It seems that this morning we wrote that people click on the fake virus warnings spread by the Conficker worm. Now we learn of a Carnegie Mellon study says that people ignore the warnings all together even genuine warnings set their browsers and Internet security software. It seems that these two stories are contradictory: in one case, we Aore said that many people click on false alarms (allowing real intrusion of malware), and in the second case we Aore said many people ignore warnings true (allowing the intrusion of malicious software). What can we learn to dig deep into this cognitive dissonance? People-click or not click on
The Carnegie Mellon study points out that computer users are desensitized to the warnings ?; they see just too many of them (out-of-date security certificate warnings about software installations They, AOVE requested, viruses that have been detected and quarantined). Sometimes ignoring a warning has no discernible consequences. But perhaps another cause of fatigue warning is that people are wary of warnings because They, too AOVE read warnings that say that certain warnings are not really all warnings (such as those activated by the worm Conficker). Just to be sure, they won, AOT click on anything, not even a warning of their own Internet security software.
So some people click anything and some people click All. That, AOS why and how the virus spread. As the study points out, Internet browsers and security software could do more to highlight only important warnings so users know what to pay attention to. But this requires that we give up some control.
In it, end SOA really behooves us to understand the machines we use, and keep them patched and protected. It requires reading the warnings, and discernment between good and evil. A good Internet security software, and common sense on the emails you open and sites that you go to should keep the bad. If you, AOVE been lax in protecting your computer, see our review of Internet security software.