Re: RFC: virus handling

[Dave Aronson <spamtrap.secfocus () dja mailme org>]

On Wed January 28 2004 10:45, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote:

> 3.1.2.) e-mail Alias and Web-Interface
> Additionally providers should provide e-mail aliases for the IP
> addresses of their customers (eg. customer at 127.0.0.1 can be
> reached via 127.0.0.1 () provider com)

This would vastly simplify dictionary-attack spamming.

> or a web interface with similiar functionality.

Better, but still might be easily abused by scripting.

> 3.2.) Disconnect
> Providers should grant their customers some grace period to clean
> their infection and should thereafter be disconnected entirely or
> filtered based on protocol (eg. outgoing SMTP) or content (eg.
> transparent smarthost with virus scanner) until they testify that
> they have cleaned their system.

Grace, shmace!  Viri can do their dirty work in a matter of seconds.  
How about the ISP *immediately* blocks just the port(s) in question?  
(Recognizing that that could be *all* ports.)  It could unblock after 
some time period with no outbound virus infection (or phone home for 
orders, etc.) attempts, and of course reblock when any new such 
activity is detected.

-- 
Dave Aronson, Senior Software Engineer, Secure Software Inc.
(Opinions above NOT those of securesw.com unless so stated!)
Email me at: work (D0T) 2004 (@T) dja (D0T) mailme (D0T) org
Web: http://destined.to/program http://listen.to/davearonson