
I love reading Byron Acohido’s excellent blog, “The Last Watchdog.” However, some of his recent titles are really getting to me:
“Unstoppable new phishing attacks blanket Facebook, Twitter, Hotmail”
…as in, spammers and phishers are targeting social media sites. Surprise, surprise.
“Windows 7’s security ‘time bomb’”
…that is, why it’s default UAC settings could be the target of a very complex, difficult attack.
And so on. I already had a bit of a rant against his previous article in USA Today, “Cyberthieves find workplace networks are easy pickings,” entitled “Are We Really So Vulnerable?”, here.
I understand the need for catchy titles to get readership. Heck, I try to do the same! However, there’s a fine line between educating the public and scaring them with fear, uncertainty, and doubt, especially when the situation is nowhere near as dire as it’s been advertised. There is no Windows 7 “time bomb” — there’s a questionable choice in default security stances. These phishing attacks are no more “unstoppable” than they’ve been when spammers have focused on them in the past.
I feel especially strong about this in regards to cyber security. Most people are either totally unaware of current happenings in cybercrime, or they have a very simplified understanding of the situation. Scaring them with such titles just drives them deeper into the clutches of security vendors who promise a panacea with signature-based scanning (heh). Sure, if they read it, they may see things differently. But titles have a big impact on those who know nothing more about the subject.
Do you think I’m being too harsh? Thoughts?
- David Oxley