"Who watches the watchers, though?" Today, nobody does. Police are not watched, nor is there any official part of any government that does. Trust is used with Police, and check an balances are used in the US government. If we use a "police" for the Internet, then they would have to be rather limited in what they can do. I do not say this from a point of view of anyone's "rights" but one of functionality. Today's Police do not usually enforce corporate embezzlement or stolen cars because of the shear effort to do so. Whatever such an entity can do, it's got to be KISSed. ---K "King, Brian" wrote: > > >Are owners of long term compromised systems really "innocents"? If > people > >have left systems compromised with worms that are attacking other > networks > >and reports have been ignored for significant amounts of time, then > surely > >the compromised party are guilty of negligence ? > I would say that it depends who is administering the system. I wouldn't > call a clueless personal user negligent, but it is expected that a > network administrator knows how to patch and protect computer systems > under his/her control. To be negligent means that the person could fix > the problem but didn't. > > >Personally, I think there are merits to some kind of "strikeback" > system, > >but it has worse than dubious legality, and would definitely be abused > >(without a question). > I agree with you on this. The question is: would script kiddies see > every network scan as an excuse for anarchy? > > >I think that ISP's need to make a more active role in > >this, and actively threaten to cut off customers whos compromised > systems > >are attacking other networks on the internet. > YES! > > >Perhaps rather than a strikeback system, something similar to ARIS > could be > >used to send automated alerts to ISP's warning them that x number of > their > >customers have the latest worm. In the event that ISP's are > non-compliant, > >and don't deal with their infected customers, peering points could > agree to > >enforce this upon ISP's. > I agree. The idea about the peering points is dubious, though because > it brings in the idea of civilian enforcement. Who watches the > watchers, though? How can we ensure that system isn't abused? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *** Wireless LAN Policies for Security & Management - NEW White Paper *** > Just like wired networks, wireless LANs require network security policies > that are enforced to protect WLANs from known vulnerabilities and threats. > Learn to design, implement and enforce WLAN security policies to lockdown enterprise WLANs. > > To get your FREE white paper visit us at: > http://www.securityfocus.com/AirDefense-incidents > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Wireless LAN Policies for Security & Management - NEW White Paper *** Just like wired networks, wireless LANs require network security policies that are enforced to protect WLANs from known vulnerabilities and threats. Learn to design, implement and enforce WLAN security policies to lockdown enterprise WLANs. To get your FREE white paper visit us at: http://www.securityfocus.com/AirDefense-incidents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri May 23 2003 - 11:24:18 PDT