nanog mailing list archives
Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
From: "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg () netzero net>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 05:38:27 GMT
Oh, come on Jerry, you're beginning to sound like part of the problem. Stop being a knee-jerking crumudgeon for a moment and thhink about what Schneier is _really_ saying. Being vague, and obfuscating the issue with vague answers doesn't do due diligence. - ferg Jerry Pasker <info () n-connect net> wrote:
I've been there -- I know how I feel about it -- but I'd love to know how ISP operations folk feel about this.
It means 10 different things to 10 different people. The article was vague. "Security" could mean blocking a few ports, simple Proxy/NAT, blocking port 25 (or 139... or 53.. heh heh) or a thousand different things. There is a market for this, it's called "managed services." ISPs do this type of thing all the time. And customers pay for it. Maybe he means "broadband home users". News flash... home users will get it wherever it's cheap. And cheap means no managed services. To the author of the article: Should ISPs be *REQUIRED* to do it? Just try it and see what happens.... try to pass a law and regulate the internet, I dare you... :-) (I double-dog-dare you to get the law makers to understand it first!) Every security appliance ven-duh on the planet would be in there, trying to have laws written that would require the use of their own proprietary solutions to the "problem." (and the proposed problem would differ depending upon the "solutions" that the particular ven-duh offered) Wait a second... this article was FROM security ven-duhs... all offering solutions to these problems...uh-oh.... this is probably their first move in getting a law..... step 1) cause a public outcry....... so it's starting already. I think we've all seen this act before......... Some days, the world really annoys me. :-( -Jerry -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg () netzero net or fergdawg () sbcglobal net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Current thread:
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden, (continued)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Jay R. Ashworth (Apr 29)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Elmar K. Bins (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden David Lesher (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Greg Boehnlein (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Daniel Senie (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Douglas Otis (Apr 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden W. Mark Herrick, Jr. (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Suresh Ramasubramanian (Apr 30)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Michael . Dillon (Apr 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Dan Hollis (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Daniel Roesen (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Petri Helenius (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Dan Hollis (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Owen DeLong (Apr 27)