Microsoft: virus-infected PCs should be banned from the Internet

Microsoft Senior Executive Scott Charney suggested on Thursday that virus-infected PCs should be quarantined from the Internet.

Speaking at the International Security Solutions Europe (ISSE) Conference in Berlin, Germany, Charney proposed a possible approach to addressing botnets and other malware that impacts consumer machines. The approach calls for sick PCs to be treated in the same way that society deals with infected humans. Charney describes the issue in a company blog post and explains that firewalls, antivirus and automatic patch updates aren't enough. "Despite our best efforts, many consumer computers are host to malware or are part of a botnet. "Bots," networks of compromised computers controlled by hackers, can provide criminals with a relatively easy means to commit identity theft and also lead to much more devastating consequences if used for an attack on critical government infrastructure or financial systems."

He goes on to explain how individuals that are not vaccinated against human viruses put others' health at risk and that there are processes governments use to track and control the spread of disease. "Simply put, we need to improve and maintain the health of consumer devices connected to the Internet in order to avoid greater societal risk. To realize this vision, there are steps that can be taken by governments, the IT industry, Internet access providers, users and others to evaluate the health of consumer devices before granting them unfettered access to the Internet or other critical resources."

The main issue that Microsoft wants to tackle is the ever growing army of robot PCs. Botnets are networks of compromised computers controlled by "bot herders" or "bot masters" that use the thousands (sometimes millions) of compromised Windows machines to distribute adware, spyware, spam emails and launch DDoS attacks. Botnets are typically installed onto end users machines by web browser vulnerabilities, worms, Trojan horses, or backdoors. A "bot master" will then control the machines by IRC commands to launch attacks or send email spam. Earlier this year Microsoft announced, that together with industry partners, it had executed a major botnet takedown of Waledac, a large and well-known "spambot". At the time the software giant said it was looking to be "even more creative and aggressive in the fight against botnets and all forms of cybercrime."

The reaction to the proposals has been met by an angry backlash from Internet commenters on Microsoft's blog. One poster lambasts Microsoft for "touting" to remove unsecure PCs from the Internet, "by that logic we need to remove every machine running Windows" said Debbie Mahler. Another asks "If Microsoft isn't competent enough to make software that is safe, how are they going to be able to make an Internet quarantine that works?". There's no doubt that the proposal is workable but the controversy of such actions, and an appropriate industry standard, seem a far way off.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

World of Warcraft reaches 12 million subscribers

Next Story

Review: Windows Live Essentials 2011 - Complete overview

132 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So what's MS going to do IF I'm using their UAC and MSE and windows 7 firewall and it's all up to date but still get infected what then can I take them to court

what I love about Neowin is that if only one person, from X company, said something .. then what he or she said is attributed to the entire company as it was the company who said such comment in the first place.

At then of the day, it is a suggestion and if that could solve (not 100% obviously) most of the problems related to viruses (zombie computer) that infect computer (not because of the user's fault) then I'm entirely OK with it.

Is it POSSIBLE this is just part of the bigger plan to control the internet? Legislation, phony terrorist plots, copyright policing, everything is surging ahead. Government(s) don't like not being able to control the media, the internet is a bullhorn for people to speak out about anything and it's going to be taken if we keep allowing these criminals to get away with every stupid and unfair law or policy. Screw M$ and screw you if you support any policy that takes away the RIGHT to use the internet. Life is full of risks, you don't throw away all your freedoms to for the false promise of being a little safer. That's why you read so many stories and just can't believe the lack of common sense behind some of them, it's because they are not being implemented for the reasons they say and they just hope you're either too stupid, lazy or weak to do anything about it.

Hahaiah said,
Is it POSSIBLE this is just part of the bigger plan to control the internet? Legislation, phony terrorist plots, copyright policing, everything is surging ahead. Government(s) don't like not being able to control the media, the internet is a bullhorn for people to speak out about anything and it's going to be taken if we keep allowing these criminals to get away with every stupid and unfair law or policy. Screw M$ and screw you if you support any policy that takes away the RIGHT to use the internet. Life is full of risks, you don't throw away all your freedoms to for the false promise of being a little safer. That's why you read so many stories and just can't believe the lack of common sense behind some of them, it's because they are not being implemented for the reasons they say and they just hope you're either too stupid, lazy or weak to do anything about it.

Agreed.

This is the reason I love neowin... the news is fun to read as well as watching the fanboys flame each other. Come on guys. I think what Microsoft means is that computers that produce the viruses (known users and IP's that set them free frequently.

Like I stated in the forums--

Imagine this scenario-

You are a legitimate Company that provides remote services to companies.
One of your clients gets infected--
Now how are you going to be able to remote into it when the web has been cut off?
Then the company sues everyone involved.

Now you say that would be an extreme case....

Here is more of an example that hits a little closer to home-

You remote into your parents computer to fix it without having to travel 4-5 hours to get there.
They call you frantic because they now have a Virus.... But guess what because of no internet you can't remote in to fix nor can you download the tools in which to talk them through fixing it. Mind you just for this example some people are on a fixed income and would not afford to send it off to get it fixed. So you are their tech person to remote in to fix things free of charge.

In Theory it would work though with most theories --- The real world it just would not work.


Though what would work even more -- is instead of banning the computer-- but making it go to an online virus scanner or a site with ways to remove the virus that was detected.


I don't overly disagree with this. I mean, if you know your computer is infected you should be removing the virus anyways, not continue using the machine. I've disconnected infected computers (just by removing the ethernet cable, of course) in the past just to ensure there was no chance of it spreading, unless I had to connect online to download something to get rid of the virus (update antivirus, or download an antivirus if one wasn't already on the computer), or to research the virus and find out exactly what it does.
I wouldn't go as far as to "ban" them, but they should be cleaned immediately to ensure that it doesn't spread, or steal data etc... viruses aren't good! lol.

I don't see the panic about such an idea. I quite like it. You'd just have to implement some kind of tunnel through the block so people can run an up-to-date malware scan and removal.

There will be 60% decrement on the world wide web's traffic due to the absence of IE users if MS's banning solution to be implemented ;-)

satanist said,
There will be 60% decrement on the world wide web's traffic due to the absence of IE users if MS's banning solution to be implemented ;-)
Right like Firefox does not have more security bugs. Do some homework first!

Ok. Here is a question. My system is infected from virus. It is banned from Internet. How am I gonna download the latest definitions and rid my system of it ??

Mohitster said,
Ok. Here is a question. My system is infected from virus. It is banned from Internet. How am I gonna download the latest definitions and rid my system of it ??
Backup what you -really- need and reformat.

Mohitster said,
Ok. Here is a question. My system is infected from virus. It is banned from Internet. How am I gonna download the latest definitions and rid my system of it ??
As I have now stated many times, you simply are banned just like it says from the Internet. That's it. That does NOT mean you can not download anti-virus software from your ISP.


This is already being done in corporate networks today, so really it's just a plan for a bigger scale.

did a virus scan and found a couple of trojans in java's cache directory.....

damn, i'm disabling java.....

.Neo said,
So Microsoft wants to ban 75% of their user-base from the internet?
More like all PCs, period!


Guess you did not know that every electronic device on planet Earth was infected by Virus Alien.

Agreed the colors don't mean anything other than a way to follow a standard. If the cable is wired the right way on the other end, it will work. I have ran millions of miles of CAT 5 Cable, and I can tell you lots of people don't follow standards.

This is stupid. Enough said.
While were at it, lets get rid of all the blind people in the world!
Who cares if they cant help having the problem, its there fault because they are who they are!

Article isn't 100% accurate... Not all botnets are controlled via IRC commands these days, that was so 5 years ago

LOL
viruses only exist due to MS ****ty products, if there was no windows - would there be more OSX or unix style viruses?no! because their software platform is made in such a way you have to be completely retarded and type in your system password a few times for the program to install, and then it would need a password each time it actually wanted to execute!

Now MS is saying our ****ty product is SO shitacular that we will BAN your system from the internet should our system fall victim to one of its many security holes we implemented!

Defiantly worth the $189 every 3-4 years...

Although the radical idea does make sense, remove compromised computers until they are secured - I see no logical way to effectively implementing it, most people have no idea their system is overtaken or infected.

The only way I see it working is if MS became a security center and made all windows discs ship with a 'live boot' option that would 'recover' to an acceptable security level. Yeah, lets all wait around and see that one.

Ruciz said,
LOL
viruses only exist due to MS ****ty products, if there was no windows - would there be more OSX or unix style viruses?no! because their software platform is made in such a way you have to be completely retarded and type in your system password a few times for the program to install, and then it would need a password each time it actually wanted to execute!

Oh look, blatant trolling.
Windows requires you to enter your password too, and is a lot more secure then Mac OSX simply because enough people use Windows that it's a target. I would really enjoy seeing Mac pull ahead in marketshare and watching everything fall apart as people start targeting the myriad of security holes that researchers easily discover and Apple silently patches constantly.

Ruciz said,
LOL
viruses only exist due to MS ****ty products, if there was no windows - would there be more OSX or unix style viruses?no! because their software platform is made in such a way you have to be completely retarded and type in your system password a few times for the program to install, and then it would need a password each time it actually wanted to execute!

Now MS is saying our ****ty product is SO shitacular that we will BAN your system from the internet should our system fall victim to one of its many security holes we implemented!

Defiantly worth the $189 every 3-4 years...

Although the radical idea does make sense, remove compromised computers until they are secured - I see no logical way to effectively implementing it, most people have no idea their system is overtaken or infected.

The only way I see it working is if MS became a security center and made all windows discs ship with a 'live boot' option that would 'recover' to an acceptable security level. Yeah, lets all wait around and see that one.

Make it idiot proof and nature will make a better idiot.

User stupidity is a cross-platform problem that all operating systems face. One day if Mac gets a high market share, "ZOMG INSTALL ME TO SPEED UP YOUR COMPUTER AND WIN A IPAD4!!" malware will target them and the idiots will believe it, doing whatever it takes to get past the operating system's security measures, such as typing in your password many times.

Microsoft_Bob said,
Hehe. Ye, it's just easier installing Ubuntu than it is trying to fix problems that existed in windows since windows 95.
What problems exactly?

Microsoft_Bob said,

You say that about everyone who disagrees that the sun shines out of MS's *ss,

Yet you sprout out embarrassingly immature, illogical blabbers whenever a Windows/Mac-related article come by. What a waste that you've probably reached an age where you can't be re-moulded.

Although a bold statement to make, it's perhaps not quite right.
However, the statement has been made and I do agree to an extent with it. It would certainly thwart the spread of said virus.

Microsoft could take the "really extreme option that everyone would hate" by adding in a feature to UAC that basically means any software that is run that isn't signed automatically disables networking and cannot reenable it without other methods (What those methods would be I have no idea).

Personally i think a better approach would be to inform said user of infected pc that there was (possibly) some kind of malicious software on their computer. They would then have a certain amount of time to get it sorted or face the possibility of being `banned`. Allthough how this would be initiated is another factor!
Maybe Microsoft could team up with a web site to offer people help in removing any infection, cost free of course.

Alright... This is stupid. If your PC is infected with virus, the solution to remove it comes from the internet. So the PC's will stuck with the virus.

tupac151 said,
Alright... This is stupid. If your PC is infected with virus, the solution to remove it comes from the internet. So the PC's will stuck with the virus.

I suppose if every Windows PC was banned from the internet, there wouldn't be any viruses at all

Microsoft_Bob said,

I suppose if every Windows PC was banned from the internet, there wouldn't be any viruses at all

You mean there wouldn't be any Windows viruses at all. There'd suddenly spring up thousands of Mac viruses abusing it's thousands of security holes though.

omnicoder said,

You mean there wouldn't be any Windows viruses at all. There'd suddenly spring up thousands of Mac viruses abusing it's thousands of security holes though.

You keep repeating this vapid mantra but I see no evidence? Windows has a 100% market share on viruses xD

Microsoft_Bob said,

And what does that have to do with virus market share pray tell? People keep quoting these hacking competitions, but they are meaningless. These are people who are given hours to sit down in front of a machine, and try different exploits. I see no analogy.

Because...its a different kindoff exploit. Most virus writers aim to get the most marketshare, which is why they code for Windows. Linux servers also get attacked, but more in the form of targeted exploits that serve to steal data.

I haven't had a single virus in years now on any of my windows computers. Use some common sense and you'll be 99.99% safe. So stop trolling.

/- Razorfold said,

Because...its a different kindoff exploit. Most virus writers aim to get the most marketshare, which is why they code for Windows. Linux servers also get attacked, but more in the form of targeted exploits that serve to steal data.

I haven't had a single virus in years now on any of my windows computers. Use some common sense and you'll be 99.99% safe. So stop trolling.

Don't feed the pre-puberty troll

Microsoft_Bob said,

And what does that have to do with virus market share pray tell? People keep quoting these hacking competitions, but they are meaningless. These are people who are given hours to sit down in front of a machine, and try different exploits. I see no analogy.
How can they be meaningless?? They show a direct comparison of the security built in to the systems being tested. How much clearer can it be? In a world where there were equal numbers of PC's, Mac's, and *nix boxes this is a small example of how they would hold up against the people looking for exploits and writing the code to take advantage of these exploits. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Problem here is that software and humans are not the same. Removing bad/evil software from computers doesn't eliminate their physical form; the bad guys. As long as the mother ships are there, bots and the like will keep spawning.

The aussies were planning this, seems a bit stupid though. how would it be monitored? and how would your simple home user, joe blogs be able to fix his machine without the internet? most people turn to the internet to download stuff such as malware bytes and use help forums to fix their problem. idealistic Idea but not very practical. I have a lot of software that various AV's give false positives on, if my PC get kicked from the net every 5 mins I will not be a happy camper!

Auzeras said,
The aussies were planning this, seems a bit stupid though. how would it be monitored? and how would your simple home user, joe blogs be able to fix his machine without the internet? most people turn to the internet to download stuff such as malware bytes and use help forums to fix their problem. idealistic Idea but not very practical. I have a lot of software that various AV's give false positives on, if my PC get kicked from the net every 5 mins I will not be a happy camper!

Rather then a full ban it likely restricts you to antivirus and ISP sites until it's fixed.

Make the first time Windows starts up give you a ballot box choice of Antivirus Products to install and make it a requirement that Windows only connects to the Internet if Antivirus is installed and running. It's a start in the right direction.

MrMBerman said,
Make the first time Windows starts up give you a ballot box choice of Antivirus Products to install and make it a requirement that Windows only connects to the Internet if Antivirus is installed and running. It's a start in the right direction.

That would be the only approach. MS are damned if they do and damned if they dont, Windows is the most popular OS, like it or not. So more virus' are written for the platform. MS try to include AV and the AV industry (Symantec etc) jump on the lawsuit bandwagon. The only solution is a ballot screen as mentioned, similar to the browser one.

MrMBerman said,
Make the first time Windows starts up give you a ballot box choice of Antivirus Products to install and make it a requirement that Windows only connects to the Internet if Antivirus is installed and running. It's a start in the right direction.

You're kidding right? Do we need a friggin ballot box for every single piece of software on the market?

BTW, I run one of my PC's W/O it.

Youngy said,

That would be the only approach. MS are damned if they do and damned if they dont, Windows is the most popular OS, like it or not. So more virus' are written for the platform. MS try to include AV and the AV industry (Symantec etc) jump on the lawsuit bandwagon. The only solution is a ballot screen as mentioned, similar to the browser one.

if MS includes AV with Windows it will be totally useless, just like when they included a firewall.People will just figure out ways to exploit it more than any other AV !

MrMBerman said,
Make the first time Windows starts up give you a ballot box choice of Antivirus Products to install and make it a requirement that Windows only connects to the Internet if Antivirus is installed and running. It's a start in the right direction.

This is a retarded way to make the internet more virus free. I, for example, use no antivirus on my Windows OS and don't plan to use one soon, yet i do not have even a single virus on my pc (yes, i am 100% sure about it). Antivirus programs are fairly useless right now with so many FUD crypters released to the public, and even if you have a bazillion antiviruses they wont catch the packed malware. It just puts extra load on the os.

MrMBerman said,
Make the first time Windows starts up give you a ballot box choice of Antivirus Products to install and make it a requirement that Windows only connects to the Internet if Antivirus is installed and running. It's a start in the right direction.

Or put a disclaimer on windows boot. "This OS is rife with vira, we are not responsible for our swiss cheese security. Virus is a trade mark of Windows and all associated Microsoft products."

Microsoft_Bob said,

Or put a disclaimer on windows boot. "This OS is rife with vira, we are not responsible for our swiss cheese security. Virus is a trade mark of Windows and all associated Microsoft products."

Back under your rock troll.

Val Thе Awеsome said,

This is a retarded way to make the internet more virus free. I, for example, use no antivirus on my Windows OS and don't plan to use one soon, yet i do not have even a single virus on my pc (yes, i am 100% sure about it). Antivirus programs are fairly useless right now with so many FUD crypters released to the public, and even if you have a bazillion antiviruses they wont catch the packed malware. It just puts extra load on the os.

Retarded is having no Anti Virus installed.

Microsoft_Bob said,

I have no AV installed, does that make me retarded?

Sigh. Let's explain this to you in another way. Viruses don't take advantage of any specific exploits, or holes. They can be written for any platform, regardless of how secure they are. At a basic level, all they are is just a simple program thats designed to **** you off / harm your system etc.

Now please explain to me why Linux can't get viruses? Is it because of the execute bit? To an extent sure. But imagine if everyone who used Windows suddenly jumped over to Linux and they learnt that in order to run a program they have to set the execute bit. Now a large majority of them will just turn the execute bit on for anything making it pointless. You and I know that sometimes its not a good idea to let a program execute things, but the average user doesn't. They will see a UAC (or Ex bit) and just click yes, they don't know when not to. Linux has an advantage here in that most people who use it are technically adept. They know when to allow a file to execute, or what links not to click. So trying to fool a linux user into doing something stupid will take a lot more than just an email going "hey i found these naked pictures of you, click here."

This problem is just made worse by idiot programmers who seem to think their programs all need admin access, so now their users just get used to clicking "Accept / Yes" for everything making the whole system of UAC pointless. Not a fault of Microsoft or Windows here now is it?

Lets go back to viruses, worms and botnets. Viruses are platform independent, so it doesn't matter which one you code it for but since malware is a business..makes sense to code it for the platform that has the most userbase now doesn't it? Worms or botnets are sometimes platform dependent, but when you're trying to launch a mass DDoS attack (for example) on a server or cluster of servers you want to launch it from as many computers as possible, hence you code one for Windows. I mean it will be pretty pointless trying to DDoS FBI servers using linux computers now wouldn't it? Chances are most people wouldn't fall for your "program" and as a result you won't have the number of computers you need.

Windows7even said,
Easy answer...use a Mac **ducks for cover***

If everyone did that we'd be back at square one as they aren't secure, they just aren't targeted because too few people use them.

omnicoder said,

If everyone did that we'd be back at square one as they aren't secure, they just aren't targeted because too few people use them.

Blah Blah Blah. Has your theory ever been tested? Android, Linux servers, yet still no wide spread viruses? And the theory crashes and burns, next...

Microsoft_Bob said,

Blah Blah Blah. Has your theory ever been tested? Android, Linux servers, yet still no wide spread viruses? And the theory crashes and burns, next...

no wide spread viruses? ha please.... just recently there was a worm attacking linux based web servers wish I could remember what it was called... but we had to do some major changes and updates to protect ourselfs from it...

omnicoder said,

If everyone did that we'd be back at square one as they aren't secure, they just aren't targeted because too few people use them.

Yet Mac OS 9, which had a much lower market share back in the days, did suffer from viruses. So that theory doesn't fully work. It could be a part of the reason but not the entire one.

omnicoder said,

If everyone did that we'd be back at square one as they aren't secure, they just aren't targeted because too few people use them.

A more evenly distributed marketshare would be a lot healthier anyway.

I really wish Mac's were that popular and widely used. I'd love it when the precious Mac gets hammered with viruses all day long and curls up and dies. I'm so sick of hearing this argument. Just because there are no major security threats (aka malware / viruses) for a platform that takes up such little market share doesn't make it secure. I honestly welcome the Mac. I would love to see once and for all if they're a better platform or just what many people think - they're currently too small of a target to matter but if they become big enough then we see what its really made of.

As good as it sounds, how are the infected users supposed to clean their PCs without internet access..? Yes, most of them can't do that with internet access anyway but still...

What would help is starting to ship new computers with working antivirus solutions instead of the Norton and McAffee trial versions... or allow MS to ship Windows with MSE built in... That wouldn't fight existing botnets but at least it would be a step forward in protecting the users.

singularity0821 said,
As good as it sounds, how are the infected users supposed to clean their PCs without internet access..? Yes, most of them can't do that with internet access anyway but still...

What would help is starting to ship new computers with working antivirus solutions instead of the Norton and McAffee trial versions... or allow MS to ship Windows with MSE built in... That wouldn't fight existing botnets but at least it would be a step forward in protecting the users.

Easy solution. So the user's PC can NOT access the Internet. Great, perfect, that's the goal.


But the PC can still access its ISP network just fine in which the anti-virus software could be downloaded and clean the PC all automatically. Easy.

This is already being done today in fact in corporate networks, so really it's just a question of scale.

Microsoft_Bob said,

Install Ubuntu.

then 90% of the market is ubuntu, gl with 90% of the hackers targetting an OS that is very young on security.

awesome-o 2000

Digitalx said,
maybe they shouldn't release products with security flaws too but hey!

I'd like to see how secure your product would be if 90% of all the hackers in the world were targeting it. I sometimes wish Mac would become more popular just to see the complete carnage it would create due to it's lack of security once actual viruses started being made for it.

rizshinigami said,
is this old news?i've read about this before somewhere

Considering the blog post was only published yesterday, no it's not old news. Jeeze.

Tom W said,

Considering the blog post was only published yesterday, no it's not old news. Jeeze.

Actually I also recall reading this somewhere else before, and it was a long time ago before yesterday

stablemist said,

Actually I also recall reading this somewhere else before, and it was a long time ago before yesterday

so what ? I didn't .. now stop posting

There is good and bad to this idea - yes you could contain and infection as you do in a human body with medication BUT without the internet HOW do you get that medication (I know you could buy it on a disc or download it from a friends computer) but is that an answer?

I think the answer is more advanced routers for domestic use, they could be designed to detect bots etc and provide warnings on your desktop.....

Well theres my 2 pennies of thought

The Halo said,
There is good and bad to this idea - yes you could contain and infection as you do in a human body with medication BUT without the internet HOW do you get that medication (I know you could buy it on a disc or download it from a friends computer) but is that an answer?

I think the answer is more advanced routers for domestic use, they could be designed to detect bots etc and provide warnings on your desktop.....

Well theres my 2 pennies of thought

I agree with this. I think it should be something involved with the router that will block you from accessing MOST of the internet, but at the same time it should be made so that you should always be allowed to access verified antivirus websites and vendors so that you can download antivirus and definitions updates before being allowed to access the rest of the web. The hardware and the software have to come together to bridge the security gap there, much like how Intel is trying to integrate some form of antivirus at chip level.

netsendjoe said,

I agree with this. I think it should be something involved with the router that will block you from accessing MOST of the internet, but at the same time it should be made so that you should always be allowed to access verified antivirus websites and vendors so that you can download antivirus and definitions updates before being allowed to access the rest of the web. The hardware and the software have to come together to bridge the security gap there, much like how Intel is trying to integrate some form of antivirus at chip level.

I don's really see it working this way. It's way more simple that than.


You see the computer will NOT be able to access the Internet at all, but will be able to communicate with its ISP just fine. The ISP will do a scan of the PC before it's allowed access to the network and if it finds an infection it downloads the required software to the user's PC and removes the infection. Pretty simple really.

This is already being done today in corporate networks, so really we are just talking about scaling it up.

Northgrove said,
Well, as long as they can get anti-virus updates and software...

I agree with you, the concept of quarantining them is okay. But they should still be able to get anti-virus updates and important software.

dave164 said,

I agree with you, the concept of quarantining them is okay. But they should still be able to get anti-virus updates and important software.

Nope! I'd say the user has lost the right to use the PC so you fry it instead.

I understand what the guy is saying - it's to stop the proliferation of the viri population growing. However whilst extreme, Brent's point is still valid. Once again people are focusing on solution rather than prevention!

Whilst I know first hand how difficult it is to have code with no bugs in it let alone an entire operating system, the fact remains that if the systems that were sold were more heavily secured this wouldn't be as big an issue.

Examinus said,

Viruses.

Actually you are both wrong. Vira is the plural nominative form of second declension neuter nouns. Neutrum nomen declinationis secundae.

Although I can understand the proclivity to decline Virus as Viri, for the nominative form correlates to a masculine noun. However, there are exceptions to this rule.

Microsoft_Bob said,

Actually you are both wrong. Vira is the plural nominative form of second declension neuter nouns. Neutrum nomen declinationis secundae.

Ahhhhh mah brain!

*In all seriousness, that was pretty informative

Microsoft_Bob said,

Actually you are both wrong. Vira is the plural nominative form of second declension neuter nouns. Neutrum nomen declinationis secundae.
Ha ha....'neuter'....lol (j/k)

Microsoft_Bob said,
Although I can understand the proclivity to decline Virus as Viri, for the nominative form correlates to a masculine noun. However, there are exceptions to this rule.

Virus is not a masculine second declension term though, and considering we're speaking English and not Latin, the plural is Viruses.

MrGriggs said,

Cross Over.

Cross over would be starting with orange on one end and green on the other end of the cable, either they made this wrong on both ends and it still works or they tried to make some sort of rollover cable

hornbm said,
Someone made that ethernet cable backwards.
LOL I was just going to say that.
It's neither crossover or normal but that doesn't mean it won't work.
There is no special powers for different coloured wires, if it is wired appropriately at the other end it would still work fine.
The standard way to make a cable is here http://www.lanshack.com/make-cat5e.aspx

hornbm said,
Someone made that ethernet cable backwards.

If you want to get technical it doesn't matter as long as the wires line up properly on the other end. Color doesn't magically screw things up, its just a standard guideline.
[edit] and after i posted this, I read the last comment before me lol

FuhrerDarqueSyde said,

If you want to get technical it doesn't matter as long as the wires line up properly on the other end. Color doesn't magically screw things up, its just a standard guideline.
[edit] and after i posted this, I read the last comment before me lol

Well...actually, the colors in-and-of-themselves do not matter. However, keeping the appropriate signal reference levels with their signal wires in the same twist DOES matter. You can simply match colors end-to-end and expect to get any connectivity out of the wire (you may get something but good luck getting >1mbps out of it).

A vertical flip of the image in the article would at least make it standard.

hornbm said,
Someone made that ethernet cable backwards.
LOL. I was thinking the same thing. I figured what really happened was the picture got flipped in Photoshop. Maybe they wanted to flip horizontal but accidentally flipped vertically.

Brent1700 said,
...and people with HIV should be banned from Earth

YAY Etremism FTW!!
How would you even begin to police banning computers anyway? ISP's kick up enough fuss when they are told they have to be able to give out users details for copyright infringement cases

thenonhacker said,

Oh come on, that's a bad analogy.


Not really, it's quite a perfect analogy. It's the counterpart to this article's.

Teebor said,

YAY Etremism FTW!!
How would you even begin to police banning computers anyway? ISP's kick up enough fuss when they are told they have to be able to give out users details for copyright infringement cases

Simple enough. When the computer connects to their ISP's network it has to be scanned before allowed on. Thus if your infected you will never make it to the Internet and the second you try you will be notified of the problem.


Of course it's not really that simple. Don't forget software is not perfect so there will be false positives (not to bad, just ****es off your users a bit), negatives (with 5 billion devices to be in the pitch soon even 1% would take the system down).


So yeah it wont work that well I guess.

Microsoft_Bob said,

If you're using Windows, it's only a matter of time...

Before what? A virus pops out of nowhere and magically destroys his computer without him accepting any administer requests? Sounds more like a Mac to me.

Weissmeister said,

What? A virus for Windows XP from 2003? I'm scared...

Don't be so naive. It's happened before and can happen again. Just because Windows is suppose to prompt for admin access via UAC, doesn't mean there are no exploits now.

Shadrack said,

Don't be so naive. It's happened before and can happen again. Just because Windows is suppose to prompt for admin access via UAC, doesn't mean there are no exploits now.


http://www.jailbreakme.com
Yeah, Apple is the most secure thing ever.

Trueblue711 said,

Funny part is, with Apple, you don't even need to be connected to get screwed. Anyone remember the Leopard bug that deletes ALL USER DATA when simply adding a new user account?

Ripping on Apple doesn't change anything and is very off-topic. If you want to rip on Apple, there is plenty of Apple related news to troll on. Nothing here is about Apple.

Trueblue711 said,
Funny part is, with Apple, you don't even need to be connected to get screwed. Anyone remember the Leopard bug that deletes ALL USER DATA when simply adding a new user account?

Which is a load of crap; the bug was related to switching between a guest and normal account, nothing to do with creating an account. If you're going to talk about stuff, how about getting a clue about what you're talking about.

Microsoft_Bob said,

If you're using Windows, it's only a matter of time...
As if Linux or OS X is any more secure. The "issue" is not the OS, but the idiot setting at the desk. As in, you!!!


Same with all the other BS comments above. The OS is as secure as you the user can make it. So if anyone is at fault it's you dumbass!! So get over yourself you Windows, OS X, Linux, whatever haters!!