also in-line...
On 2/13/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben Barrett wrote:
> But they are [coordinating with "big brother"], pandering to RIAA for
> instance, all the while
> doing nothing to support the "little guy"... whose resources are being
> sucked by botnets.
>
Most major ISPs pander
See in-line below...
On 2/13/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben Barrett wrote:
> Dare I say, their "negligence" is a "passive evil"
...
> If I ran a major petroleum
> business, I
> know that various other organizations would be on my case about the
> infrastructure
> threats & liabili
Ben Barrett wrote:
But they are [coordinating with "big brother"], pandering to RIAA for
instance, all the while
doing nothing to support the "little guy"... whose resources are being
sucked by botnets.
Most major ISPs pander to the RIAA because the law says they must.
I'm sure they'd much rath
Ben Barrett wrote:
Dare I say, their "negligence" is a "passive evil"
...
If I ran a major petroleum
business, I
know that various other organizations would be on my case about the
infrastructure
threats & liabilities involved... shipping security, site safety,
etc. IT
is simply not
mat
Ben Barrett wrote:
And why aren't google, microsoft, and major ISP's really cracking down
on the botnet infrastructure?? They have all the tools and the power
Because there is no money in it.
Or more precisely, the expense and risks to undertake such a task
outweigh any altruistic motives.
Michael Miller wrote:
I think the ISP providers don't do enough to stop there users from
becoming problems.
ISP's should be firewalling there users off from the rest of the
world. If you need to ssh to telnet or what ever X service you should
pay extra. Basic Internet service should be low co
Ben Barrett wrote:
Aquarium screensavers are
a great example. Instead of having living pets to interact with
and experience life lessons about partnership and care with,
we "need" to burn extra watts to entertain those archaic fancies.
My office has a strict "no pets" policy. I need to live vi
Well stated situation, Bob. However, I was trying to propose something
more akin to a backbone policing endeavor, which would ideally keep any
major botnet infections from taking hold -- there will always be zero-day
issues, of course, but by the time 10K machines are infected, it should
be easy
Ben Barrett wrote:
> And why aren't google, microsoft, and major ISP's really cracking down
> on the botnet infrastructure?? They have all the tools and the power
Let's see what happens. $ISP puts in place a system to identify
pwnzored boxes. The first day, they identify 250,000 of them.
Man, you guys can rant with the best of em. ;) I'm out of town so I had
to skim through most of this, but thought I would throw my small amount
of own fuel on the fire:
(a) Out of curiousity, I looked up Vista on Amazon: Microsoft Windows
Vista Ultimate FULL VERSION [DVD] , $379.99
http://www.amazo
WELL SAID, Larry :)
I was feeling a bit to the right there for a while, re-reading what I wrote
;)
in regards to net neutrality, that is... and kind of wanting a solution on
the backbone. Net chiropractor, anyone?
Does this compare well to the postal service (or ups/dhl/etc.)?
My package conten
11 matches
Mail list logo
