

Interesting you agree that probably no one here due to the rarity has encountered this, yet you post members here have been infected with links to one thread with a question in which everyone states it's been a very long time since they have seen one and another link to the spamming of MT with fake "help" posts. Nice.

I still have yet to see any verification of users here that have suffered significant loss or identity theft due to their actions regardless of what they are using and how. Nothing to justify the dire need to obsessively pile tons of rules and softwares on and romp from thread to thread with the latest greatest next big threat.

 

[Andy Ful]

Interesting you agree that probably no one here due to the rarity has encountered this, yet you post members here have been infected with links to one thread with a question in which everyone states it's been a very long time since they have seen one and another link to the spamming of MT with fake "help" posts. Nice.

Those links strongly suggest that the kind of infection from OP is rare (just as you think). I think that you will not get statistically useful information about the topic because the number of MT members is too small. Even a much larger population of Beverly Hills could be probably too small.

 

[Practical Response]

Those links strongly suggest that the kind of infection from OP is rare (just as you think). I think that you will not get statistically useful information about the topic because the number of MT members is too small. Even a much larger population of Beverly Hills would be too small.

I posted due to average statistics just here in the US that state it's rare for home users to suffer such. Not that it doesn't exist, that it's rare, and showing this was asking the community which none replied to having ever had happen.

 

[cruelsister]

Those links strongly suggest that the kind of infection from OP is rare (just as you think). I think that you will not get statistically useful information about the topic because the number of MT members is too small. Even a much larger population of Beverly Hills could be probably too small.

N=1

 

[Practical Response]

Those links strongly suggest that the kind of infection from OP is rare (just as you think). I think that you will not get statistically useful information about the topic because the number of MT members is too small. Even a much larger population of Beverly Hills could be probably too small.

So if we were to discuss posts by the FBI that state less then 1% of malicious email or malware infections lead to significant losses they would be stating this to just how many users you think?

 

[Oldie1950]

@Practical Response
With their fight against the importance of AV software, they remind me of Don Quixote with his fight against windmill blades. They will not change the beliefs of the vast majority of members in this forum. You can keep posting there for months.

 

[Andy Ful]

So if we were to discuss posts by the FBI that state less then 1% of malicious email or malware infections lead to significant losses they would be stating this to just how many users you think?

Who knows? FBI is not an example of statistical correctness.
I can say more If you could post the link to the source.

 

[Practical Response]

@Practical Response
With their fight against the importance of AV software, they remind me of Don Quixote with his fight against windmill blades. They will not change the beliefs of the vast majority of members in this forum. You can keep posting there for months.

There are enough members pushing beliefs and agendas, I'm trying help educate, which is the sole issue with all of cyber security.

Enterprises have extraordinary set ups yet get breached why, because one of the personal was not informed enough to recognize a phishing email.

Here it seems emphasis is on software, such as to develop the mindset that knowledge and habits are not essential when you can just rely on software to save you from yourself. Then you ad the statistics that show very few users will ever seriously see consequences to the extent of suffering significant loss either way and you realize that with just the proper amount of knowledge and being informed most users will never have to worry to the extent many do here every time something new is blasted in the cyber field.

 

[Oldie1950]

No one serious about computer security will deny that knowledge and good habits are important. But nobody is perfect. People make mistakes, and security software's job is to protect against the effects of those mistakes. Security software is a safety net in case of incorrect behavior.

 

[Practical Response]

Who knows? FBI is not an example of statistical correctness.
I can say more If you could post the link to the source.

FBI has some of the best statisticians and data analysts in the world.

https://www.aha.org/system/files/media/file/2024/03/fbi-internet-crime-report-2023.pdf

https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/vit21.pdf

 

[Andy Ful]

I would also say that most people do not want to struggle for perfection in security matters. Just like people who wear boots in the woods instead of constantly looking at the ground.

 

[Practical Response]

I would also say that most people do not want to struggle for perfection in security matters. Just like people who wear boots in the woods instead of constantly looking at the ground.

So when I stated that this is a rarity, home users have no need to act in unrealistic "what ifs" and "just in case" frenzied security postures, it is understood? As that was the point to my thread to begin with, that you just literally agreed with.

 

[Oldie1950]

So when I stated that this is a rarity, home users have no need to act in unrealistic "what ifs" and "just in case" frenzied security postures, it is understood? As that was the point to my thread to begin with, that you just literally agreed with.

The boots are comparable to the security software. So by your definition, wearing boots on a walk in the woods is a frenzied security posture. Really interesting. I'm out of this thread now.

 

[Practical Response]

The boots are comparable to the security software. So by your definition, wearing boots on a walk in the woods is a frenzied security posture. Really interesting.

I believe you are taking out of context what I'm stating. I did not reference the boots as to frenzied application layering and disabling as suggested by configuration threads here and responses everytime something malicious and new comes along. Security is still needed for balance of using good habits and a insurance in case something does slip by or a mistake is made "because people are people", but not to the extreme that is present here in the forum.

What those statics state, is "people" are the equation, the happening factor to most infections now days. Being informed and having knowledge of such uses will carry users farther then any amount of layering security. Phishing is one of the top 5 crimes now days, and of course can be negated via good habits and being informed.

 

[Andy Ful]

FBI has some of the best statisticians and data analysts in the world.

https://www.aha.org/system/files/media/file/2024/03/fbi-internet-crime-report-2023.pdf

This report includes complaints from the American public without splitting the data among organizations and individual users.
The complaints included the spectrum of cyber matters, like online fraud in its many forms including Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) matters, Computer Intrusions (Hacking), Economic Espionage (Theft of Trade Secrets), Online Extortion, International Money Laundering, Identity Theft, and a growing list of Internet-facilitated crimes. So, many of the complaints were not related to great losses.
The chances of great loss in an organization are significantly different compared to individual users. Anyway, we could use the data to calculate the upper limit:
Suppose that 2/3 of the US population (330 million) use computers with Windows.
According to the report, there were nearly 4 million complaints in the last 5 years.
4/(2/3*330) ~ 0.02 (2%)

Bearing in mind that many complaints were probably unrelated to great losses or were reported by organizations, the chances for individual victims can be much smaller (for example 0.2%). Among MT members the chances can be even smaller.

Edit.
Many incidents were reported by users of smartphones. Most of my friends and relatives use smartphones for managing e-mails and shopping.

 

[Practical Response]

This report includes complaints from the American public without splitting the data among organizations and individual users.
The complaints included the spectrum of cyber matters, like online fraud in its many forms including Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) matters, Computer Intrusions (Hacking), Economic Espionage (Theft of Trade Secrets), Online Extortion, International Money Laundering, Identity Theft, and a growing list of Internet-facilitated crimes. So, many of the complaints were not related to great losses.
The chances of great loss in an organization are significantly different compared to individual users. Anyway, we could use the data to calculate the upper limit:
Suppose that 2/3 of the US population (330 million) use computers with Windows.
According to the report, there were nearly 4 million complaints in the last 5 years.
4/(2/3*330) ~ 0.02 (2%)

Bearing in mind that many complaints were probably unrelated to great losses or were reported by organizations, the chances for individual victims can be much smaller (for example 0.2%). Among MT members the chances can be even smaller.

Edit.
Many incidents were reported by users of smartphones. Most of my friends and relatives use smartphones for managing e-mails and shopping.

As a whole, not a large percent.

Security software is not the answer to great financial losses. Things put in place such as credit freezes and offline banking protections are. It's far more effective to teach home users about security basics then "just install this software", and you are protected. Education should always come first.

 

[LennyFox]

As a whole, not a large percent.

Security software is not the answer to great financial losses. Things put in place such as credit freezes and offline banking protections are. It's far more effective to teach home users about security basics then "just install this software", and you are protected. Education should always come first.

Security is as strong as the weakest link. Problem with education is that people always think they are qualified and know everything. Companies can give their employees awareness training and force them to chance passwords and use strong unique passwords. Education might comes first, but it can never be your last resort, because people still write passwords on yellow notes and stick them on the screens. You want some safetynet or defense to limit the impact of stupid behavior.. When education would be the silver bullet than the security awareness month would not be running for 20 years (after 20 years some awareness should be risen, would not it),