Re: North America not interested in IP V6

[Scott Francis <darkuncle () darkuncle net>]

On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:21:52AM -0400, jmcburnett () msmgmt com said:
> Jack Bates Wrote:
>
> > In the US, the pipe is limited in any number of ways in attempts to 
> > limit how many people share their broadband with their neighbor at a 
> > reduced rate.
> >
> > Another issue is that handing out IP addresses to the home at this point 
> > is foolish. User's, in general, can't protect themselves.
>
> EXACTLY-- I wish there was some kind of regulatory something or other
> that made a cable/dsl router mandatory...
> HMMM -- Wonder is Lieberman would sponsor a bill?
> ;)

Unfortunately, firewalls and NAT don't protect against the single biggest
class of vulnerabilities at the moment - application holes. Put a stock
Windows box behind a firewall, and the average user will probably have it
compromised in less than a day through either an Outlook variant, MSIE or one
of the other Windows "features". Microsoft decided to trade security for
bells and whistles long ago, and we are all paying for it now. I wonder if
the inevitable DCOM worm will finally be enough to get a class-action lawsuit
started ...

Right now, I'd settle for simply removing HTML capabilities from email
clients. Removing email worms and viruses would eliminate a _huge_ chunk of
wasted bandwidth and much of the administrative hassle of operating an SMTP
server.

*sigh*
-- 
Scott Francis || darkuncle (at) darkuncle (dot) net
      illum oportet crescere me autem minui

Attachment: _bin
Description: