Comment Re:Another solution (Score 1) 356
When a file is received as an attachment that matches the "executable" mask (that is, has the extension exe, vbs, bat, etc) the file is renamed by the addition of a ".unsafe" extension, thereby becoming file.exe.unsafe for example. This preserves the integrity of the file but makes it non-executable until the user explicitly renames it back to the executable extension.
I do see a flaw in this, from my mother-in-law's point of view. She's intelligent and not very computer-savvy. This'd confuse the heck out of her.
(She does know enough, though, to probably rename the file and run it anyway; your suggestion would slow down virus propagation, but not stop it)
I do see a flaw in this, from my mother-in-law's point of view. She's intelligent and not very computer-savvy. This'd confuse the heck out of her.
(She does know enough, though, to probably rename the file and run it anyway; your suggestion would slow down virus propagation, but not stop it)
they might not comprehend the significance and require education before they can use their executable attachments. My feeling is that this is a good thing.
No, this is _not_ a good thing. Making a user learn more and more crap in order to let them do what they want to do (write or read a report, send an email, whatever) is _poor_ design. What should be done instead is to ensure that what the user wants to do is easy and safe. Go along with everyone else here on
Don't make a novice user's life harder than it needs to be. If they've got more important things to worry about than becoming a computer expert, let them!
---Matt---
