4 ms·
Upvoted because it's interesting that they're thinking like this, and relevant to HN. But it's still a horrible thought. He says internet service providers (IS
by CWuestefeld 17y ago
Upvoted because it's interesting that they're thinking like this, and relevant to HN. But it's still a horrible thought.
He says internet service providers (ISP) should have the power to sever internet connections if they detect a subscriber has infected computers
They have that potential now. They just need a service contract that allows them to do so, and it's as good as done. I can only interpret the fact that they're not doing so to mean that ISPs believe the cost of doing so exceeds the costs of dealing with spam, etc.
When an ISP detects that traffic flowing across its infrastructure bears the hallmark of a botnet - such as data being directed to a blacklisted address or sudden torrents of email traffic from a single machine - they would be empowered to quarantine their subscriber, destroy any malware found on the user's machine, and vaccinate it by installing the latest security software.
What a horrible idea. Cutting the user off is one thing. Forcibly applying security software is something else entirely.
Without a knowledge of how my system is set up, they're as likely to destroy it as to fix it.
For them to do this in the first place, they'd need root access to my system. I can't even begin to enumerate the ways this is bad.
And it's probably not effective anyway. If there's an official security software, or even a small list of them, it creates an easy target for the bad guys to work around. They'll build their attack code with the knowledge of what they need to avoid.
- cmars232 17y agoI've heard of Time Warner infected subscribers asked to allow a service rep to install some basic firewall/AV software. I guess they had too many grandmas with zombie PCs connected direct to the modem & got proactive.
- arohner 17y agoAnd it's probably not effective anyway. If there's an official security software, or even a small list of them, it creates an easy target for the bad guys to work around. They'll build their attack code with the knowledge of what they need to avoid. Virus writers already do this today. They acquire a bunch of current AV programs, and test the virus on boxes with up-to-date AV. They don't ship the virus until it passes that test case.
- CWuestefeld 17y agoThat's true, but this would exacerbate the problem. Right now there's a relatively large list of possible AV programs that they need to get around. But if it were known that, e.g., Comcast has a contract with McAfee to provide AV software, then the list becomes shorter, and may make it easier to target specific populations.
- arohner 17y agoI think we're in "violent agreement". I absolutely agree the suggestion is a bad idea, and this will make it worse. My original comment was intended to bolster your argument. I can't find the link right now, but a story claimed that the top 3 AV programs covered 75% of the market. I don't think dropping to 1 program to test against strains the virus writers significantly.