[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yeah, restraining orders are reportedly easy as sin to get for just
> about anything you might want to get one for.
Agreed, but it is the first step in the whole messy process. ;)
> Yeah? Before you get too scared, go check out
> http://www.mail-abuse.org/lawsuit/ but you must've saw that in reading
> the article.
That I did. My concern is that I've seen some bizarre verdicts come out
of the courts. You are taking about a process/organization that is not
known for being technically savvy.
> > My other concern is that this strikes at the very heart of
> > firewalling.
>
> I don't think they are parallel.
I have to disagree. US courts are based on precedence. Once one is set
the preverbal floodgate gets opened up. I've sat in on cases where
property law was used as precedence in cybercrimes. This case would be
even less of a stretch. ;)
> Correct. A spammer bases his argument on that e-mail boxes are by
> nature public and should not be blocked from access. The same cannot be
> said of (say) your Kerberos server.
If your Kerberos server is not usually Internet accessible, I would
agree. What about things like filtering bad AS propagation? Access from
known attack sites? Or to go to the flip side, what about people who
block outbound access to only specific sites (religious, sports, etc.)?
There are many things that get filtered on an individual basis due to
business models. These are services that are only passed selectively,
kind of like e-mail if you are attempting to filter out spam. Again the
concern is about precedence if one is created saying "you can't filter
traffic".
> > For example take the recent report of NASA blocking all of @Home when
> > they could not get a response to intrusion attempts.
>
> If they blocked it just because they don't like people who use cable
> networks, maybe. It might be discrimination.
IMHO you just kind of made my point. NASA's network is NASA's network.
It really should be their right to allow in who they want and who they
don't provided the criteria does not break any laws (discrimination
against race, color, etc.). There is no law defining @Home or cable
users as a protected organization. With this in mind NASA _should_ be
free to filter them if its in the best interest of the organization.
Personally, I think this kind of activity is a good thing. If a net
admin will not/can not take responsible action for intrusions that
originate on their network, maybe blocking their network will push the
issue enough so that action will be taken. I greatly prefer this model
to a court argument that starts "Based on Yesmail.com vs. MAPS, you have
to permit us access to your public resources".
Thanks!
Chris
--
**************************************
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Mastering Cisco Routers
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078212643X/
* Mastering Network Security
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0782123430/
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
