Security Incidents mailing list archives
RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility
From: "Adcock, Matt" <Matthew.Adcock () GSCCCA ORG>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:57:29 -0400
<quote> I think we all agree that connecting an unpatched IIS machine to the open Internet is acting irresponsibly. Most AUP's already prohibit spamming, port scanning etc. (at least on paper). Why not include "infection through negligence" as a reason for suspension? Maybe with a reasonable grace period the first time. </quote> I agree that the end administrator is ultimately responsible. The ISPs could also help by filtering this traffic. It would take an infrastructure upgrade that would end up costing the consumer, but I personally would be willing to pay a little more. Maybe give users a choice between being on a filtered network or an open network? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service. For more information on this free incident handling, management and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
Current thread:
- Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Luc Pardon (Sep 27)
- Re: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Chip McClure (Sep 27)
- Re: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility geoff (Sep 27)
- Re: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility John Oliver (Sep 27)
- Re: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Rich Puhek (Sep 27)
- Re: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility terry white (Sep 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility John Campbell (Sep 27)
- RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Adcock, Matt (Sep 27)
- RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Tracy Martin (Sep 27)
- RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Homer Wilson Smith (Sep 27)
- RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Tracy Martin (Sep 27)
- Re: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Neil Dickey (Sep 27)
- RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Michael B. Morell (Sep 27)
- RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Dave Salovesh (Sep 27)
- RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility UMusBKidN (Sep 27)
- Re: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility robertm (Sep 27)
- RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Jason Robertson (Sep 27)
- RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Mogull,Rich (Sep 27)
- RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility ahoward (Sep 27)
(Thread continues...)
- Re: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility Chip McClure (Sep 27)