Mediaboss Marketing

There was a time when anti-virus software was the height of computer security, especially if you were a Windows user. But the landscape of threats has changed, and we live in an era of sweeping, global campaigns, like the ransomware WannaCry infection and the more recent Ukraine-focused NotPetya attack. What role does anti-virus and antimalware software play in keeping your machine safe? We spoke with four security experts to hear what they had to say.

Across the board, each expert still recommends using software that protects your personal computer from attack. But modern anti-virus software is not the last word in defending your computer; rather, its part of a multi-faceted approach involving some common sense steps to keep your machine and personal information safe.

Bob Gourley, cofounder of the security consultancy firm Cognitio and veteran of the intelligence community, says that his company recommends that people install protective software, as it will mitigate the risks people face.

Theres a lot of security professionals who will point out that anti-virus software will not stop everything, he says. Thats trueits not the last line of defence. But it helps keep the noise down.

His specific recommendation is that Mac users may want to use Sophos, which has a free antimalware program, and that Windows users should think about Symantec. (I tried the free version of Sophos on my Macbook Air, and it detected a virus hiding in a text document attached to an email that the Mail app had downloaded. I deleted it.)

One issue that Mac users should keep an eye out for, according to Gourley? Adware. This type of code is typically picked up when using a software as a service, like email or other things that require logging into an account. FCC rules state that adware has to identify itself to prevent classification as "spyware," but it's easy to pick up some adware, especially if you speed through those terms of service agreements.

Like Gourley, Kurt Baumgartner, a principal security researcher with security company Kaspersky Lab (which makes products that defend against malware and viruses), recommends that individuals use anti-malware software.

While that may not be surprising advice from someone who works at a security company that makes anti-malware software, he also emphasizes the importance of keeping your computers other softwareespecially the operating systemup-to-date in the fight against malicious code.

Take the WannaCry malware attack, also known as WannaCrypt, which struck machines running Windows in May. Microsoft had already provided a software update about two months before, in March, that protected customers running operating systems like Windows 7 or Windows Vista from WannaCry. Machines that hadnt been updated or that were running older versions like Windows XP were left vulnerable. And Microsoft says that users who were running Windows 10, the most current version of the operating system, werent affected by that attack.

As for a recent attack last month, called Petya or NotPetya, Microsoft said in an article that most of those infections happened in computers running Windows 7.

Dont forget to keep your anti-virus software, like Windows Defender, updated too. The software can't fight a threat it doesn't yet know about, and that information is typically found in regular updates.

Tomer Weingarten, CEO and cofounder of security company SentinelOne, is lukewarm on the benefits of consumer anti-virus or anti-malware protection software. He recommends it as a better-than-nothing approach.

Right now, attackers have evolved much beyond the current protections that all of us can install, he says. Even if we keep up-to-date with all the signatures, and whatever mechanisms that they offer us, it still becomes very problematic for them to deal with unknown attacks.

As for the idea that the Macs and macOS is inherently more resistant to attacks, Weingarten is skeptical. Its really more about the fact that attackers are targeting the biggest bang for buck, and right now its the Windows system," he says. In short, Windows offers "more targets," according to Weingarten.

And while he emphasizes how crucial it is to keep your operating system updated, he also has another simple solution for people who may not be the most security proficient, and just want to do tasks like send emails: Use an iPad and a keyboard.

Thats because iOS, which powers iPhone and iPads, is the one operating system that we can say is inherently more secure, Weingarten says. The closed-down environment of iOS makes it impossible for someone to run foreign code on that device, unless, of course, it is through the highly-regulated official App Store. The only other way to run foreign software on the device would be if an attacker has a pricey and rare zero day exploit that could do so, meaning that a malevolent party has had found a way to exploit a vulnerability that has not yet been patched.

However, relying on an iPad or iPhone still doesnt protect someone from clicking on a malicious link that then takes them to a dummy site, prompting them to enter personal information. In other words, vigilance and common sense are still key.

In the movie Shrek, the films namesake famously compares ogres to onions. Why? Because they have layers.

Like an ogre (or onion), good security has layers, a point that Shalabh Mohan, vice president for products and marketing at Area 1 security, emphasises. Area 1 sells protection to companies against phishing attacks; phishing attempts happen when you get an email with a malicious link in it, or are asked to enter your username and password on a website that impersonates your banks, for example.

Mohan says that software that protects your personal computer (or endpoint, in the industry jargon) is just part of a layered approach. The first step, Mohan argues, is recognizing that phishing attacks are the most common way that attackers get into your system.

The next step is easy: being smart about what email service you use. Mohan points to both Google and Microsoft as good choices, because they help prevent phishing in their Gmail and Outlook.com email services.

Folks like Google, Microsoft have inbuilt controls and security that go way above what an end user could do themselves, he says, meaning that phishing emails may just get filtered out before they reach you. Anti-virus software like Sophos and other network security systems can also help protect against phishing attempts.

And for security-conscious people concerned about their entire home network, devices like a mesh-network Wi-Fi system from Eero, or the forthcoming Norton Core Router, bundle security protection together with a wireless network.

In short, perhaps the smartest approach to protecting your machine in the current climate is to install anti-malware software, but also to take other steps, too, like using a solid email provider like Gmail, keeping your operating system up-to-date, and being vigilant and using common sense against phishing attacks.

Finally, back up your data, so in a worse-case scenario in which a computer is infected by something like ransomware, a savvy user could wipe their computer, install the operating system from scratch, and then restore it from the backed-up version. Thats no fun, but its better than losing everything.

View post:
Your anti-virus software is not enough - Popular Science

Plant City Observer

Good Appeal: Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' Law Plant City Observer Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law this month an amended Stand Your Ground law. This new amendment makes it easier for defendants to successfully claim they were protecting themselves in a violent situation. Before this amendment, the law ...

See the rest here:
Good Appeal: Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' Law - Plant City Observer

A few years ago, Illinois lost a notable some would say notorious attribute. It was the last state that banned any carrying of concealed firearms in public. In 2012, a federal appeals court struck down the ban, forcing the General Assembly to pass a measure allowing citizens to obtain concealed-carry permits.

The new permit system includes a number of common-sense provisions. It disqualifies felons and those guilty of misdemeanors involving the use or threat of violence. Repeat DUI offenders are ineligible, as is anyone who has undergone residential or court-ordered drug or alcohol rehab in the past five years. It requires 16 hours of firearms training to ensure competence. The minimum age is 21.

But if the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have their way, those rules won't mean much.

The legislation they propose would force every state to honor concealed-carry permits from other states. In practice, this would mean the laws of states with loose standards would apply to those beyond their borders. Indiana, for example, has no proficiency requirement and grants permits to 18-year-olds. There are 800,000 permit holders in Indiana, and they would all be entitled to pack here, regardless of what the people of Illinois think.

Supporters say that just as a driver's license issued in one state is valid everywhere, a weapons permit should be. But states honor driver's licenses voluntarily, not by federal mandate, a custom that makes sense because the requirements to get one don't differ much from one place to another. Concealed-carry permit standards vary greatly. Lax rules create a danger to public safety by allowing people without basic skills to carry guns.

This legislation would trample on the principle of federalism by denying states the right to decide for themselves what to require of those who want to carry loaded guns in public. If states want to honor permits from other states, they're free to do so, and some do. If they don't, they shouldn't have to.

This logic is even more compelling at a time when the NRA is pushing states to allow concealed-carry without a permit. Missouri recently decided to let anyone who lawfully owns a gun to carry it in public over the objections of the Fraternal Order of Police. Eleven other states have similar laws. Under the proposed federal measure, someone from a state that doesn't require a permit would have the right to carry in a state that does.

The whole idea of allowing concealed-carry without a permit is a mistake. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock recently vetoed a bill to that effect, arguing that it would make just as much sense to let people drive a car or pilot a plane without a license.

Requiring a permit of those who want to carry loaded guns in public is hardly unreasonable. All 50 states require hunters to get licenses and 49 have hunter education requirements. If that's a reasonable approach for someone who wants to use a gun to shoot ducks or deer, it's a reasonable approach for someone who wants to carry a gun for self-defense.

Some gun-rights zealots think the Second Amendment bars even minimal government regulation of firearms ownership. But the Supreme Court has never taken that view, and other constitutional rights are not unlimited. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the landmark 2008 decision striking down a Washington, D.C., gun ordinance, noted that 19th-century courts generally "held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment."

The entire debate is a reminder of the value of federalism in a large and diverse country. When it comes to concealed-carry laws, the best option is to let each state decide for itself what rules to impose within its boundaries and let every other state do the same.

Join the discussion on Twitter @Trib_Ed_Boardand onFacebook.

Become a subscriber today to support editorial writing like this.Start getting full accessto our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks.

Read more:
Leave concealed-carry laws to the states - Chicago Tribune

BBC News

Europe migrant crisis: EU blamed for 'soaring' death toll BBC News Amnesty International has blamed "failing EU policies" for the soaring death toll among refugees and migrants in the central Mediterranean. In a report, it said "cynical deals" with Libya consigned thousands to the risk of drowning, rape and torture ... Europe's Smaller But Tougher Migrant CrisisBloomberg Europe's migrant crisis threatens to overwhelm Italy, even as flows to ...Los Angeles Times Brussels forced to spend MILLIONS more on tackling migrant crisis to quell Italian furyExpress.co.uk Wall Street Journal (subscription) -POLITICO.eu all 163 news articles »

More:
Europe migrant crisis: EU blamed for 'soaring' death toll - BBC News

An illegal Salvadoran migrant couple is seen on railway track with their son during the arrival of the Caravana de Madres Centroamericanas (Caravan of Central American Mothers). Photo by REUTERS/Edgard Garrido/File

Editors Note: In her first Making Sen$e post on the immigration crisis that accompanies tonights Making Sen$e broadcast story on Utica, New York, the town that loves refugees, scholar and refugee worker Hannah Carrese made the case for America returning to a discarded policy of the past: the guest worker bracero program, inaugurated in the 1940s.

In this post, she suggests a solution to what may be the greatest immigration crisis America faces: a tsunami ofrefugees fleeing the violence of failing states in Central America.

Paul Solman, Economics Correspondent

Twenty years ago, when NAFTA was ratified, North Americans could profitably speak about two kinds of migrants: economic migrants and displaced people. The first was a personification of commercemigrants who chose to leave home and travel where there was a demand to which they could supply a solution. The second was the human face of violencerefugees forced to leave their homes to travel to a place where their lives are not threatened. These categories seemed clear in North America in large part because a few years before NAFTA was signed,both the U.S. and Mexico had established robust refugee programs for Central Americansfleeing violent revolutions in their countries.

The real migration problem we face in North America isnt Mexican migrants seeking jobs in the United States. Rather, its Central Americans (and now Venezuelans) fleeing violence in their countries and seeking asylum in Mexico or the U.S.

But weve collapsed the distinction between economic migrants and displaced people in recent years. Many on the left contend that the inability to feed ones familythe deep poverty that we once thought producedonlyeconomic migrationkills just the same as a barrel bomb. Many on the right see migrants, even those recognized as refugees, as economic opportunists, benefiting from strong labor markets, supposedly generous entitlement programs and lax border controls in rich Western democracies. But this collapsing of categories, on the right and left, has not served the world well. We see now the awful human costs of an international legal order that does not, will not, guide and modulate human migration.

In addition to opening a door to regulated, cyclical migration from Mexico, that is, the United States should seek to reestablish another old orderthese categories of economic migration and forced migration. We should begin by recognizing this fact:During the past five years, Mexico-U.S. migration has actually operated in reverse. More Mexicans are returning south to Mexico than are coming north to the U.S.

The southward movement of Mexican nationals makes clear that the real migration problem we face in North America isnt Mexican migrants seeking jobs in the United States. Rather, its Central Americans (and now Venezuelans) fleeing violence in their countries and seeking asylum in Mexico or the U.S. Twenty-two thousand of these Central Americans are expected to apply for refugee status in Mexico during 2017, up from just over a thousand in 2012.

A mural at Mexico Citys Casa Refugiados (Refugee House) depicts Central American asylum seekers gazing across the Suchiate River toward Mexico. Photo by Hannah Carrese

Mexico is not prepared to handle this influx of asylum seekers. Migrant shelters in Mexico are already overflowing. In Puebla, the Red Cross and various Catholic churches are opening new shelters to house increasing numbers of Central Americans who have taken trains to and through this central Mexican state. In Mexico City, asylum seekers from Central America and from Africa are being placed in increasingly marginal housing. This spring, a Somali refugee told me, Never in my life have I seen such a place as this, and I was inDadaab a complex in Kenya that forms the worlds largest refugee camp for 25 years.

We should expect many of these asylum seekers to show up at the U.S. border during the next decade, much as asylum seekers have flocked to Europe during this decade.

We should expect many of these asylum seekers to show up at the U.S. border during the next decade, much as asylum seekers have flocked to Europe during this decade. It is in our self-interest to recognize that displaced people are unlikeeconomic migrants in that they do not choose to migratethey are forced out by violence from which their governments cannot protect them. If we want to keep these displaced people from seeking safety in North America, in the U.S. and Mexico, we must proactively helpcountries in South and Central America to develop better governments and economies.

President Obama gestured toward these problems after thousands of Central American children came alone to our southern border in 2014. But his policies were reactive: He allowedmore Central Americans to be recognized as refugees in the U.S. and directed U.S. officials to make asylum determinations in Central America before asylum seekers made the dangerous trek through Mexico. Truly confronting North Americas Central American migration crisis requires new strategy.

A man stares into the window of the Mexico City building that houses Mexicos Commission for the Aid of Refugees (COMAR). Photo by Hannah Carrese

The U.S. is properly wary of involvement in Central America: Our government provoked the violent revolutions that produced mass displacement in the region during the 1980s. But our circumstances are not entirely different now. The gangs now terrorizing El Salvador and Honduras formed in the U.S. and were exported to Central America by Salvadorans and Hondurans deported from the U.S. in the 1990s and 2000s. Ourfailures of the 20th century should help guide our policy in the 21st.

Instead of influencing national politics in Central America, our aid and advice should be intensely local: 24-hour courts and youth centers and community policing in high-violence neighborhoods. A 2013 survey found that in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, crime victimization is lower and public perception of security is higher in communities where USAID has done this kind of intensive development work. We should emphasize programs introducing young people who, in Latin America, display a record lack of interest in political participation and leadership to politics as a means for change.

If we want to keep these displaced people from seeking safety in North America, in the U.S. and Mexico, we must proactively help countries in South and Central America to develop better governments and economies.

Instead of secret regime-toppling, our open aim should be institution-building. An institution with which we might start is CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Patterned after NAFTA, it seeks to create partnerships between the United States and Central American countries that are poor in part because they are too small to function on their own in a global economy. Economistsand the World Bank and the World Trade Organizationseem to agree that free trade can be a powerful tool for poverty relief. And lifting people from poverty has been linked to reductions in cyclical violence. This is worth a try in Central America.

President Trump made clear in a February address to Congress that the only long-term solution for humanitarian disasters, in many cases, is to create the conditions where displaced persons can safely return home and begin the long, long process of rebuilding. His administration might begin to make good on this idea in Central America,where conditions are not yet so bad as to precipitate the kind of displacement we now see, for example, in Syria.

This, after all, would be an America First policyone thatrecognizes that the United States is not the only American nation and that the people and problems we ignore abroad will, now or in other decades, find us here.

The rest is here:
Column: Let's put 'America First' by averting a Central American ... - PBS NewsHour