Owen DeLong wrote:
Frankly, I don't want to have to read the *@#( tutorial. I should at least have the option of skipping to the questions. I don't mind "You must be this tall to ride." I do mind "Now we, who have been in business for fewer years than you have been running backbone routers, are going to give you a brief tutorial on internet security."
No, I referred to the questions as simple questions where someone would have had to have read the tutorial (or already knows the answers) to get a less restricted account..... There would of course be the option to say 'I want a completely unrestricted incoming and outgoing account, I do know what I'm doing'.... The point being that the majority of mum's, dad's and indeed small businesses don't have a clue about what they are doing, and most just want to be able to browse the web, do some internet banking or shopping, and have access to email. Yours Mat
Until they sign up for Vonage, get hooked on that new multiplayer realtime game, discover that they can share music with their friends, or just want to see what that next killer-app is all about. Oh, yeah, there's also IRC, YIM, AIM, etc. Those are just the applications I ran up against when I put a strict firewall in for my parents (who I regard as being pretty typical of the we don't know what internet is, but, we want it mom/dad set). And, there's still the question of funding. Adding simple filters costs money (labor, if nothing else). Adding stateful inspection filters costs more money (same labor, roughly, but, most provider-side routers don't do stateful inspection, at least not in a scalable way). The few that do, usually require additional hardware options (ASPIC, for example). Who should pay for that? I don't think the responsible clueful customers of an ISP should have to subsidize the clueless, even if the clueless are the majority. Owen --On Monday, June 14, 2004 3:42 PM +1000 Matthew Sullivan <matthew@sorbs.net> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Frankly, I don't want to have to read the *@#( tutorial. I should at least have the option of skipping to the questions. I don't mind "You must be this tall to ride." I do mind "Now we, who have been in business for fewer years than you have been running backbone routers, are going to give you a brief tutorial on internet security."
No, I referred to the questions as simple questions where someone would have had to have read the tutorial (or already knows the answers) to get a less restricted account.....
There would of course be the option to say 'I want a completely unrestricted incoming and outgoing account, I do know what I'm doing'....
The point being that the majority of mum's, dad's and indeed small businesses don't have a clue about what they are doing, and most just want to be able to browse the web, do some internet banking or shopping, and have access to email.
Yours
Mat
-- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Owen DeLong wrote:
Until they sign up for Vonage, get hooked on that new multiplayer realtime game, discover that they can share music with their friends, or just want to see what that next killer-app is all about.
Oh, yeah, there's also IRC, YIM, AIM, etc.
Those are just the applications I ran up against when I put a strict firewall in for my parents (who I regard as being pretty typical of the we don't know what internet is, but, we want it mom/dad set).
I'm not saying don't permit them at all, I'm saying create a default account where access is not available, where the customers have to know a bit about what's going on to make that default blocked account into a default not blocked account - there gives the ability to force education. You could also then add extra terms into the equation - as part of the 'non blocked account agreement' the customer has a 'bond' where they get infected without due dilligence, they loose their bond.... there are hundreds of ideas, some which will work some which won't - the key point is most of the ISPs in the USA (but not only them, other countries too) are doing NOTHING about the problem except saying 'it costs money, whose going to pay?'... Well why should I pay, when your customers DDoS me? Why should I pay to keep my email free of spam sent via your customers..? Why should I pay for firewalls and spend all my time looking for hacking incidents because you don't want to pay for a little education....?
And, there's still the question of funding. Adding simple filters costs money (labor, if nothing else). Adding stateful inspection filters costs more money (same labor, roughly, but, most provider-side routers don't do stateful inspection, at least not in a scalable way). The few that do, usually require additional hardware options (ASPIC, for example).
Who should pay for that? I don't think the responsible clueful customers of an ISP should have to subsidize the clueless, even if the clueless are the majority.
No you're right, but then the large ISPs should have working abuse desks, and they should are responsible for traffic originating from their network. It's only a matter of time before something will break... The way things are going now with infections and exploits, I'm surprised people are still signing up for the internet, if something is not done about the problems sooner rather than later I guarentee you the Internet will go the way of the CB radio.... Noise will drown out the signal, people will stop using it because it is no longer useable, people who can afford it will setup on either own private frequency, the noise will continue until there are just a few die hards left, at which point the noise will slow and stop because there is no fun in drowning those few anymore, and all channels will become disused and quiet..... Then all those large ISPs out there who say 'filtering costs money why should we...?' will realise that it's too late to fix the problem, and they will either diversify or die. / Mat PS: Owen, this mail is not directed specifically at you, or anyone in particular, I'm just on my soap box again.
--On Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:49 +1000 Matthew Sullivan <matthew@sorbs.net> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Until they sign up for Vonage, get hooked on that new multiplayer realtime game, discover that they can share music with their friends, or just want to see what that next killer-app is all about.
Oh, yeah, there's also IRC, YIM, AIM, etc.
Those are just the applications I ran up against when I put a strict firewall in for my parents (who I regard as being pretty typical of the we don't know what internet is, but, we want it mom/dad set).
I'm not saying don't permit them at all, I'm saying create a default account where access is not available, where the customers have to know a bit about what's going on to make that default blocked account into a default not blocked account - there gives the ability to force education. You could also then add extra terms into the equation - as part of the 'non blocked account agreement' the customer has a 'bond' where they get infected without due dilligence, they loose their bond.... there are hundreds of ideas, some which will work some which won't - the key point is most of the ISPs in the USA (but not only them, other countries too) are doing NOTHING about the problem except saying 'it costs money, whose going to pay?'... Well why should I pay, when your customers DDoS me? Why should I pay to keep my email free of spam sent via your customers..? Why should I pay for firewalls and spend all my time looking for hacking incidents because you don't want to pay for a little education....?
And I'm saying "who pays for the people to answer the 'My vonage phone won't work, and Vonage said to get my ISP to fix my broken connection.' phone calls?" You and Adi seem to think that everyone should subsidize this support for the clueless. For some reason, most ISPs don't think so, and, neither do I.
And, there's still the question of funding. Adding simple filters costs money (labor, if nothing else). Adding stateful inspection filters costs more money (same labor, roughly, but, most provider-side routers don't do stateful inspection, at least not in a scalable way). The few that do, usually require additional hardware options (ASPIC, for example).
Who should pay for that? I don't think the responsible clueful customers of an ISP should have to subsidize the clueless, even if the clueless are the majority.
No you're right, but then the large ISPs should have working abuse desks, and they should are responsible for traffic originating from their network. It's only a matter of time before something will break... The way things are going now with infections and exploits, I'm surprised people are still signing up for the internet, if something is not done about the problems sooner rather than later I guarentee you the Internet will go the way of the CB radio.... Noise will drown out the signal, people will stop using it because it is no longer useable, people who can afford it will setup on either own private frequency, the noise will continue until there are just a few die hards left, at which point the noise will slow and stop because there is no fun in drowning those few anymore, and all channels will become disused and quiet..... Then all those large ISPs out there who say 'filtering costs money why should we...?' will realise that it's too late to fix the problem, and they will either diversify or die.
Most ISPs are already diversifying. However, I don't think your CB analogy will hold true. CB Never had any thing truly critical on it. That's just not true of the internet. Too much commerce, government interaction, news, other societal communications infrastructure is on the internet for people to abandon it the way CB was.
PS: Owen, this mail is not directed specifically at you, or anyone in particular, I'm just on my soap box again.
And, likewise, although I mention you and Adi directly, it's not personal. It's about the issue, not the people involved. Owen -- If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably a forgery.
participants (2)
-
Matthew Sullivan -
Owen DeLong