RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility

From: Adcock, Matt (Matthew.Adcockat_private)
Date: Thu Sep 27 2001 - 10:57:29 PDT

  • Next message: Greg Dotoli: "Re: [RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility]"

    <quote>
      I think we all agree that connecting an unpatched IIS machine to the
    open Internet is acting irresponsibly. Most AUP's already prohibit
    spamming, port scanning etc. (at least on paper). Why not include
    "infection through negligence" as a reason for suspension? Maybe with a
    reasonable grace period the first time. 
    </quote>
    
    I agree that the end administrator is ultimately responsible.  The ISPs
    could also help by filtering this traffic.  It would take an infrastructure
    upgrade that would end up costing the consumer, but I personally would be
    willing to pay a little more.  Maybe give users a choice between being on a
    filtered network or an open network?
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service.
    For more information on this free incident handling, management 
    and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Sep 27 2001 - 11:16:02 PDT