Internet Security Programs Flawed?
Posted by Adam Hayes
Have Internet security programs gone too far?
I want to know if other people think that this is as insanely stupid as I think it is. I had to help a client today that couldn't access https (ssl encrypted) sites. It just kept giving him a "This page cannot be displayed" error. We ran through the normal items of making sure ssl was installed correctly and the such but couldn't find the problem. We came to find out that Norton Internet Security was blocking port 443 (the port that ssl uses to communicate securely across the Internet). Now this is my question:
What good is an "Internet Security" program if it denies you from accessing "secure" encrypted web pages?
This seems like the most stupid thing I've ever come across. Are we so worried about covering our own rears that we cannot do what is best for our clients? Are they so worried that if they open port 443 by default it would be too large of a hole for hackers? If so, why open other non 80 type ports by default?
Anyway, I wonder if this shows how nervous we are about doing what is right compared to doing what will keep us from getting sued. I just think of the little ol' grandmas out there that get an "Internet Security" program to help protect them online, just to have the stupid thing keep them from going to secure pages where their information would be more secure than normal everyday browsing. Have we really fallen so far that we aren't doing what our core products should be doing? Long live those who do what is right just because it is what should be done.
« Google Sitemaps
What is V7ndotcom Elursrebmem? »