Who the heck decides what constitutes an "infected" computer and what about false positives?
I can just imagine my ISP blocking my internet access because some arbitrary bit of code has labeled my system as "infected" when it is in fact not. Jail break SW is often flagged as malware when in fact it is not. And whose malware SW will you be required to run anyway?
I see a grave risk of this growing into some kind of DRM racket, for all kinds of devices. Thanks but no thanks.
Australia kicking US's butt on Internet security
Summary
Australia and New Zealand are "well ahead" of the United States in the roll-out of several key internet security initiatives thanks to better cooperation between ISPs and the government.
Topics
Australia and New Zealand are "well ahead" of the United States in the roll-out of several key internet security initiatives thanks to better cooperation between internet service providers (ISPs) and the government, according to John Pescatore, a Gartner VP specialising in information security.
Secure domain name services (DNSSec), the deployment of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) and the internet industry's so-called "zombie code" for disconnecting infected computers were singled out as examples.
"In Australia the ISPs and the Federal Government already cooperate a lot more, have an ISP Code of Conduct, they're talking about filtering more," Pescatore told ZDNet Australia at the RSA Conference in San Francisco. Australia and New Zealand's roll-out of DNSSec is "about a year ahead in kicking it off" compared with the US, where deployment is only just beginning.
For more on this story, read Oz kicks US's butt on net security: Gartner on ZDNet Australia.
Just In
@Economister
The ISP I'm currently using here in Canada will sent you an email if your computer sends over a massive number of emails per hour for more than 48 hours. You are politely informed that your computer may be infected with malware and to have it checked out. After 7 days, if your computer is stilling sending masses of email, they will restrict your access so any attempt to open a web page will connect you to their security warning site while your email and other access is disabled -- kinda like a public hotspot where you have to log in to their webpage before going anywheres else.
A limit on my ability to use the Internet? Yes. A justifiable limit? I think it is. Others may scream that their computers right to free speech is being infringed upon.
Besides, it's a profitable sideline for me cleaning those machines and trying to convince people that the trial version of Norton that expired 2 years ago does not qualify as an effective antivirus/spyware blocker.
The ISP I'm currently using here in Canada will sent you an email if your computer sends over a massive number of emails per hour for more than 48 hours. You are politely informed that your computer may be infected with malware and to have it checked out. After 7 days, if your computer is stilling sending masses of email, they will restrict your access so any attempt to open a web page will connect you to their security warning site while your email and other access is disabled -- kinda like a public hotspot where you have to log in to their webpage before going anywheres else.
A limit on my ability to use the Internet? Yes. A justifiable limit? I think it is. Others may scream that their computers right to free speech is being infringed upon.
Besides, it's a profitable sideline for me cleaning those machines and trying to convince people that the trial version of Norton that expired 2 years ago does not qualify as an effective antivirus/spyware blocker.
Thanks for sharing this information, keep up the good work. essay help | Coursework Help | Assignment Help
I agree with Economister; the scheme smacks of potential for abuse and profiteering. I don't think the 'Net should be "controled". As it is there is too much going on. Various gov'ts around the world are already offending the openness of the Internet.
Others may scream that their computers right to free speech is being infringed upon. Dissertation Help | Thesis Help
Maybe if the rest of the world "zombie coded" the US, they'd get the message.
From Bruce Schneier's website:
http://www.schneier.com/essay-329.html
"We all suffer when someone on the Internet allows his computer to get infected. How we balance that with individuals' rights to maintain their own computers as they see fit is a discussion we need to start having."
http://www.schneier.com/essay-329.html
"We all suffer when someone on the Internet allows his computer to get infected. How we balance that with individuals' rights to maintain their own computers as they see fit is a discussion we need to start having."
@dev/null Well maybe Microsoft should care about us and allow people to download the security fixes rather than worrying about how many billions they make on us. I can't believe there hasn't been a class action lawsuit against Microsoft for all the cost we have fighting the malware and viruses from some computer they wouldn't allow updates for.
@dev/null
"We all suffer when someone on the STREET allows his BODY to get infected. How we balance that with individuals' rights to LEAVE THEIR HOUSE as they see fit is a discussion we need to start having."
"We all suffer when someone on the STREET allows his BODY to get infected. How we balance that with individuals' rights to LEAVE THEIR HOUSE as they see fit is a discussion we need to start having."
@jeverettk
Oh, and f(that)!
Oh, and f(that)!
On a theoretical level, banning infected computers from full internet access is no problem. My state has mandatory motor vehicle inspection - to get your car license, you have to have passed a safety inspection. Other states have mandatory exhaust emissions inspections. You can't drive if you can't pass the inspection, at least not legally. Why should internet access be any different?
On the technological level, though, I can see all sorts of problems. This is one area where the implementation is going to make or break the effort. False positives and undetected infections, if common enough, could kill this, so the technology that's used should be first-rate.
I think I hear someone calling for a pilot project. Anyone want to volunteer?
On the technological level, though, I can see all sorts of problems. This is one area where the implementation is going to make or break the effort. False positives and undetected infections, if common enough, could kill this, so the technology that's used should be first-rate.
I think I hear someone calling for a pilot project. Anyone want to volunteer?
concept of public safety in compromised automobiles is in no way analagous to the safety of a person's internet access.
internet access can just reboot.
oh sure it sounds good and reasonable if you have that mindset of being protected by the government.
but the old adage of absolute power corrupting is just too real these days.
the ethical dangers we face when someone, anyone, controls our access to information is just too great in our society.
if we give the government the right to filter so-called infected traffic there is no, theoretical, limit to the kind of information they will block.
just look at the recent health care takeover.
they are claiming that the commerce clause of the constitution, that only intends to regulate INTERSTATE commerce, which is banned in the medical insurance industry, gives them the right to tell us what kind of medical service we must contract and pay for, i.e. insurance.
if we allow this as we have the control of food production, there is no telling what they will claim control of next.
maybe i will be told i can't paint my house flourescent green because it will endanger the eyesight of passing children.
oh what manner of web we weave, . . .
just say no!
.
internet access can just reboot.
oh sure it sounds good and reasonable if you have that mindset of being protected by the government.
but the old adage of absolute power corrupting is just too real these days.
the ethical dangers we face when someone, anyone, controls our access to information is just too great in our society.
if we give the government the right to filter so-called infected traffic there is no, theoretical, limit to the kind of information they will block.
just look at the recent health care takeover.
they are claiming that the commerce clause of the constitution, that only intends to regulate INTERSTATE commerce, which is banned in the medical insurance industry, gives them the right to tell us what kind of medical service we must contract and pay for, i.e. insurance.
if we allow this as we have the control of food production, there is no telling what they will claim control of next.
maybe i will be told i can't paint my house flourescent green because it will endanger the eyesight of passing children.
oh what manner of web we weave, . . .
just say no!
.
Life is full of false positives. That doesn't mean a system is unworkable, it just means it was built by human beings.
It is the responsibility of each individual or company to make sure their computing systems are not presenting a hazard to other public internet users when they want to connect to said internet.
There are more than enough tools, programs and advice on how to keep a PC or computing system clean, and if an individual cannot or will not manage that and gets infected, then it is totally logical that he be prevented from connecting to the public internet and spreading his infections.
Wanting a system that is perfect before using it, ie with no false positives, would mean that no one would use the internet, as it makes errors all the time.
The internet is imperfect, that is the nature of the beast.
This has nothing to do with control, that is a fear-mongering red herring tabled by the sabre rattlers amongst us... It is about not expecting everyone else to have to put up with your infected crap and being exposed to it because someone else does not make the effort to keep their systems safe and clean.
It is the responsibility of each individual or company to make sure their computing systems are not presenting a hazard to other public internet users when they want to connect to said internet.
There are more than enough tools, programs and advice on how to keep a PC or computing system clean, and if an individual cannot or will not manage that and gets infected, then it is totally logical that he be prevented from connecting to the public internet and spreading his infections.
Wanting a system that is perfect before using it, ie with no false positives, would mean that no one would use the internet, as it makes errors all the time.
The internet is imperfect, that is the nature of the beast.
This has nothing to do with control, that is a fear-mongering red herring tabled by the sabre rattlers amongst us... It is about not expecting everyone else to have to put up with your infected crap and being exposed to it because someone else does not make the effort to keep their systems safe and clean.
I was watching with care on this. All the posters seem to be worried about PC's being infected with Trojans, and that ongoing emailing (and infecting) everyone else.
I, as an Australian, am extremely concerned that our government is wanting to "filter the web".
Supposedly it is to keep kiddie porn and bomb making from being available. I don't see a problem with those actual issues. However, if a government is able to legislate blocking of certain sites, what stops them from legislating blocking any sites with alternative views from the government's.
Egypt tried to block the internet for its own political survival, yet it failed to slow public opinion.
And harping back to my original opinion, it's up to the parents to monitor their kids access to dubious sites.
I, as an Australian, am extremely concerned that our government is wanting to "filter the web".
Supposedly it is to keep kiddie porn and bomb making from being available. I don't see a problem with those actual issues. However, if a government is able to legislate blocking of certain sites, what stops them from legislating blocking any sites with alternative views from the government's.
Egypt tried to block the internet for its own political survival, yet it failed to slow public opinion.
And harping back to my original opinion, it's up to the parents to monitor their kids access to dubious sites.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
