Re: Good, bad or indifferent?

[Dave Dennis <dmd () speakeasy org>]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Thomas Raef wrote:

> Right. Is this sounding like "big-brother"?

To me not in the least.  Its sounding like finally at long last some sort of end
to the wild west where any idiot can keep shooting his attacks anywhere he wants
without accountability for his actions.

But of course, thats not the only point of view, and many will agree it is big
brotherism.

Is it more important to allow open access to all, regardless of their malicious
(unwitting, but come on) actions ?

Or is it preferable to run a network where malicious actions are closed off til
they are addressed.

Some argue the former, violently so.

Others argue the latter, just as violently so.



-Dave D

> Thomas J. Raef
>
> e-Based Security <http://www.ebasedsecurity.com/>
>
> "You're either hardened or you're hacked!"
>
> We Watch Your Website <http://www.wewatchyourwebsite.com/>
>
> "We Watch Your Website - so you don't have to."
>
>
>
> From: Benjamin Brown [mailto:optikali () gmail com]
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:04 PM
> To: Dave Dennis
> Cc: Thomas Raef; funsec
> Subject: Re: [funsec] Good, bad or indifferent?
>
>
>
> Ah but the caveat here is that it is a federal mandate brought down on
> the ISPs leaving them without the option to back down. I am interested
> in seeing just how the government will choose to enforce/enact such
> wide-sweeping legislation.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Dave Dennis <dmd () speakeasy org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Raef
> > <TRaef () wewatchyourwebsite com>wrote:
>
> > >
> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/25/1458231/Australian-ISPs-To-Disco
> nnect-Botnet-Zombies?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_
> campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29
>
> > > Please share your thoughts.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thomas J. Raef
>
> The usual mess of uninformed, speculative, hearsay and panic on /.
>
> So.
>
> If the IsP is doing captive portal surfing and attempting to provide
> malware
> detection/cleaning tools, they have a noble purpose, but could run into
> interesting legal liability if the idiot home user managed to screw the
> pooch
> and make an unbootable system as a result.  The logic in the captive
> portal
> would possibly need to be bright enough to handle every besotted version
> of
> Windows from 95 to present, with all interop of old applications
> accounted for
> or at least not a concern.  Thats a tall ask.  So once they start
> breaking
> heretofore "not broken" (as far as the home user is concerned) systems,
> then
> what ?  Its easily provable the home user PC was infected due to
> traffic/signature/activity logged, but thats not going to mean anything
> to the
> home user if he/she can't boot up and play mafia wars.
>
> I think fwiw this is usually where the conversation breaks down in the
> USA on
> this subject: To do the home fix the infected PC dance actually takes a
> little
> bit more than just malware removal: it takes behavior modification, it
> takes
> browser locking down / ad network blocking, it takes somehow coming up
> with a
> fix to years of really poor decisions on the part of the user, who
> presumably is
> running an old, unpatched, botched registry full of half-uninstalled
> malware and
> spyware and various apps, any of which may or may not be able to
> withstand a
> thorough clean/replace of some fairly important DLL.
>
> So you get them to sign off on this, but their PC is mangled (to them)
> afterwards, now what.  Customer support beat down, loads of posts to
> various
> dumbass consumer sites like Consumerist, "My ISP Broke My Computer" and
> various
> crying youtubes later, and will the ISP have the balls to stick to their
> guns?
>
> Or will they back down and cave in?
>
> I don't see how they can avoid caving in.  Most users are monumentally
> uninformed with regard to spyware / malware, their own risk averse
> behavior, and
> what even happened a week ago on the same PC.
>
>
> My .02
>
> -Dave D
>
>
>
> +-------------------------
> + Dave Dennis
> + Seattle, WA
> + Speakeasy, Inc.
> + dmd () speakeasy net
> + http://www.speakeasy.net
> +-------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

+-------------------------
+ Dave Dennis
+ Seattle, WA
+ Speakeasy, Inc.
+ dmd () speakeasy net
+ http://www.speakeasy.net
+-------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.