Re: Interesting Apache logs
From: Alan J. Flavell (flavell@mail.cern.ch)Date: 03/26/02
- Next message: bsduser: "Re: ICMP Redirect interpretation"
- Previous message: Tom Neilson: "Re: TCP port 135 question?"
- In reply to: Barry Margolin: "Re: Interesting Apache logs"
- Next in thread: Steffen Kirschke: "Re: Interesting Apache logs"
- Next in thread: those who know me have no need of my name: "Re: Interesting Apache logs"
- Reply: Steffen Kirschke: "Re: Interesting Apache logs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@mail.cern.ch> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:07:14 +0100
On Mar 26, Barry Margolin inscribed on the eternal scroll:
> >I'm sorry: we (back at the campus - at cern I'm just another user and
> >it's none of my business what their security scanner gets up to) try
> >not to wait for victims to complain: known abuses are tested for, and
> >nipped in the bud. I'm not saying that cases don't slip through, of
> >course they do, but I'd like to see a more pro-active approach from
> >other providers.
>
> You've viewing it from a completely different perspective.
That's as may be, but we're all connected to the global Internet.
If they won't keep their house in order, we need to defend ourselves
from them.
> Operating a private campus network
(for some value of the term "private"...)
> is different from operating an ISP, both in scale
> (you don't have hundreds of thousands of customers, do you?)
Only tens of thousands. Or what do you mean by "customers"?
> Still, some customers felt that
> it was no more proper for the ISP to be probing them than it would be for a
> cracker; it's not the ISP's job to check up on them, they believed.
The monitoring for code-red etc. to which I was referring didn't
involve any probing, only traffic monitoring. In this case it was a
campus activity.
The mail-relaying tests ( http://www.ja.net/mail/anti-spam/active.html )
are of course a different matter, but had been well advertised to
those affected by them.
I can only repeat that ISTM providers need an appropriate AUP. If
their customers expect to be treated as serious professionals, they
(the customers) need to behave that way; if they expect to behave as
clueless newbies, then they mustn't be surprised to have their
provider keeping a closer eye on what they're doing. In the grey area
in between, there needs to be appropriate shades of compromise.
best regards
- Next message: bsduser: "Re: ICMP Redirect interpretation"
- Previous message: Tom Neilson: "Re: TCP port 135 question?"
- In reply to: Barry Margolin: "Re: Interesting Apache logs"
- Next in thread: Steffen Kirschke: "Re: Interesting Apache logs"
- Next in thread: those who know me have no need of my name: "Re: Interesting Apache logs"
- Reply: Steffen Kirschke: "Re: Interesting Apache logs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|