On 18 January 2011 10:00, Michael Painter <tvhaw...@shaka.com> wrote:
> >> http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:32421 >> >> I'm completely neutral in all of this but to be fair to BL - Here's the well respected Level3's results: http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:3356 (who also actually provide bandwidth for google) 231 malicious sites, 14 infection intermediaries and has hosted 29 sites that have infected 111 other sites. Then we have Global Crossing http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:3549. Should we all stop using these ISPs because they have hosted some bad guys? Obviously they know about them because google has the information. Does this mean they don't have proper monitoring or control of their network? (FTR those are rhetorical questions) I used to work for a company that had some mailing lists that users explicitly and knowingly signed up for, and lazy people used to click the "Spam" button on AOL and other providers - either because it was right beside "delete" or because they were too lazy to click the unsubscribe link. As a result, Level 3 used to forward on the automated spam compaints to our abuse department and we would usually act on them by unsubscribing the person ourselves (although they usually tried to munge most of the complainants identifiable credentials from the forwarded emails). They were very responsive and demanded "respect" (in the sense that they don't like spammers), yet they are hosting hundreds of malicious sites. Had they shut us down due to a few spam complaints (which were never actually unsolicited) I have no doubt they would be immediately encountering severe legal action. Black Lotus are pretty much in the same boat but are in a bit of a worse situation since people rely on them for "protection" so they are more exposed to the transparency limelight. They provide clean pipe bandwidth for some sites but might not always know what is on those sites. Regards, Ken
