Re: botnets: web servers, end-systems and Vint Cerf

["J. Oquendo" <sil () infiltrated net>]

michael.dillon () bt com wrote:
> You misunderstand. The problem of securing machines *IS* solved. It is
> possible. It is regularly done with servers connected to the Internet.
> There is no *COMPUTING* problem or technical problem.
> The problem of the 100 million machines is a social or business problem.
> We know how they can be secured, but the solution is not being
> implemented.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>   

After all these years, I'm still surprised a consortium of ISP's haven't 
figured out a way to do something a-la Packet Fence for their clients 
where - whenever an infected machine is detected after logging in, that 
machine is thrown into say a VLAN with instructions on how to clean 
their machines before they're allowed to go further and stay online. If 
you ask me, traffic providers (NSP's/NAP's) and ISP's don't mind this 
garbage coming out of their networks, if they did they'd actually ban 
together and do something about it. Its obvious those charging for 
traffic will say little. Minimized traffic means minimized revenue. All 
I see is "No we despise that kind of traffic" along with a shrug and 
nothing being done about it. I'm sure if some legislative body somewhere 
started levying fines against providers, the net would be a cleaner 
place. For comments on 100 million infected machines... Doubtable. 
Anyone can play fuzzy math games, heck I just strangely figured out that 
MS is costing me an arm and a leg!
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04755.html




--
====================================================
J. Oquendo
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743
sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net
The happiness of society is the end of government.
John Adams

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature