The idea of security prerequisites on the ISP level looks good on paper but is really a bad idea that opens the door to many, many problems. A few examples:
... ISP's being put into the position of dictating what "secure" is. Soon only "approved" software will be accepted, regardless of how good it is. To entrust a commercial entity with that sort of decision making power is unthinkable. In essence, they are dictating what is on your PC, and that's just wrong, and it's wrong all day long. ... I think there is a valid argument to be made regarding the necessity of anti-spyware, and to some degree, anti-virus software. A Mac user, a Linux user and a Windows user have significantly different inherent risks to malware, and a one size fits all approach doesn't work. I would imagine most members ProFox have different and likely more safe surfing habits ( generally speaking) than Mom and Dad Walmart or Suzy Myspace. ... Up to date doesn't necessarily mean better ( A quick visit to the public Windows Update bug forums will cure you of any delusions you may be holding about this). Additionally, older versions of most popular antivirus and antispyware are typically significantly less intrusive and bloated than their modern counterparts. McAfee and Norton AV, I'm talkin' to you. There is such a profitable business model built up around selling fear to the public and then cashing in as they purchase ( often ) unnecessary software in order to feel safe that it makes me ill to think about it. In defense of your initial concept, I do agree that the owner/administrator of a private network has every right to dictate security minimums to guest users prior to their connections. This, especially when handling potentially sensitive data, is a smart move. But, I think the key word here is "private". If ISP's really wanted to do something about the spam, the botnets and the other malicious critters out there they could do so, as the tracking and blacklisting of poisonous servers isn't rocket science, and blacklisting can and does happen already. They could do this without pestering the average user, trying to sell them something, or using fear to goad them. Wouldn't that be nice? David Smith Systems Administrator Doan Family of Dealerships (585) 352-6600 ext.1730 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 2:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [NF] Secure computers OK, I got into a real fight with someone this week on requiring a computer be secure before it is attached to a network. By secure I mean, anti-spyware, anti-virus, up-to-date on patches, and firewall. It got me to thinking, do you think it would be wise, somehow, for ISPs to require anti-virus and anti-spyware to be running on a computer before it's allowed to connect to their system? And how would it be implemented. My thoughts are that if every computer was secure, we would have far less Internet traffic caused by spambots, and would actually give us a much better Internet experience. Any thoughts? [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
