On Friday 19 September 2003 08:11 pm, Chris wrote: > On Friday 19 September 2003 02:07 am, Stephen Kuhn wrote: > > Po wittle MicroSCOft... > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3119316.stm > > > > stephen kuhn - owner > > Yea, and I go 43 of the damm things in the last two days. Ya can actually > look at the worm with a hex editor and see where it tries to disable > Zonealarm and some of the win antivirus software. Can't believe Earthlink > can't stop them from coming in, haven't gotten a one come in through my > toadnet.com domain though, course its being hosted on a linux server, maybe > thats why :)
I have also wondered why ISP's are not filtering stuff like this, but I have also thought about the potential liability of an ISP that offers something like virus filtering to its customers. Unlike spam filtering, virus filtering offerred to customers might imply some type of liability if they failed to catch a particular virus. If they miss spam, no great harm and any complaints would lack enough damages to merit a tort. Viruses, however, are a different matter. Failure to catch something might allow someone to claim enough damages to enable them to go to court for the potential negligence, etc. I expect that ISP's are probably risk averse to accepting the potential liability of trying to intercept stuff like that. Just my guess mind you. Given how litigious the US is, I am not all that surprised that the ISP's simply leave it to the customer to protect themselves. At least the customer can't sue and claim that they thought they were protected because of the service offerred by the ISP. -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
