RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility

From: Ad***, Matt (Matthew.Ad***@GSCCCA.ORG)
Date: 09/27/01 

Message-ID: <85D8960C64B2D311A52D00902789333501AF14DF@excsrvr1.gsccca.org>
From: "Ad***, Matt" <Matthew.Ad***@GSCCCA.ORG>
To: "'lucp@skopos.be'" <lucp@skopos.be>, incidents@securityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Nimda et.al. versus ISP responsibility
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:57:29 -0400

<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

Quantcast