Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-06-26 08:29:38
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6834|San Diego, CA, USA
via http://slashdot.org/

https://img713.imageshack.us/img713/1016/200803112247.jpg

wrote:

"Barack Obama's cyber-security coordinator has shown interest in an e-security code of practice developed in Australia that aims to quarantine Internet users infected by malware, also known as zombie computers. He reportedly said it would be a useful role model for the US to adopt. One suggestion within the code is to put infected users into a 'walled garden,' which limits Internet access to prevent further security problems until quarantined.
Source: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/06/26/ … ntine-Code

---

Now I know earlier we discussed how the Obama Administration will regulate the internet, but this actually make sense and is something the government should do.

However, for them to do this they would have to monitor our internet traffic to identify connections to Command-and-control computers giving orders to these Zombie machines - that's the only part of this that is worrying me.

The government, though the ISP, should notify the zombie computer owner when they detect this.

What do you guys think?  Are we giving up our freedoms for security in this case?
2010-06-26 10:46:42
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6901|do not disturb

No, the government should not deny internet access to PC's infected with malware designed to DoS on command, or list them. Most users are not aware their PC's are infected, especially with the use of rootkits that hides infection from the registry and process inspection, which is more common than most suspect.

So if your PC is to be listed for being infected to a bot-network, but you reformat and remove the virus/trojan/worm, how do you remove yourself from the list?

Users are responsible for maintaining their PC's health.
2010-06-26 11:22:30
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85
It's the same principle as quarantining people that have a virus. Yes it is disappointing that their rights have to be limited, but the fact is if they aren't they are going to directly effect the rights of everyone they come in contact with. There does need to be some balance between freedom and security when people invite breaches not only to their security but to the breaches of others' security as well.

The real issue is how do you know these lists and countermeasures are only being used for what they say they are being used for.
2010-06-26 11:24:20
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's the same principle as quarantining people that have a virus. Yes it is disappointing that their rights have to be limited, but the fact is if they aren't they are going to directly effect the rights of everyone they come in contact with. There does need to be some balance between freedom and security when people invite breaches not only to their security but to the breaches of others' security as well.

The real issue is how do you know these lists and countermeasures are only being used for what they say they are being used for.
There are TONS of zombified computers out there...and any one of them has yet to effect my rights.
2010-06-26 11:50:09
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's the same principle as quarantining people that have a virus. Yes it is disappointing that their rights have to be limited, but the fact is if they aren't they are going to directly effect the rights of everyone they come in contact with. There does need to be some balance between freedom and security when people invite breaches not only to their security but to the breaches of others' security as well.

The real issue is how do you know these lists and countermeasures are only being used for what they say they are being used for.
I think this argument is far more useful when applied to biological viruses.  We already quarantine people for certain highly infectious diseases that are airborne, and I think the same could be applied for certain incurable diseases that aren't airborne -- like HIV/AIDS.

It is a slippery slope, and while I realize that people would be screaming bloody murder if we quarantined people with HIV/AIDS, in the end, it would be more practical and to the benefit of the common good.
2010-06-26 11:55:20
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's the same principle as quarantining people that have a virus. Yes it is disappointing that their rights have to be limited, but the fact is if they aren't they are going to directly effect the rights of everyone they come in contact with. There does need to be some balance between freedom and security when people invite breaches not only to their security but to the breaches of others' security as well.

The real issue is how do you know these lists and countermeasures are only being used for what they say they are being used for.
I think this argument is far more useful when applied to biological viruses.  We already quarantine people for certain highly infectious diseases that are airborne, and I think the same could be applied for certain incurable diseases that aren't airborne -- like HIV/AIDS.

It is a slippery slope, and while I realize that people would be screaming bloody murder if we quarantined people with HIV/AIDS, in the end, it would be more practical and to the benefit of the common good.
Except it isn't.  HIV/AIDS are bad...but they are about as communicable as hepatitis, and we don't quarantine them.  People with HIV need to be careful to not transmit it, and people need to be more intelligent about possible blood pathogens.  It's not rocket science.  People with infectious diseases that are HIGHLY contagious are sometimes quarantined...but that's because just breathing can pass the disease to someone else.  It will happen without effort on their part.  That is a HUGE difference.

And when it comes to electronic viruses...well, no one's life is at stake and people could just be smart about protecting themselves.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-06-26 11:55:59)

2010-06-26 11:57:41
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's the same principle as quarantining people that have a virus. Yes it is disappointing that their rights have to be limited, but the fact is if they aren't they are going to directly effect the rights of everyone they come in contact with. There does need to be some balance between freedom and security when people invite breaches not only to their security but to the breaches of others' security as well.

The real issue is how do you know these lists and countermeasures are only being used for what they say they are being used for.
There are TONS of zombified computers out there...and any one of them has yet to effect my rights.
Ignoring the fact that you don't KNOW whether they have affected you or not...

It is only a matter of time. As the complexity of computer viruses grows, having an army of zombie computers used as the workhorses behind a sophisticated virus, it could pose serious problems to everyone, not just the idiots that fall for what most of us here would consider stupid scams. As of right now the comparison to biological viruses is not particularly apt because computer viruses have not advanced to that level of complexity yet, but it is only a matter of time.
2010-06-26 12:01:08
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's the same principle as quarantining people that have a virus. Yes it is disappointing that their rights have to be limited, but the fact is if they aren't they are going to directly effect the rights of everyone they come in contact with. There does need to be some balance between freedom and security when people invite breaches not only to their security but to the breaches of others' security as well.

The real issue is how do you know these lists and countermeasures are only being used for what they say they are being used for.
I think this argument is far more useful when applied to biological viruses.  We already quarantine people for certain highly infectious diseases that are airborne, and I think the same could be applied for certain incurable diseases that aren't airborne -- like HIV/AIDS.

It is a slippery slope, and while I realize that people would be screaming bloody murder if we quarantined people with HIV/AIDS, in the end, it would be more practical and to the benefit of the common good.
Except it isn't.  HIV/AIDS are bad...but they are about as communicable as hepatitis, and we don't quarantine them.  People with HIV need to be careful to not transmit it, and people need to be more intelligent about possible blood pathogens.  It's not rocket science.  People with infectious diseases that are HIGHLY contagious are sometimes quarantined...but that's because just breathing can pass the disease to someone else.  It will happen without effort on their part.  That is a HUGE difference.

And when it comes to electronic viruses...well, no one's life is at stake and people could just be smart about protecting themselves.
I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with your last sentence for sure.

However, I see HIV/AIDS differently from other non-airborne diseases.  First of all, it is easy to hide.  When HIV hasn't yet become AIDS, there are no visible symptoms.  Even people with the early stages of AIDS can hide the symptoms oftentimes without a whole lot of effort.

The reason why I take this angle is that I look at stories like this one...

http://www.edennewspaper.com/index.php? … Itemid=165

There was a thread earlier in this forum that discussed this case, and it shows how someone vindictive can easily infect other people without their knowledge of it.  Now, if it were a curable disease (like most typical VDs) or a non-curable but non-fatal disease (like Herpes), then I would agree that there is no need for a quarantine.

However, when you are carrying a disease that is easily transferable through deceit that is fatal, that seems to be too high of a threat to allow in open society IMHO.
2010-06-26 12:12:40
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Ignoring the fact that you don't KNOW whether they have affected you or not...
Let's not ignore this.  How can I not know?  I have not had my identity stolen, never had my credit hijacked, never had a virus, never been hacked, etc...  In today's world, what else can it really do?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is only a matter of time. As the complexity of computer viruses grows, having an army of zombie computers used as the workhorses behind a sophisticated virus, it could pose serious problems to everyone, not just the idiots that fall for what most of us here would consider stupid scams. As of right now the comparison to biological viruses is not particularly apt because computer viruses have not advanced to that level of complexity yet, but it is only a matter of time.
I still don't see how.  There are millions of computers in botnets right now...and how are they wreaking havoc on my liberty and lifestyle?  I don't really care what they could be in the future, since they AREN'T there yet, and so it isn't worth knocking people off the net (or limiting it) just because of some phantom threat.
2010-06-26 12:16:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Ignoring the fact that you don't KNOW whether they have affected you or not...
Let's not ignore this.  How can I not know?  I have not had my identity stolen, never had my credit hijacked, never had a virus, never been hacked, etc...  In today's world, what else can it really do?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is only a matter of time. As the complexity of computer viruses grows, having an army of zombie computers used as the workhorses behind a sophisticated virus, it could pose serious problems to everyone, not just the idiots that fall for what most of us here would consider stupid scams. As of right now the comparison to biological viruses is not particularly apt because computer viruses have not advanced to that level of complexity yet, but it is only a matter of time.
I still don't see how.  There are millions of computers in botnets right now...and how are they wreaking havoc on my liberty and lifestyle?  I don't really care what they could be in the future, since they AREN'T there yet, and so it isn't worth knocking people off the net (or limiting it) just because of some phantom threat.
It is true though that these viruses have the potential to cause a lot of damage.

As for identity theft...  look into it.  Thousands (if not millions) of people have had their identities stolen, and they usually don't find out until a large purchase is made under their names.  Some of these criminals are smart enough to keep the purchases small, so in the long run, they can nickel and dime your credit to death.
2010-06-26 12:17:15
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Ignoring the fact that you don't KNOW whether they have affected you or not...
Let's not ignore this.  How can I not know?  I have not had my identity stolen, never had my credit hijacked, never had a virus, never been hacked, etc...  In today's world, what else can it really do?
Yeah, you don't KNOW your credit hasn't been hijacked, you haven't had a virus, etc. etc. You aren't aware of any of those things happening, but you don't know that they haven't either. It's impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you haven't been compromised if anyone anywhere has put your personal information into a computer. It's not just about security on your end, it's about security on their end too.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is only a matter of time. As the complexity of computer viruses grows, having an army of zombie computers used as the workhorses behind a sophisticated virus, it could pose serious problems to everyone, not just the idiots that fall for what most of us here would consider stupid scams. As of right now the comparison to biological viruses is not particularly apt because computer viruses have not advanced to that level of complexity yet, but it is only a matter of time.
I still don't see how.  There are millions of computers in botnets right now...and how are they wreaking havoc on my liberty and lifestyle?  I don't really care what they could be in the future, since they AREN'T there yet, and so it isn't worth knocking people off the net (or limiting it) just because of some phantom threat.
There are millions of computers that could be called on to be used if there is ever any sort of "driver" virus to activate them. I'm not claiming a whole lot of knowledge in this black hat/white hat stuff, but the point here is there are a lot of viruses that passively take over your computer but don't actually hamper your ability to do anything until some black hat somewhere flips a switch. The potential to wreak havoc and possibly a profit is so high that there is no way something like this will never be attempted on a large scale.
2010-06-26 12:17:30
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with your last sentence for sure.

However, I see HIV/AIDS differently from other non-airborne diseases.  First of all, it is easy to hide.  When HIV hasn't yet become AIDS, there are no visible symptoms.  Even people with the early stages of AIDS can hide the symptoms oftentimes without a whole lot of effort.

The reason why I take this angle is that I look at stories like this one...

http://www.edennewspaper.com/index.php? … Itemid=165

There was a thread earlier in this forum that discussed this case, and it shows how someone vindictive can easily infect other people without their knowledge of it.  Now, if it were a curable disease (like most typical VDs) or a non-curable but non-fatal disease (like Herpes), then I would agree that there is no need for a quarantine.

However, when you are carrying a disease that is easily transferable through deceit that is fatal, that seems to be too high of a threat to allow in open society IMHO.
A few bad people should NOT be ruining it for the rest of the group.  I remember this case as well, from Jamestown, NY...and while it's terrible, I don't see how quarantining the people HE infected is fair in any way, since they didn't do anything wrong.  He, on the other hand, should be jailed for a long fucking time.
2010-06-26 12:23:26
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with your last sentence for sure.

However, I see HIV/AIDS differently from other non-airborne diseases.  First of all, it is easy to hide.  When HIV hasn't yet become AIDS, there are no visible symptoms.  Even people with the early stages of AIDS can hide the symptoms oftentimes without a whole lot of effort.

The reason why I take this angle is that I look at stories like this one...

http://www.edennewspaper.com/index.php? … Itemid=165

There was a thread earlier in this forum that discussed this case, and it shows how someone vindictive can easily infect other people without their knowledge of it.  Now, if it were a curable disease (like most typical VDs) or a non-curable but non-fatal disease (like Herpes), then I would agree that there is no need for a quarantine.

However, when you are carrying a disease that is easily transferable through deceit that is fatal, that seems to be too high of a threat to allow in open society IMHO.
A few bad people should NOT be ruining it for the rest of the group.  I remember this case as well, from Jamestown, NY...and while it's terrible, I don't see how quarantining the people HE infected is fair in any way, since they didn't do anything wrong.  He, on the other hand, should be jailed for a long fucking time.
That's a good point too.  It isn't fair at all that these people got infected.  However, sometimes actions must be taken to protect the rest of society from future problems like this.

Maybe this is somewhat of a dramatic example, but think about this...   When we go to war, we often have no choice but to bomb areas with civilians.  It's not fair to the civilians getting bombed, because living next to vital targets (human or otherwise) isn't a threat to us in and of itself, but sometimes, these bombings are the only way to win.

With HIV/AIDS, I think it's similar, because it is fatal and incurable.  This really is a matter of life and death, and because of that, we have to make tough decisions that may, in the short run, unfairly punish people who haven't committed a crime.

However, if in the long run, this quarantine minimizes the threat of spreading HIV/AIDS, I'm willing to go through with it.   I know it's easier said than done, but even I'd be willing to enter the quarantine if I somehow got infected.
2010-06-26 12:26:00
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6901|do not disturb

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's the same principle as quarantining people that have a virus. Yes it is disappointing that their rights have to be limited, but the fact is if they aren't they are going to directly effect the rights of everyone they come in contact with. There does need to be some balance between freedom and security when people invite breaches not only to their security but to the breaches of others' security as well.

The real issue is how do you know these lists and countermeasures are only being used for what they say they are being used for.
It is not the same. An unsuspected user could be part of a DoS attack and have no clue. All that user's PC could be doing is sending a few pings to a targeted IP, amongst thousands of other unsuspecting users... botnets are in the millions and I doubt anyone minds that their PC's have been compromised. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable using my PC here knowing a trojan uses it for large scale attacks and spamming email.
2010-06-26 12:26:23
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yeah, you don't KNOW your credit hasn't been hijacked, you haven't had a virus, etc. etc. You aren't aware of any of those things happening, but you don't know that they haven't either. It's impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you haven't been compromised if anyone anywhere has put your personal information into a computer. It's not just about security on your end, it's about security on their end too.
How does one prove a negative?  I check my credit regularly.  I keep an eye on accounts, etc...  If someone stole my identity...they aren't doing anything with it.  I can pretty much guarantee you I don't have any viruses either, because I watch processes and run linux--installing software only from reputable sources (repos, etc...). 

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There are millions of computers that could be called on to be used if there is ever any sort of "driver" virus to activate them.[/b] I'm not claiming a whole lot of knowledge in this black hat/white hat stuff, but the point here is there are a lot of viruses that passively take over your computer but don't actually hamper your ability to do anything until some black hat somewhere flips a switch. The potential to wreak havoc and possibly a profit is so high that there is no way something like this will never be attempted on a large scale.
Millions of computers is not 'large scale'?  It's already happening and this quarantine crap isn't happening large scale...so it seems really unnecessary.  If you want a law to protect people from themselves...just come right out and say it.  It's not the responsibility of the government to protect anyone from being stupid.  We have laws against the things that are happening that enable identity theft.  Enforce those on banks and thieves before freedoms of VICTIMS are limited.
2010-06-26 12:37:54
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

That's a good point too.  It isn't fair at all that these people got infected.  However, sometimes actions must be taken to protect the rest of society from future problems like this.

Maybe this is somewhat of a dramatic example, but think about this...   When we go to war, we often have no choice but to bomb areas with civilians.  It's not fair to the civilians getting bombed, because living next to vital targets (human or otherwise) isn't a threat to us in and of itself, but sometimes, these bombings are the only way to win.

With HIV/AIDS, I think it's similar, because it is fatal and incurable.  This really is a matter of life and death, and because of that, we have to make tough decisions that may, in the short run, unfairly punish people who haven't committed a crime.

However, if in the long run, this quarantine minimizes the threat of spreading HIV/AIDS, I'm willing to go through with it.   I know it's easier said than done, but even I'd be willing to enter the quarantine if I somehow got infected.
This isn't very good logic...it would be better to work on treatment than to work on elimination of the infected.  If I had HIV, I can be damn sure I wouldn't spread it intentionally, but I would never go into quarantine.  Do we make people with other infectious diseases go into quarantine for life?  I doubt it.  You forget HIV/AIDS is treatable to some extent, and imprisoning people over some paranoia that they might make you sick is just...wrong. 

Addressing your comparison to bombing cities--were the civilians specifically targeted?  That makes the difference, since you'd be TARGETING people who generally didn't do anything wrong.
2010-06-26 12:45:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

That's a good point too.  It isn't fair at all that these people got infected.  However, sometimes actions must be taken to protect the rest of society from future problems like this.

Maybe this is somewhat of a dramatic example, but think about this...   When we go to war, we often have no choice but to bomb areas with civilians.  It's not fair to the civilians getting bombed, because living next to vital targets (human or otherwise) isn't a threat to us in and of itself, but sometimes, these bombings are the only way to win.

With HIV/AIDS, I think it's similar, because it is fatal and incurable.  This really is a matter of life and death, and because of that, we have to make tough decisions that may, in the short run, unfairly punish people who haven't committed a crime.

However, if in the long run, this quarantine minimizes the threat of spreading HIV/AIDS, I'm willing to go through with it.   I know it's easier said than done, but even I'd be willing to enter the quarantine if I somehow got infected.
This isn't very good logic...it would be better to work on treatment than to work on elimination of the infected.  If I had HIV, I can be damn sure I wouldn't spread it intentionally, but I would never go into quarantine.  Do we make people with other infectious diseases go into quarantine for life?  I doubt it.  You forget HIV/AIDS is treatable to some extent, and imprisoning people over some paranoia that they might make you sick is just...wrong.
Quarantines don't eliminate people, they separate them.  Treatment can be isolated in an environment where there is no risk of infecting others.

SenorToenails wrote:

Addressing your comparison to bombing cities--were the civilians specifically targeted?  That makes the difference, since you'd be TARGETING people who generally didn't do anything wrong.
While intentions do matter, I would say that the analogy holds true in the sense that, in both cases, innocent people die.

Collateral damage remains a constant in both examples.

I think this also can be analogized with immigration laws in AZ.  People complain that those racially profile Hispanics, but that's merely a consequence of how Hispanics are the primary suspects.   In that particular case, profiling is justified in my opinion, because illegal immigration has become such a problem here.

Without derailing this too much further, there are numerous examples of policies that have "collateral damage" that ultimately result in more good than bad, which is why I generally support them.
2010-06-26 12:54:18
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6901|do not disturb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_A … internment

In terms of execution, I'm not even sure how they would positively identify every infected computer belonging to a botnet, and how they could effectively deny everyone. The governments methods might be heuristic, which they may also flag and blacklist clean users on accident.

The whole idea is just stupid to me.
2010-06-26 12:56:41
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

Quarantines don't eliminate people, they separate them.  Treatment can be isolated in an environment where there is no risk of infecting others.
Eliminated from society.  Poor wording on my part!  It's still not right--they aren't criminals.  And even if you could quarantine them...how would you do it?  What kind of world could be built for the HIV infected that would not be severely limiting in their rights and liberties for no reason whatsoever.

Turquoise wrote:

While intentions do matter, I would say that the analogy holds true in the sense that, in both cases, innocent people die.

Collateral damage remains a constant in both examples.

I think this also can be analogized with immigration laws in AZ.  People complain that those racially profile Hispanics, but that's merely a consequence of how Hispanics are the primary suspects.   In that particular case, profiling is justified in my opinion, because illegal immigration has become such a problem here.

Without derailing this too much further, there are numerous examples of policies that have "collateral damage" that ultimately result in more good than bad, which is why I generally support them.
To phrase it differently--no one wants innocents to die in a warzone.  But since they do, it makes it OK to essentially incarcerate innocents...but only if they have HIV?  When you have a bad practice, you generally don't want to expand how it's used.

Phrozenbot wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

In terms of execution, I'm not even sure how they would positively identify every infected computer belonging to a botnet, and how they could effectively deny everyone. The governments methods might be heuristic, which they may also flag and blacklist clean users on accident.

The whole idea is just stupid to me.
That's because it IS stupid.  Like you said before, it's the user who needs to be responsible for their computer.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-06-26 12:57:54)

2010-06-26 13:23:36
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Eliminated from society.  Poor wording on my part!  It's still not right--they aren't criminals.  And even if you could quarantine them...how would you do it?  What kind of world could be built for the HIV infected that would not be severely limiting in their rights and liberties for no reason whatsoever.
I'm not saying it will happen.  A quarantine of this nature would easily be ruled as unconstitutional.  However, it cannot be said that this would be done "for no reason whatsoever."  The reason is to prevent further infection.

SenorToenails wrote:

To phrase it differently--no one wants innocents to die in a warzone.  But since they do, it makes it OK to essentially incarcerate innocents...but only if they have HIV?  When you have a bad practice, you generally don't want to expand how it's used.
Well, I'm not saying that it's bad to bomb civilians if the end result is worth it.  Again, I realize that war is an extreme example, but it helps to illustrate how I prefer to look at things as a cost benefit analysis over conventional morality.
2010-06-26 13:32:44
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yeah, you don't KNOW your credit hasn't been hijacked, you haven't had a virus, etc. etc. You aren't aware of any of those things happening, but you don't know that they haven't either. It's impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you haven't been compromised if anyone anywhere has put your personal information into a computer. It's not just about security on your end, it's about security on their end too.
How does one prove a negative?  I check my credit regularly.  I keep an eye on accounts, etc...  If someone stole my identity...they aren't doing anything with it.  I can pretty much guarantee you I don't have any viruses either, because I watch processes and run linux--installing software only from reputable sources (repos, etc...).
That's the point, you can't prove a negative. You don't KNOW that your identity hasn't been stolen, and you certainly don't know how secure all the various forms of digital storage for your banking information are.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There are millions of computers that could be called on to be used if there is ever any sort of "driver" virus to activate them.[/b] I'm not claiming a whole lot of knowledge in this black hat/white hat stuff, but the point here is there are a lot of viruses that passively take over your computer but don't actually hamper your ability to do anything until some black hat somewhere flips a switch. The potential to wreak havoc and possibly a profit is so high that there is no way something like this will never be attempted on a large scale.
Millions of computers is not 'large scale'?  It's already happening and this quarantine crap isn't happening large scale...so it seems really unnecessary.  If you want a law to protect people from themselves...just come right out and say it.  It's not the responsibility of the government to protect anyone from being stupid.  We have laws against the things that are happening that enable identity theft.  Enforce those on banks and thieves before freedoms of VICTIMS are limited.
You don't get it, these computers are infected by the end goal is not to screw over the person with the infected computer - it is to use all of the infected computers in concert to execute large scale attacks on everyone else. There are lots of zombies already, but that haven't been harnessed to do anything of significant magnitude afaik.
2010-06-26 14:56:12
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That's the point, you can't prove a negative. You don't KNOW that your identity hasn't been stolen, and you certainly don't know how secure all the various forms of digital storage for your banking information are.
For the love of god, that is an awful argument.  And you are talking about something completely different now.  What you are saying here is valid--but has nothing to do with the discussion of user-end malware.  If a users PC is compromised, it will only cause trouble (information-wise) to those using that workstation.  Yes, it can be used to DDoS something, but punishing the user for something they aren't doing is pretty messed up.  Someone else has obtained unauthorized access to that computer, which is already a crime.  Why not punish those guys instead of crapping on the users? 

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You don't get it, these computers are infected by the end goal is not to screw over the person with the infected computer - it is to use all of the infected computers in concert to execute large scale attacks on everyone else. There are lots of zombies already, but that haven't been harnessed to do anything of significant magnitude afaik.
Uh-huh.  Maybe there just isn't a real good way to fuck over everyone else with millions of crappy malware-laden PCs that are intermittently online and probably have a real shit upload.  The main goal is to fuck the individual user for identity theft, and until people are safe about their private info, it'll never be fixed.  You can't legislate a solution to this problem--it's one of education and and not being lazy.

And no, I'm not living in some wishy-washy happy land where I'm convinced that my personal information is 100% safe.  It isn't and I know that.  But I also tend to think that the government should not protect me from myself.  Also if I am paying my ISP for service, I better fucking get the same service for the whole month.  Or am I going to be discounted for the time spent in the 'walled-garden', either rightfully or wrongfully?
2010-06-26 15:03:34
mikkel
Member
+383|6886
The government has no business even considering this kind of regulation. It is, and should always be up to the individual ISP. I refuse to do business with providers that inspect user traffic if alternatives exist, just like I wouldn't do business with the USPS if they opened my letters just to see if illegalities were discussed within.
2010-06-26 18:45:33
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6810|South Florida

Harmor wrote:

via http://slashdot.org/

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/1016 … 112247.jpg

wrote:

"Barack Obama's cyber-security coordinator has shown interest in an e-security code of practice developed in Australia that aims to quarantine Internet users infected by malware, also known as zombie computers. He reportedly said it would be a useful role model for the US to adopt. One suggestion within the code is to put infected users into a 'walled garden,' which limits Internet access to prevent further security problems until quarantined.
Source: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/06/26/ … ntine-Code

---

Now I know earlier we discussed how the Obama Administration will regulate the internet, but this actually make sense and is something the government should do.

However, for them to do this they would have to monitor our internet traffic to identify connections to Command-and-control computers giving orders to these Zombie machines - that's the only part of this that is worrying me.

The government, though the ISP, should notify the zombie computer owner when they detect this.

What do you guys think?  Are we giving up our freedoms for security in this case?
They should shut the fuck up and stay the fuck out of our business. If someone gets his shit hijacked and passwords stolen its his goddamn fault for not knowing how to safely operate a computer.

Just like australia huh? How easily will this mutate into ISP-level cencorship.

I refuse to do business with an ISP who supports this.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2010-06-26 19:00:41
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

Sounds good on paper, but too much software can be mistaken for malware.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard