A greater threat is that ISPs may try to restrict the customer's side by denying access to machines based on their hardware or software configuration. And far from banning that, the government may be encouraging it. Back when he was head of cybersecurity, White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke even said it should be made mandatory to quarantine malware.
The black helicopters are coming, the black helicopters are coming!
Here is the deal. People fear what they don't understand. People don't understand the Internet and they fear it. People don't understant it isn't cost effective for ISP's to be proactive about the security state of their customers. They would have to monitor 100% of the connected computers on the off chance that 2% (my guess) of them are infected to the point such that it cost something. It will always be cheaper for ISP's to be reactive and shut down ports for free if they become such a problem.
Full Disclosure: It looks like the artticle is from the furture. Check the date under the auther's name. So maybe Andy Dorman knows something from the furture that we who are stuck in the present don't understand. Yet...
2 comments:
First off let me say I'm not in favor of the ISP filtering ANYTHING. I can't stand it when the ISP starts filtering ports etc. With that being said there are plenty of cases where the PC in question is a threat to the network as a whole. DDOS etc. But I think that the costs of "montioring" 100% of the computers on the network is going to be so cheap in the next 5 years that ISP's will do it. Look at how AOHELL, earthlink and cox all "protect" you with spy blockers, spam blockers, blocker blockers etc. This will just be another way that ISP's will try and differ themselves from other ISP's. Remember the decsion makers, even in techncial companies, don't care about the technical details.
SBC already has the port 25 opt-in policy, which is totally bogus. What's next?!? a opt-in policy for pr0n. Whatever
Post a Comment