Re: Why won't providers source-filter attacks? Simple.
In message <CABgOHgs0nEiTCQfOHM21cYwB5Z0PUpAnsWBqV=ppy4K24Zw5pQ@mail.gmail.com> , Landon Stewart writes:
--f46d042c63a5ad12dd04f1abc724 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 4 February 2014 17:18, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
That would never fly, because it would put the politicians at odds with the telecom buddies that make huge political donations. Hard to throw someone in jail then hit them up for campaign money. What will probably happen is the same thing we do with everything else that might be used for evil purposes but where we don't want to tackle the real underlying problem -- just write a law banning something and hope the problem goes away.
No, you write a law requiring something, e.g. BCP 38 filtering by ISPs, and you audit it. You also make the ISPs directors liable for the impact that results from spoofed traffic from them.
Making it law puts all the ISP's in the country on a equal footing with respect to implementation costs.
This is a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. If we start having legislators making laws for how packets are served we are just begging for them to put their feet into all kinds of doors that we don't want them in.
Well when industries don't self regulate governments step in. This industry is demonstratably incapble of regulating itself in this area despite lots of evidence of the problems being caused for lots of years. This has been DOCUMENTED BEST CURRENT PRACTICE for 13.5 years. Everybody else is having to deal the problems caused by these bad actors. Hell, I suspect you could send the directors to gaol or make them pay a heavy fine today by properly examining the existing laws. A new law would just make the problem more explicit. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Well when industries don't self regulate governments step in. This industry is demonstratably incapble of regulating itself in this area despite lots of evidence of the problems being caused for lots of years. This has been DOCUMENTED BEST CURRENT PRACTICE for 13.5 years. Everybody else is having to deal the problems caused by these bad actors.
Hell, I suspect you could send the directors to gaol or make them pay a heavy fine today by properly examining the existing laws. A new law would just make the problem more explicit.
and the reason for the extreme hyperbole is that this problem is seriously affecting the service provider where you work?
On 2/5/14, 7:11 PM, "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org> wrote:
Well when industries don't self regulate governments step in. This industry is demonstratably incapble of regulating itself in this area despite lots of evidence of the problems being caused for lots of years.
Which industry is that? App providers that have not implemented? Hosting providers that have not? Transit providers that have not? Access network ISPs that have not? Large enterprises and education networks that have not? ;-) I still prefer a list of specific networks that need to pay attention to improving anti-spoofing since otherwise I think most of us are in violent agreement on the need.
This has been DOCUMENTED BEST CURRENT PRACTICE for 13.5 years. Everybody else is having to deal the problems caused by these bad actors.
Hell, I suspect you could send the directors to gaol or make them pay a heavy fine today by properly examining the existing laws. A new law would just make the problem more explicit.
In the U.S. one of the FCC Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) working groups is focused on this issue. I do not know what is happening in other jurisdictions. Jason
participants (3)
-
Livingood, Jason -
Mark Andrews -
Randy Bush