No Internet for my Photo Computer

[John Morton]

Well hello everybody yes I am back once again to try and explain why I NEVER connect my photo editing computer to the Internet, despite how much (i.e. $) Adobe would like me to, and, how very many people here assure me I am doing nothing more than screaming about the sky falling because I refuse to do so.

http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2013/1...come-america/?

[Colin Southern]

I think just to be extra safe John you should disconnect ALL your computers from the internet (and avoid using memory sticks, CDs, DVD, and even following instructions to fix PC problems too).

Can't be too safe about these things.

[John Morton]

You're absolutely right, Colin.

There's nothing to worry about!

Think I'll move my archive of film and slides into shoe boxes and put it all in an open gazebo in my back yard.

[Colin Southern]

Everything to worry about - quick, disconnect from the net now - before it's too late!

Hurry!

[revi]

Two remarks:
1 - Adobe couldn't care less, but you can't use Photoshop etc.
2 - nvm

(And indeed, you shouldn't download any upgrades, extra editing software etc. which has to be transferred to your photo editing computer)

[John Morton]

1 - Adobe couldn't care less, but you can't use Photoshop etc.

It's funny, I see the same discursive arguments being arrayed here in Canada over the issue of tar sands pipelines.

It's all about profit, of course; as opposed to the potential to completely ruin pristine environments through pipeline ruptures and leaks.

Inevitably, the pipeline proponents start up with "Do you drive a car? Do you use anything made of plastic?"; as if their proposed supply source is the only one available, and as if the commodity in question were in and of itself the issue.

With each massive pipeline rupture that occurs elsewhere, we hear new protestations about how "Oh it could never happen here" and "Well we've ;earned from that and now we know how to deal with it."

Of course, the messes caused are never actually cleaned up - it can't be done, it's impossible. The only way to protect pristine environments from degradation from oil pipelines is to not put the oil pipelines there in the first place.

Similarly, the only way to be absolutely sure that your digital photo archive is not compromised by computer viruses and malware is to keep it isolated from the sources of such malicious code. Period.

[proseak]

Well hello everybody yes I am back once again to try and explain why I NEVER connect my photo editing computer to the Internet, despite how much (i.e. $) Adobe would like me to, and, how very many people here assure me I am doing nothing more than screaming about the sky falling because I refuse to do so.

http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2013/10

/18/ransom-ware-2-0-come-america/?

Actually, this is the first piece of malware that has actually scared me; the notion that a worm could be quietly and irretrievably munching through my data, and maybe even backups wasn't pleasant. That and the fact that most security products seem unable to find it in time worried me.

However, it can be effectively blocked using Windows Security Policies - here's a link;

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...5&pageNumber=2

HTH

Peter

[revi]

It shouldn't be able to get at an off-line backup, or one on read-only media. Such a backup might be infected, of course...

Btw. about those security policies:
they imply that Windows can allow executables to be run straight from an e-mail attachment? and perhaps even w/o user action??
and that that is the default setting?

[revi]

@John: I personally don't use photoshop..

And you are perfectly right, the only way to absolutely avoid viruses and malware is to isolate you computer.
How are you going to get, vet and install software? There's less and less that's shrink-wrapped.

[Shadowman]

Haven't you been viewing any Transformer movies. Even if you disconnect they can still get at you through your microwave.

[Colin Southern]

Computer viruses mirror STDs in that the chances of catching one is pretty much directly proportional to ones behaviour.

Sleep around with random strangers all the time without using any protection and you're almost guaranteed to catch something quickly; or in PC-equivalent speak "run an un-patched PC on an older operating system with no anti-virus and no anti-malware and no firewall - and go searching out porn sites - and I'll personally guarantee you'll get infected within 1/2 hour tops. On the other hand - from a PC perspective - use a modern & secure OS like Win 7 or Win 8 - keep the machine fully patched (which is the default now anyway) - run anti-virus and anti-malware software - keep it behind a firewall (most routers provide this functionality by design anyway, in addition to built-in firewalls being turned on by default) and stay away from sites of ill-repute - and the chances of catching a virus are extremely small.

But in as much as the chances are extremely small, they're not zero - just as the chances of data loss from drive failure, fire, theft, natural disaster aren't zero either -- and so to mitigate all of those we need a sensible and effective backup routine.

In John's case, the chances of a machine catching an encrypting virus (or any virus) in the few seconds it would take each month to re-activate Adobe Photoshop are practically zero; if that were done immediately after a full backup then the risk is ZERO.

I really don't know what John's online behaviour is like, but I run a modern operating system - it keeps itself fully patched - it's behind a hardware firewall built into the modem - it has the Win7 firewall turned on - I run an AV program - and I don't go browsing sex sites and other sites of ill-repute. I also keep multiple backups (one off site). In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that my PC became infected with an encrypting virus I'd simply take a day to reload the PC from scratch (which is good to do once in a while anyway), and reload from backup. No problem - no irrationality - no hysteria.

I'm done with this thread because explaining something rationally to folks who already have an irrational fear of something isn't going to change anyone's mind

[John Morton]

Computer viruses mirror STDs in that the chances of catching one is pretty much directly proportional to ones behaviour...

In John's case, the chances of a machine catching an encrypting virus (or any virus) in the few seconds it would take each month to re-activate Adobe Photoshop are practically zero; if that were done immediately after a full backup then the risk is ZERO.

We all sincerely hope that you are 100% correct, Colin.

Personally, the knowledge that there are now polymorphic encryption viruses which elude detection and render computer files unusable unless a "ransom" is paid to free them... well, I don't think I want my computer "calling home" to Adobe when I also know that their products constantly update to new versions - and that someone has stolen their source code.

To me, the core of this issue revolves around a very different constellation of associated concepts than those which populate Colin's analysis. To begin with, this isn't about "good" versus "bad" where the 'good guys' at Adobe might lose the odd battle with the 'bad guys.' Nietzsche demonstrated how outmoded that approach was back at the end of the 1800's when he defined knowledge-in-action as "the will to power."

Adobe wants to make more money; they force Photoshop users to subscribe to their product suite. Meanwhile, digital criminals are looking to line their own pockets; and to do so in whatever way they can find which works, even if it only works briefly.

Both forces are working for "good" - their own good.

This isn't a case here of, "If we don't support Adobe then the terrorists have won." Nobody is trying to achieve victory here; they are only trying to assert power. That is the dynamic Adobe has drawn all of its software subscribers into: they have asserted their power by imposing a business model wherein users are forced to place themselves into a position that criminals might potentially use to take advantage of them.

Similarly, this isn't about which sites I or anyone else might or might not visit. It isn't at all about where one goes on the Internet: it is about THAT one goes onto the Internet. Some might think that the answer to a classical "us versus them", "good versus bad" scenario is to build ever better firewalls; but in point of fact such Maginot Line defenses are ultimately meaningless. There is no
"evil enemy" to confront directly; there is only the ability of others to make use of computer code and turn it against legitimate users for their own illicit gain. This isn't about how close one is or is not to the "bad guys"; this is about how malicious code subverts legitimate digital processes.

This is about a nomadic war machine which sweeps across the Internet, wrecking havoc wherever it arrives. Like the armies of Genghis Khan, this is not about conquering and plundering: when the Mongol hordes swept across the steppes to the very doorstep of Europe, they attacked the cities they encountered simply because those cities were in their way. The Mongol Horde couldn't carry the contents of conquered cities along with them: that wasn't their aim. As a nomadic peoples who lived by moving freely across the grasslands of Asia, the Mongols simply could not abide the existence of permanent settlements such as cities: these were in their way, impeding the free movement that their lifestyle demanded; and that is why they were attacked.

Cities were in the way because nomads always come back through the same places in a cyclical fashion. Cities began appearing between such cycles, and this is why they were ultimately swept away when the nomads returned in force.

Hiding behind digital firewalls is no defense against those who exist precisely by sweeping through the ground upon which such coded structures are constructed.

Avoiding "bad sites" doesn't ultimately help, either. The nomadic model is also a Maritime model: as with the sea power which established the dominance of European powers during the age of empire, nomadic forces can appear anywhere without warning as surely as ships can suddenly assail any open coastline. That's why pirates persist even into this day and age: the Maritime model of power application makes it impossible to defend against forces which can show up anywhere and at any time, without warning.

If a computer is connected to the Internet, then it is vulnerable to attack from the Internet.

I do not know if Adobe, in seeking to impose a business model of infinite growth, simply tee'd off some people who see that kind of stability as an affront to their own modalities of existence. It is possible that the very idea of everyone paying Adobe an overhead cut from their work income might just rankle those who object to writing code for companies that make billions but pay peanuts to their knowledge workers. If Adobe's new business model of permanent, stable profits is perceived to be "in the way" of some group of nomadic coders' sensibilities then one thing is certain: having broken into Adobe's network once, they will be back again. But that is an entirely different issue (and albeit not necessarily a realistic scenario; maybe, maybe not, who knows - not me) from the baseline contention I have: that the only way to safeguard one's digital images is to edit them on a computer which does not connect to the Internet.

If Adobe insists that I connect my photo editing computer to the Internet in order to use their software, then I am not interested in using their software.

[xpatUSA]

We all sincerely hope that you are 100% correct, Colin.

If Adobe insists that I connect my photo editing computer to the Internet in order to use their software, then I am not interested in using their software.

+1 although I never intended to anyway. Got PSE on a CD and, even if malware turns my computer into Gruyere cheese, shoot - I'll just buy another one and reload my files from the back-up drive which is only ever connected while backing up.

[Adrian]

I am gradually coming round to the view that Internet threat hysteria is easily alleviated.

We all accept, to a greater or lesser extent, that computerised electronic data is at risk. The risk may be external threats, disk failure, data degradation or access equipment/software failure.

The alleged problem is worse these days because we have image volume proliferation, because digital photography is so cheap and many of us are lazy about storage security.

The solution is simple:

1 Only keep the good stuff - discard the rest.
2 back up well.
3 Print the important things on durable media. (i.e. like in the 'old days').

In practice, I suspect most of us are fretting about protecting 95% dross. So we should be selective and keep only our best work. This dramatically reduces the magnitude of the problem and makes us all sleep easier. Posterity will not suffer.

Adrian

[Mike Buckley]

I am gradually coming round to the view that Internet threat hysteria is easily alleviated.

For me, the threat can be adequately managed. The hysteria is very much another matter.

[tao2]

Hi John,

Ah'd suggest the Genghis Khan analogy is, at best, spurious. Probably "Dumb and Dumber" would be better. This type of "ransomeware" arrives as an attachment tae an email (where almost all viruses are downloaded nowadays). Inside that attachment is an .exe file where the recipient is urged tae click the .exe tae open a PDF etc. with beneficial details inside.

In the second decade of the 21st.C it seems incredible that folk would still not know that they should never open an unsolicited email attachment. Any financial institution will tell ye that they will not send them. Why don't some folk have anti-phishing measures, since banks, govts., yer brother, sister, geeky nephew/niece will all tell ye tae use an email program with such measures by default. That's the "Dumb" part.

So the attachment is opened and instead of deleting the contents, the recipient then proceeds tae click on the .exe file and activate the trojan/virus. That's the "Dumber" part.

Tae return tae Genghis Khan - one analogy would be ...

A man on a horse rides up tae the city gates - "I'm Genghis Khan" he says, " but these 100,000 horsemen behind me are not here tae sack the city - but tae protect me, whilst I deliver this pot of gold. It's been sent by an apologetic moneylender who overcharged interest in the market in Samarkand....Let me in?

The danger is not the barbarian outside the strong, safe walls, it's the greed which removes caution and opens a gate...