nanog mailing list archives
Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime
From: Tony Finch <dot () dotat at>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:10:13 +0000
* Of all the vulnerabilities disclosed in 2007, only 50 percent can be corrected through vendor patches. [suggests that ISPs need to be proactive about detecting and blocking compromised machines]I think this conclusion assumes a number of facts not in evidence. If the vulnerability cannot be corrected through a vendor patch, then, one has to wonder what, exactly the vulnerability is. If it is social engineering, then, I don't believe that ISP proactivity can really address the issue.
It can if the kind of proactivity they mean is taking down phishing web sites. (Though I wouldn't describe a phishing site as a vulnerability.) Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <dot () dotat at> http://dotat.at/ FISHER GERMAN BIGHT: NORTHWEST VEERING NORTHEAST 3 OR 4, BUT 5 OR 6 IN NORTH FISHER. SLIGHT OR MODERATE, OCCASIONALLY ROUGH LATER IN FISHER. FOG PATCHES THEN FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY VERY POOR.
Current thread:
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime, (continued)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Florian Weimer (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Owen DeLong (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Florian Weimer (Feb 13)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Florian Weimer (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Jim Popovitch (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Andre Gironda (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime JC Dill (Feb 13)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Andre Gironda (Feb 13)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime Mark Radabaugh (Feb 13)
- RE: IBM report reviews Internet crime Frank Bulk (Feb 14)
- RE: IBM report reviews Internet crime michael.dillon (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime J. Oquendo (Feb 12)
- Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime John Dupuy (Feb 13)