nanog mailing list archives
RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police
From: Jason Slagle <raistlin () tacorp net>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:53:03 -0500 (EST)
You basically have 3 choices here. 1) Filter known trojan ports to your customers (Which argueably may or may not include port 139) 2) Routinely scan your customer blocks and inform them of trojans they could be infected with, and any open shares. 3) Do nothing and deal with the possible fallout which may include turning down the customers port, if they get compromised. Which do YOU view as the lesser of the evils here. Your arguing 1 isn't doable. 2 is possibly a no go, depending on the contract and customer also, and 3 isn't very good either. Jason --- Jason Slagle - CCNA - CCDA Network Administrator - Toledo Internet Access - Toledo Ohio - raistlin () tacorp net - jslagle () toledolink com - WHOIS JS10172 /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign . If dreams are like movies then memories X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail . are films about ghosts.. / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail . - Adam Duritz - Counting Crows On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Roeland Meyer wrote:
Please reference any suit regarding breach of contract. Examples abound. Port filtering may be construed as a material breach when the expectation is, that there is to be no port filtering. Access is access, even when the customer doesn't know that they are being restricted in their access. That just assures you that they will go ballistic when they find out. Face it guys, you KNOW that this is basically dishonest. As such, it is indefensible. I would almost bet <amount> that none of the transit providers mentions restrictions, on access, in their contracts. I would almost bet <1/2 amount> that NONE of the access providers mention same in THEIR contracts. The general expectation is for clear and open pipes. Put such restiction into your contracts and you will lose customers. Don't put them in and start filtering anyway and you will lose court cases...big ones.
Current thread:
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police, (continued)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Adrian Chadd (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 20)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Shawn McMahon (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
- "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." JIM FLEMING (Nov 20)
- Re: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." Bora Akyol (Nov 20)
- Re: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." Joe Abley (Nov 21)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Jason Slagle (Nov 21)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Stephen Sprunk (Nov 21)
- "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." JIM FLEMING (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Hank Nussbacher (Nov 20)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police JIM FLEMING (Nov 20)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Joe Abley (Nov 21)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police JIM FLEMING (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 21)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Mike Johnson (Nov 21)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Jason Slagle (Nov 21)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 21)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Shawn McMahon (Nov 22)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 22)
(Thread continues...)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)