funsec mailing list archives
Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?
From: Rob Thompson <my.security.lists () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:24:45 -0700
Paul Ferguson wrote:
Okay, a better question -- how do you feel if it's truly a criminal enterprise (e.g. click fraud, DNS Changer malware, credential stealing malware, credit card theft/trafficking, child porn, et al.)?
I'm digging myself a hole I won't be able to crawl out of here, but let me try. I am not very well spoken and what I am trying to say, isn't coming out right. "click fraud, DNS Changer malware, credential stealing
malware, credit card theft/trafficking"
Most of these things can be prevented with basic care by the end user. No ISP involvement needed. Keep your computer up to date, use a OS that isn't "broken", FF - Noscript (goes _a long_ way), AV that is current and enabled. I typically do not feel bad for the folks that have those things happen them. I do not know about you, but most people I meet that have computer troubles tell me about them. I explain that it is a virus and what can happen. They don't care. Until it does happen and they lose their identity. Then it is too late and the bad guy won. With the fact that this type of stuff is on the 7 o'clock news regularly now, excuses are running paper thin. "child porn" That is a whole different can of worms and _that_ is the type of stuff that should be acted on. There someone is being hurt. If the hosting provider doesn't clean it upon finding it, or upon the first reporting, then not only should the poster, but the hosting provider, be lit on fire.
Are you familiar with Atrivo/Intercage, McColo, and Cernel? Russkrainain criminal activity right here in the Good Ole U.S. of A,? What's you position on that?
I am familiar with these things, yes. For example, McColo, made no significant difference. It was closed, and spam levels dropped briefly. They are right back where they were, like it never happened. If the folks would stop buying it, the senders would stop sending.
- ferg
-- Rob +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ | _ | | ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) | | - against HTML email X | | / \ | | | +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?, (continued)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? G. D. Fuego (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Paul Ferguson (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Paul Ferguson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? John Bambenek (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? David M Chess (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? John Bambenek (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Ned Fleming (Sep 08)