Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet from their home user clients?
From: Frank Knobbe <frank () knobbe us>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:16:34 -0600
On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 14:44, Exibar wrote:
I know the "feeling" behind what you typed, but you really don't mean what you typed. Filtering should not be done by the ISPs, they should provide a pipe, and that's it. [...] If the ISP's start filtering traffic, scanning E-mail for viruses, etc, they are getting close to censorship in my eyes. They're also removing themselves from "common carrier" status in the eyes of the law too I would think.
Heya Exibar, I tend to think of a "common carrier" as a T-1 provider, and perhaps most DSL providers. By end-user ISP like MSN, AOL, or cable services seem to be better described as consumer carriers. The main differentiators being the ease of use (just plug it in and get an IP via DHCP) and of course the level of "clue" of the technical "staff". That said, I would support certain filtering (like blocking inbound or outbound SMTP connections) as long as it is done indiscriminately. By that I mean it is okay to filter port 25 across the board, but it should not be okay to filter on some content that the carrier deems is inappropriate (as that definition most likely varies between carrier and consumer). If certain criteria is applied, I would agree, I would be similar to censorship. After all, I should have the right to receive my Viagra ads and Nigerian investment opportunities. :) Spam filtering and virus checking should occur on the carriers email gateways/hosts, and not on the wire itself. I should have the right to receive all the viruses I want in my email (perhaps for legitimate research). As far as filtering inline, if it occurs on fixed critera (i.e. port 25), I'm okay with it (even though I may not like it. As I said, as long as I can tunnel around it, I'm fine :) But if filtering occurs inline on undefined critera, then it may be of concern. That is the reason that I posted the question if anyone else had noticed that "some" filtering on "some" content is occurring. Cheers, Frank PS: The Infoworld article Tom mentioned seems to deal more with detect and manual punishment. I'm okay with that as well. As long as they don't use automated tools to turn peoples modems off when the IDS triggers on a possible false alert.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Current thread:
- RE: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet f rom their home user clients? Chmielarski TOM-ATC090 (Mar 10)
- RE: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet f rom their home user clients? Frank Knobbe (Mar 10)
- Re: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet from their home user clients? Exibar (Mar 10)
- Re: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet from their home user clients? Frank Knobbe (Mar 10)
- Re: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet from their home user clients? Steve Menard (Mar 10)
- Re: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet from their home user clients? Randal L. Schwartz (Mar 10)
- Re: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet from their home user clients? Exibar (Mar 10)
- Re: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet from their home user clients? Luke Scharf (Mar 10)
- RE: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internetfrom their home user clients? Matthew C. Beckman (Mar 10)
- Re: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internetfrom their home user clients? Exibar (Mar 11)
- Re: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet from their home user clients? Exibar (Mar 10)
- RE: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet f rom their home user clients? Frank Knobbe (Mar 10)
- Re: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet from their home user clients? Harry Hoffman (Mar 10)
- Re: Comcast using IPS to protect the Internet from their home user clients? Thomas Lakofski (Mar 10)