RE: "Default" Internet Service

["Smith, Donald" <Donald.Smith () qwest com>]

Donald.Smith () qwest com GCIA
pgpFingerPrint:9CE4 227B B9B3 601F B500  D076 43F1 0767 AF00 EDCC
Brian Kernighan jokingly named it the Uniplexed Information and
Computing System (UNICS) as a pun on MULTICS.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On 
> Behalf Of Matthew Sullivan
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 3:26 PM
> Cc: nanog
> Subject: Re: "Default" Internet Service
>
>
>
> Smith, Donald wrote:
>
> > First are the consumers willing to pay for a "safer" internet 
> > DSL/dial/isdn?
> Why should they have to?

Because it costs money to mitigate the attacks coming from their
infected machines.
It takes people and people want to be paid. Given a larger security
abuse team we could do more.


> > I believe if they were there would be a safer service 
> available. I have 
> > seen several "secure" isp's fail in the last few years. If 
> you have any 
> > data that shows that there is a market for a more secure 
> > dialup/DSL/isdn... please share it.
> No, but it won't belong before you will find half a dozen 
> reasons why as 
> an ISP you will want to do it - but then it may be too late.
>
> > 2nd blaming infected machines on the internet is similar to blaming 
> > your postal carrier for bringing you junk mail and bills.
> Crap
>
> > About 1/2 of all of
> > the large "infection" events on the internet are the result 
> of people 
> > running unpatched unsecured applications on their machines. 
> The other 
> > half of the infections I see are due to an end user opening an email 
> > and running an attachment.
> Correct
>
> > Even with a secure OS this simple method of infection will 
> continue to 
> > work.
> Correct
>
> However you are ignoring the fact that once the machine is 
> infected, the 
> machine can be used by hundreds of people (skript kiddies) to damage 
> other parts of the internet, further they can (and are) being used by 
> organised crime to extort money out of large financial 
> institutions and 
> companies, and that's not to mention DDoS's on the smaller people who 
> are just in the way.

Agreed.

> > How and when did it become the responsibility of the ISP to 
> protect the 
> > end users machines?
> It hasn't, however the data coming from an ISPs network has 
> always been 
> the responsibility of the ISP.... and I would suggest if you 
> cannot stop 
> the endusers getting infected, then you should look at stopping those 
> machines from abusing other machines on the internet....  If you will 
> not do that you should not be peered.

AFAIK all major ISP's are processing 1000's of infected host. This
includes notification of the end user,
assistence in cleaning and identifing the infections and responses to
the people providing the lists of infected hosts.


> > Do ISP's get paid to protect end user machines?
> No, they get paid for traffic, which is the reason some ISPs 
> out there 
> don't care if their customers are DDoSing anothers network.

Most US ISP's end users (DSL/DIAL/ISDN/CABLE) are on a flat rate. 
The end user is not charged for the bandwidth.
I have received NO PUSHBACK from sales on any of the projects we have
worked on to mitigate the effects of bots/worms/virii on our network. I
personally don't believe there are ISP's that don't mitigate so they can
get the extra $$$ the worm traffic is generating.

> > If you want to blame someone maybe the company that provided the 
> > insecure os that requires monthly patches to fix portions of 
> the broken 
> > code they sold. Or you could blame the end users who open unknown 
> > attachments.
> Yup, we've been doing that for years, and they have been 
> fixing things 
> as fast as possible (not always, and not until more recently) however 
> they are making steps in the right direction, so I feel it's 
> about time 
> ISP's started taking some of the responsibility for traffic on their 
> network.  As far as the attachments go, education is the only 
> way - and 
> if they cannot be educated they shouldn't be on the Internet.

How will you keep them off? 


> > I would like a real solution to the problem. Simply blocking 
> ports is 
> > not successful. So I recommend 2 steps.
> >
> > First buy OS's that are more secure out of the box.
> That's not going to happen anytime soon, even with Microsoft 
> starting to 
> follow the 'right' road.

I believe there are OSes that are much more secure out of the box then
Microsoft's products.

> > 2nd Teach users NOT to click on every thing they see.
> >  
> ...and how are you going to do that?  If you give a user a 

Education as you stated above.

> $10 account 
> where they have full internet access they click on 
> everything, then they 
> get infected, their machine is controlled by someone else across the 
> world and is used for DDoS attacks or spam (or..hacking, 
> or...?) .. what 
> are you going to do to educate them in the middle....?  What 
> is the ISP 
> going to do to make sure that the enduser has been educated?  
>  What are 
> you the ISP going to do to ensure the machine that was 
> infected has now 
> been disinfected...?

You have not convinced me that either of these is currently an ISP
responsibility.

> I don't expect you the ISP to solve all these problems, nor 
> do I expect 
> you the ISP to stop your users from getting infected.... 
> However you the 
> ISP are responsible for traffic coming from and going to your 
> users, and 
> most of us don't care if you want to allow your users to get 
> infected, 
> however we do care if you allow your customers to attack 
> us....  Whether 
> it be an attack in the form of spam, DDoS or trojan/virus spreading.

As an ISP I am responsible to ensure my users can send and receive
packets.

Want to contribute? 
Consider volunteering time at one of the public internet security sites.
Complaining that ISP's are not doing enough is not productive.


> / Mat