On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 06:25:53AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Additionally the problems of DDOS sourced from a collection of
compromised hosts could be interfering with someone else's ability
to make a successful VOIP call.
Much more than that: they could be interfering with the underlying
On 10/9/09, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 06:25:53AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Additionally the problems of DDOS sourced from a collection of
compromised hosts could be interfering with someone else's ability
to make a successful VOIP call.
Much more than that:
-
From: Lee ler...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 19:41
To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility
On 10/9/09, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 06:25:53AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Additionally
Lee wrote:
If an ISP is involved with tracking down DDOS participants or
something, I can understand how they'd know a system was compromised.
But any kind of blocking because the ISP sees 'anomalous' traffic
seems .. premature at best. SANS newsbites has this bit:
On Thursday, October 8,
Looks like ISP-to-customer notification of possible infection is starting
on Comcast in the US now.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10370996-245.html
---
Peter Beckman
Gadi Evron wrote:
[snip]
This will be an interesting phenomenon to watch. If it is successful
perhaps it could work here too.
Comcast is launching a trial on Thursday of a new automated service that will warn broadband customers of possible virus
infections, if the computers are behaving as
On Wednesday 07 October 2009 00:27:55 Joe Greco wrote:
Assuming that the existence of an infected PC in the mix translates to
some sort of inability to make a 911 call correctly is, however, simply
irresponsible, and at some point, is probably asking for trouble.
... JG
Also, someone
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
On Wednesday 07 October 2009 00:27:55 Joe Greco wrote:
Assuming that the existence of an infected PC in the mix translates to
some sort of inability to make a 911 call correctly is, however, simply
irresponsible, and at some point, is probably asking for trouble.
On Oct 6, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Someone else pointed out that if the system in question has been
botted/owned/pwn3d/whatever
you want to call it, then, you can't guarantee it would make the 911
call correctly anyway.
I realize that many NANOG'ers don't actually use the
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Wed Oct 7 06:18:24
2009
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:17:57 +0700
From: Dave Temkin dav...@gmail.com
To: Alexander Harrowell a.harrow...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
Gadi Evron wrote:
Barton F Bruce wrote:
Stopping the abuse is fine, but cutting service to the point that a
family
using VOIP only for their phone service can't call 911 and several
children
burn to death could bring all sorts of undesirable regulation let
alone the
-Original Message-
From: Eugeniu Patrascu [mailto:eu...@imacandi.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:20 AM
To: Gadi Evron
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for
bottedclients
.
I think the need for someone being able to call 911 from
On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
Gadi Evron wrote:
Barton F Bruce wrote:
Stopping the abuse is fine, but cutting service to the point that
a family
using VOIP only for their phone service can't call 911 and several
children
burn to death could bring all sorts of
Re: VOIP, 911, bots
Shape their bandwidth down to the minimum required to make a 911 call,
around 64Kbps, and capture their web accesses.
--
-Barry Shein
The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD
-Original Message-
From: Eugeniu Patrascu [mailto:eu...@imacandi.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:20 AM
To: Gadi Evron
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for
bottedclients
.
I think the need for someone being able to call 911
Someone else pointed out that if the system in question has been
botted/owned/pwn3d/whatever
you want to call it, then, you can't guarantee it would make the 911
call correctly anyway.
I realize that many NANOG'ers don't actually use the technologies that
we talk about, so I'm just going
Exactly correct. The number one priority, which trumps all others,
is making the abuse stop. Yes, there are many other things that
can
and should be done, but that's the first one.
Stopping the abuse is fine, but cutting service to the point that a
family
using VOIP only for their
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:04 PM
To: Peter Beckman
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for botted
clients
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Peter Beckman beck
Gadi Evron wrote:
Apparently, marketing departments like the idea of being able to send
customers that need to pay them to a walled garden. It also saves on
tech support costs. Security being the main winner isn't the main
supporter of the idea at some places.
I would love to do this both
Justin Shore wrote:
Gadi Evron wrote:
Apparently, marketing departments like the idea of being able to send
customers that need to pay them to a walled garden. It also saves on
tech support costs. Security being the main winner isn't the main
supporter of the idea at some places.
I would
Perhaps someone has said this but a potential implementation problem
in the US are anti-trust regulations. Sure, they may come around to
seeing it your way since the intent is so good but then again we all
decided to get together and blacklist customers who... is not a great
elevator pitch to an
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
Perhaps someone has said this but a potential implementation problem
in the US are anti-trust regulations. Sure, they may come around to
seeing it your way since the intent is so good but then again we all
decided to get together and blacklist
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 03:55:02PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
Perhaps someone has said this but a potential implementation problem
in the US are anti-trust regulations. Sure, they may come around to
seeing it your way since the intent is so
Hi!
Sounds great but who cover the costs?
If done right, such a treaty here in the US and elsewhere thing would be a
major win for the Internet.
The ISP's will pick up the costs. A cleaner customer base is also a win
for them.
First implementations wont be next week however but the
On Oct 3, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Gadi Evron wrote:
The story is covered by PC mag:
Thanks for the article Gadi. Honestly, I wish both my personal ISP
and
one of my business ISPs would do this. Though I have the technical
ability to monitor my
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Owen DeLong wrote:
* Provide a short period of time (3 days) after notification and before
disconnect to give an opportunity to fix the issue without service
interruption
Uh... Here I differ. The rest of the internet should put up with the abuse
flowing out of
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Peter Beckman beck...@angryox.com wrote:
service being cut off. However it is ignorance and lack of maintenance
that makes viruses and botnets so prevelant that it may just be time to
bite the bullet and force users to learn how to maintain their machines.
Christopher Morrow wrote:
I would also point out that Qwest does this walled-garden approach for
their customers (have been for at least 5 years now? d...@qwest could
clarify) and they've seen success with it. Aliant in .ca also has some
fairly aggressive anti-malware works installed. There are
Exactly correct. The number one priority, which trumps all others,
is making the abuse stop. Yes, there are many other things that can
and should be done, but that's the first one.
Stopping the abuse is fine, but cutting service to the point that a family
using VOIP only for their phone
29 matches
Mail list logo
