On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 11:14:10PM -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> To cut through the noise and non-relevant discussion, let's see if we can
> boil this down to a couple of issues:
>
> 1. Should ISPs be responsible for abuse from within their cust
>
> Again, apples and oranges to a degree. Car owners don't receive a "use
> at your own risk" disclaimer either. Yet some Toyota owners faced
> horrifying instances of "subpar" prechecks. GM recalled a million or so
> cars and the list will always go on and on. Mistakes happen period and
> when m
On June 9, 2010 at 07:39 jmamo...@gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) wrote:
> > 1. Should ISPs be responsible for abuse from within their customer base?
>
> Not sure, ISPs role is just to move packets from A to B, you need to
> clearly define what constitutes abuse and how much of it is considered
> a
Jorge Amodio wrote:
> Unfortunately in the software industry you get (when you do, not
> always) the alert and the patch after the fact, ie the exploit has
> been already out there and your machine may probably have been already
> compromised.
>
> I never seen any operating system coming with a sig
> You buy a car and as you're driving along a message comes into the
> dashboard: "Car Update needed, to fix A/C" you ignore it. Don't update
> it who cares, you're driving smoothly. Another alert comes into the car
> dashboard: "Critical alert, your breaks need this patch"... You ignore
> it and d
On 6/9/2010 11:50, J. Oquendo wrote:
[Lots of good stuff snipped.]
> Don't blame the software vendors blame oneself. I've seen even the most
> savvy users using OS' *other* than Windows get compromised. I performed
> an incident response about 8 months ago... 42 machines 41 Linux, 1
> Windows...
Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 6/9/2010 10:58, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>>> What happened to the acronyms "AUP" and "TOS"?
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm talking about an ISPs liability to
>> third party victims, not to their customers.
>>
>
> "Acceptable Use Policy" an
On 6/9/2010 10:58, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> What happened to the acronyms "AUP" and "TOS"?
>>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm talking about an ISPs liability to
> third party victims, not to their customers.
"Acceptable Use Policy" and "Terms of Service"
>
> AUP/TOS are between the ISP a
On 6/9/2010 07:39, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> 1. Should ISPs be responsible for abuse from within their customer base?
>
> Not sure, ISPs role is just to move packets from A to B, you need to
> clearly define what constitutes abuse and how much of it is considered
> a crime.
>
> If I call your home e
On 6/9/2010 07:39, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> 1. Should ISPs be responsible for abuse from within their customer base?
>
> Not sure, ISPs role is just to move packets from A to B, you need to
> clearly define what constitutes abuse and how much of it is considered
> a crime.
>
> If I call your home e
On 6/9/2010 06:14, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2010, at 11:14 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> To cut through the noise and non-relevant discussion, let's see if we can
>> boil this down to a couple of issues:
>>
>> 1. Should ISPs be respon
On 6/9/2010 01:14, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> To cut through the noise and non-relevant discussion, let's see if we can
> boil this down to a couple of issues:
If I may offer a few edits and comments .
> 1. Should ISPs be responsible for abuse from within their customer base?
> 1. Should ISPs be
:I think anyone in their right mind would agree that if a provider see
:criminal activity, they should take action, no?
What a provider "should" do and what makes sense under the law of the
land are two different things.
:If that also holds true, then why doesn't it happen?
The laws pertaining t
> 1. Should ISPs be responsible for abuse from within their customer base?
Not sure, ISPs role is just to move packets from A to B, you need to
clearly define what constitutes abuse and how much of it is considered
a crime.
If I call your home every five minutes to harass you over the phone is
AT
On Jun 8, 2010, at 11:14 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> To cut through the noise and non-relevant discussion, let's see if we can
> boil this down to a couple of issues:
>
> 1. Should ISPs be responsible for abuse from within their customer base?
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 11:14:10PM -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> 1. Should ISPs be responsible for abuse from within their customer base?
Yes -- if they wish to be considered at least minimally professional.
The principle is "if it comes from your host/network on your watch, it's
your abuse". Giv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
To cut through the noise and non-relevant discussion, let's see if we can
boil this down to a couple of issues:
1. Should ISPs be responsible for abuse from within their customer base?
1a. If so, how?
2. Should hosting providers also be held respons
17 matches
Mail list logo
