Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: The home user problem returns
From: mason () schmitt ca
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
This is exactly the kind of ingress and egress filtering I'm talking about. We've avoided, by having these filters in place, some fairly nasty worm epidemics that wreaked havoc at other ISPs. None of the traffic typically associated with those ports has any business whatsoever moving beyond the confines of the home user's local network or any LAN for that matter. Again, for most networks, this is absolutely the wrong way to approach the problem, but for an ISP, those filters and anti spoofing filters have taken a big chunk out of the low hanging fruit.there is a fundamental problem with the idea that the ISP should be responsible for protecting the end-user. namely real protection would mean that they only allow specific 'known good' things to work, but if you limit ALL users to just those existing known-good things you will block development of new things (both good and bad).
What is "real protection" is that a brand name? As was said earlier, ISPs are not the same sort of beast as a corporation - they cannot / should not provide a default deny security policy for all customers. I think we've also basically shown that if this were offered, so few people would take the offer that there's really no point in trying in the first place. So, lets scrap the idea that ISPs should completely shield their customers from all harm - that is completely unrealistic for several reasons, not the least of which are the fact that ISPs are inherently default allow and that the ISP has no real control over the home user's PC at all. This is not how a corporate environment should be run. Have we cleared that all up now? The two are very different. The approaches to managing each are different. So, getting back to whether ISPs should be involved in the security stack at all? As is obvious from this thread, even some security people are unsure whether ISPs should be anything but a transparent pipe to the net. I'm still rather surprised and a little disappointed to hear this. Why is there concern over blocking really basic automated crap that has no business being on any network? Especially considering that most of the home users that security people always complain about are the ones sitting on the ISP's network. Is there some assumption that clueful security folk make up a large percentage of an ISP's customer base? Is that why ISPs should just let all the crap through? Because if that's the case, if all the users out there really know how to defend themselves, then Marcus is right, we are wasting our breath - everyone knows this stuff. So, the reason we are seeing all these massive worm infections and bot nets sending spam is because we let them do it - it keeps us all employed. All sarcasm aside, why do people keep clinging to the idea of a completely transparent pipe? I don't get it. Does is have something to do with some badly twisted idea of free speech? Why do you think that just because .0001% of the user population knows how to defend themselves, that everyone else should be made to suffer? I'm appologize in advance for being accusatory, but that's selfish and self centered.
having filtering like this as an option (even as a default option) is a good thing, but deciding that it should be the ONLY option and that I shouldn't be able to get an unfiltred connection if I want one is something VERY different.
You know what. Given that you really are only .0001% of the ISP customer base, if you were to phone me up and say that you were really into computer security and wanted to setup a honey net or something like that so that you could watch and learn and I got the impression that you were for real, I'd make an exception in my ruleset for you. I'd also tell you that if I got a single complaint regarding traffic from your IP, you'd be right back to where you started. I don't think I'm pulling the arrogant, control freak sysadmin / BOFH role here. The basic filters that are in place right now should be in place on every ISP on the planet. They do not impede any legitimate traffic at all and offer very real benefits to our customers and us. It is my strong opinion that ISPs can and should be doing more to help, "reduce the noise to manageable levels." I know that this is not a list for ISP network admins, so perhaps I'm "wasting my breath", but perhaps this rant can be construed as more user education. You're sharing the net with people that are practically helpless, please ease up a bit and understand that some simple actions on the part of the ISP are going to help everyone. I enjoy this list and don't want to alienate myself by lashing out at anyone (I know you're in the To field David and I was responding to your email, but this wasn't directed at you), so I appologize if I've rubbed anyone the wrong way. -- Mason _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- Re: The home user problem returns, (continued)
- Re: The home user problem returns Mason Schmitt (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns Brian Loe (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns Mason Schmitt (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns Brian Loe (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns Marcus J. Ranum (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns Brian Loe (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns Brian Loe (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns Jim Seymour (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns Mason Schmitt (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns R. DuFresne (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns Mason Schmitt (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns David Lang (Sep 14)
- Re: The home user problem returns mason (Sep 14)
- Re: The home user problem returns David Lang (Sep 14)
- RE: The home user problem returns Bill Royds (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns Hile . William (Sep 22)
- RE: The home user problem returns Jim Seymour (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns Brian Loe (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns R. DuFresne (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns Mason Schmitt (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns lordchariot (Sep 13)