Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden

[Joe Shen <joe_hznm () yahoo com sg>]

Hi,

maybe this is an OLD topic, but the problem is "what
is security? " or "how to define a secure internet
access service ". E.g. should ISP respond for managing
application transmitted across its backbone? if so,
how to define "standard" appliation model while
keeping internet a flexible platform?

Could we maintein the scalability of IP network while
keeping it secure & high performance? 

To business consideration , would people pay more
money for a limited, "secure" internet access service
while his/her child is able to visit those Nude
website?

So, IMHO, it's a good idea but it's not a feasible
proposal.

Joe 


--- 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." 

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? 
嫌邮箱太小？雅虎电邮自助扩容！
http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/10m/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/event/10m.html