BF2S Forums Obama Admin: Zombie Quarantine infected computers

SenorToenails wrote:

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?

It is the truth. The entire point of the article is that thousands of people have infected computers and they don't know it. If someone asked them if their computer was infected, they would say no. Just as you say your identity has not been compromised. You can't KNOW.

The whole point is if the computer that is compromised is that of a companies that holds customer information, you could be getting fucked AND IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT. Your only crime would be buying something on the internet. That can be damaging to thousands if not millions of people, and that damage is irreparable.

SenorToenails wrote:

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?

The whole point is this is NOT about fucking one individual by making them download a virus. I don't know how you can't get that. It is about protecting the public from much greater problems than any one person losing their identity.

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

And the examples listed there are all just kids. If someone actually knew what they were doing had those kind of resources at their disposal, it could be a lot worse.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is the truth. The entire point of the article is that thousands of people have infected computers and they don't know it. If someone asked them if their computer was infected, they would say no. Just as you say your identity has not been compromised. You can't KNOW.

The whole point is if the computer that is compromised is that of a companies that holds customer information, you could be getting fucked AND IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT. Your only crime would be buying something on the internet. That can be damaging to thousands if not millions of people, and that damage is irreparable.

You are absolutely right here.  But it has very little to do with removing standard users from the open internet if they are infected with whatever malware makes the list.  There are already laws for data security, regulations, etc...  It is in any retailers greatest interest to not have their security breached and their user information stolen, so nail the company for mismanaging the data, alarm consumers to make sure that their credit is watched and their accounts managed, but why go to the alarmingly extreme step of separating anyone from the internet? 

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The whole point is this is NOT about fucking one individual by making them download a virus. I don't know how you can't get that. It is about protecting the public from much greater problems than any one person losing their identity.

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

And the examples listed there are all just kids. If someone actually knew what they were doing had those kind of resources at their disposal, it could be a lot worse.

If the goal of this is NOT to screw over users one by one, spam gobs of email addresses, and have an army of 'zombies' that you can do...what, exactly, with?  DDoS?  OK...that can be a fair point...but that's about it.  And you don't see DDoS attacks happening all the time.  What else is there?  Why not let the user secure their machine instead of relying on legislation and invasive measures to solve a phantom threat?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It goes back to the biological virus metaphor. In most cases you can deal with the problem without resorting to extreme measures. In worst case scenarios though, drastic action is required. The issue is as I said making sure that the technology the government uses is used as intended in these dooms-day scenarios and not just as another way of censoring content.

You really can't use that comparison though.  In one case, lives are at stake...and in the other, data.  There is a huge difference.  And the reason this isn't worth considering is because of the technological infeasibility as well as massive potential for abuse with very little positive benefit.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Asking the question "what else is there?" implying we are at the limits of our understanding is a silly thing to do this day in age.

Ah, but if you look at the context, you'll see what is actually meant--Why should we be restricting freedom due to some undefined 'threat'.  In that case, the question is valid.  Restrictions on liberty and freedom should require a very well-defined threat, and since there really isn't one...

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It goes back to the biological virus metaphor. In most cases you can deal with the problem without resorting to extreme measures. In worst case scenarios though, drastic action is required. The issue is as I said making sure that the technology the government uses is used as intended in these dooms-day scenarios and not just as another way of censoring content.

You really can't use that comparison though.  In one case, lives are at stake...and in the other, data.  There is a huge difference.  And the reason this isn't worth considering is because of the technological infeasibility as well as massive potential for abuse with very little positive benefit.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Asking the question "what else is there?" implying we are at the limits of our understanding is a silly thing to do this day in age.

Ah, but if you look at the context, you'll see what is actually meant--Why should we be restricting freedom due to some undefined 'threat'.  In that case, the question is valid.  Restrictions on liberty and freedom should require a very well-defined threat, and since there really isn't one...

no lives at stake? what if they ddos a hospital? or a blood bank? this is all hypothetical of course, those institutions should and i'm pretty sure have their vital net resources behind special ddos-resistant equipment and operate on standalone and sufficiently backed up networks, but make no mistake - cyber-terrorism is very much real. it's well past those petty scams and physhing you mentioned. more often than not by the time the definitive threat have been identified and reactive measures put up against it, the shit had already happened and the damage had been done. that's why pro-active methods are being looked at now. as i said, those are already in place for critical services like health care. now they are looking to add some measure of protection for everybody, including you as a private citizen. what's wrong with that?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

1) Too much software can be mistaken for malware. Who's going to program the recognition database and keep IT safe from interference?

SenorToenails wrote:

Shahter wrote:

no lives at stake? what if they ddos a hospital? or a blood bank? this is all hypothetical of course, those institutions should and i'm pretty sure have their vital net resources behind special ddos-resistant equipment and operate on standalone and sufficiently backed up networks, but make no mistake - cyber-terrorism is very much real. it's well past those petty scams and physhing you mentioned. more often than not by the time the definitive threat have been identified and reactive measures put up against it, the shit had already happened and the damage had been done. that's why pro-active methods are being looked at now. as i said, those are already in place for critical services like health care.

Should a critical health system be open to the internet?  No.  In fact, clinical systems are not on the internet BECAUSE lives are at stake.  It's not that complicated.

it is, unfortunately. there's not always a way to go around internet completely. ddos/other attack-proof services and equipment aren't always available and are still too costly to put every critical service like health care under proper protection. i'm sure in usa it's a lot better than where i'm from, but i don't think it's anywhere near complete coverage even there.

SenorToenails wrote:

My computer, my responsibility.

exactly. are you ready to have your internet connection blocked because you failed to propertly maintain your computer? that's your responsibility, right?

SenorToenails wrote:

Shahter wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Should a critical health system be open to the internet?  No.  In fact, clinical systems are not on the internet BECAUSE lives are at stake.  It's not that complicated.

it is, unfortunately. there's not always a way to go around internet completely. ddos/other attack-proof services and equipment aren't always available and are still too costly to put every critical service like health care under proper protection. i'm sure in usa it's a lot better than where i'm from, but i don't think it's anywhere near complete coverage even there.

Here is a real question--at the moment, why would any clinical device need to be hooked into the internet?  Laziness of hospital IT is not a valid reason.

from the top of my head: many clinics need to be connected to a blood bank to check the availability of blood for transfusions. or to labs which do tests for them.

SenorToenails wrote:

Shahter wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

My computer, my responsibility.

exactly. are you ready to have your internet connection blocked because you failed to propertly maintain your computer? that's your responsibility, right?

If my ISP (a private company who operates my connection) decided to start doing this, it would be a different scenario completely.  I would drop them as a provider and pick up someone else that isn't invasive and ridiculous.  I object to this sort of government intrusion.

and if it becomes a common practice among isp's to shut down those who can't be bothered to properly maintained their systems - what would you do then? isp's obviously don't want to forward all the parasite traffic that the malware installed on the compromised systems sends as spam and whatnot - don't you think they have a right to have some sorta regulation which would allow them not to have their facilities overloaded because some dipshit forgot to update his bloody anti-virus and download security patches? what about other people residing in the same subnet as yourself - don't they have a right not to have the a compromised machines messing with their computers?

Shahter wrote:

from the top of my head: many clinics need to be connected to a blood bank to check the availability of blood for transfusions. or to labs which do tests for them.

If the hospital needed to check with a bloodbank across town to see if they had blood to save a guys life RIGHT NOW, then that guy is fucked.  Yes, I can see the utility there, but is it a critical system?  One where a phone call in the event of a service outage could not correct?  As for tests, FAX.  Anything critical to a patient's health right now is done in house.

Shahter wrote:

and if it becomes a common practice among isp's to shut down those who can't be bothered to properly maintained their systems - what would you do then? isp's obviously don't want to forward all the parasite traffic that the malware installed on the compromised systems sends as spam and whatnot - don't you think they have a right to have some sorta regulation which would allow them not to have their facilities overloaded because some dipshit forgot to update his bloody anti-virus and download security patches? what about other people residing in the same subnet as yourself - don't they have a right not to have the a compromised machines messing with their computers?

Well, when ISPs start doing this, then you'll hear me bitch about it...and I will vote with my wallet.  If there are absolutely no choices otherwise...then I guess I will keep my computer patched, and will grumble everytime I pay the bill.  And if I get flagged inappropriately, I will be one very angry dude.

Shahter wrote:

and if it becomes a common practice among isp's to shut down those who can't be bothered to properly maintained their systems - what would you do then? isp's obviously don't want to forward all the parasite traffic that the malware installed on the compromised systems sends as spam and whatnot - don't you think they have a right to have some sorta regulation which would allow them not to have their facilities overloaded because some dipshit forgot to update his bloody anti-virus and download security patches? what about other people residing in the same subnet as yourself - don't they have a right not to have the a compromised machines messing with their computers?

So our right to the internet has become like that of driving privileges. You need to earn a drivers license, and in order to be a safe driver on the internet super highway (such a stupid term), you must be a defensive driver first by owning anti-virus/spyware software, with a firewall? And how will the government know? Will they require that every computer must have software that monitors this, and reports it to the government? The thought of his idea is already too intrusive.

I can't believe some of you actually argue in favor for this. Your argument is like punishing someone for not obtaining a flu vaccine, falling ill with the flu, and then spreading it unintentionally. What a jerk huh? Irresponsible and lazy individuals are the blame for such malware floating around. No, infected users are primarily those with inadequate to no security, and they will always be the primary victim. Those who take correct measures to keep their computers safe from online attacks and viruses, and are careful of the web content they view, shouldn't have to worry much about malware.

Phrozenbot wrote:

Shahter wrote:

and if it becomes a common practice among isp's to shut down those who can't be bothered to properly maintained their systems - what would you do then? isp's obviously don't want to forward all the parasite traffic that the malware installed on the compromised systems sends as spam and whatnot - don't you think they have a right to have some sorta regulation which would allow them not to have their facilities overloaded because some dipshit forgot to update his bloody anti-virus and download security patches? what about other people residing in the same subnet as yourself - don't they have a right not to have the a compromised machines messing with their computers?

So our right to the internet has become like that of driving privileges. You need to earn a drivers license, and in order to be a safe driver on the internet super highway (such a stupid term), you must be a defensive driver first by owning anti-virus/spyware software, with a firewall? And how will the government know? Will they require that every computer must have software that monitors this, and reports it to the government? The thought of his idea is already too intrusive.

no, nothing like that. what i'm saying is isp's should have an option of suspending the provision of services to those who can't - or can't be bothered to - properly maintain their stuff.

Phrozenbot wrote:

I can't believe some of you actually argue in favor for this. Your argument is like punishing someone for not obtaining a flu vaccine, falling ill with the flu, and then spreading it unintentionally. What a jerk huh? Irresponsible and lazy individuals are the blame for such malware floating around. No, infected users are primarily those with inadequate to no security, and they will always be the primary victim. Those who take correct measures to keep their computers safe from online attacks and viruses, and are careful of the web content they view, shouldn't have to worry much about malware.

already explained above. even if it doesn't affect your pc, cyber-terrorism may very vell affect you in other ways.

Shahter wrote:

no, nothing like that. what i'm saying is isp's should have an option of suspending the provision of services to those who can't - or can't be bothered to - properly maintain their stuff.

Is it even illegal for an ISP to deny service to their users? Not that I'm aware of. The only thing stopping them is that it would completely alienate their customers, leaving them with less revenue to draw from when they "vote with their wallets", as Senor put it.

Shahter wrote:

of course i'm ignorant. i was asking and you answered - now i know more.
but, anyway, you have just agreed with me - nobody relies on internet because it is... uhm... you know - unreliable. and my point is - it could be.

I never said it wasn't unreliable.  I said that saying these dangers on the internet that could be affecting life threatening systems are bad claims...since no one relies on the net (or shouldn't) for life-dependent stuff.  It could be, yea, but I don't think this is the solution.  Network administrators should be on top of protecting their networks, not just removing people who they view as problematic.  And allowing the government to set standards for this and force it on ISPs is (to me) problematic in a greater way.

Shahter wrote:

everybody defines his own freedom. i tend to care for "freedom from" more than "freedom to". that's the difference i guess. i'd rather have internet with no malware where possible. if that means shutting it off for some careless douche's - so be it.

While a world without malware would be nice, it's like a world without crime--unlikely.  People will be always be taken advantage of in all mediums, and the best solution to this is education for everyone.

Shahter wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Shahter wrote:

no, nothing like that. what i'm saying is isp's should have an option of suspending the provision of services to those who can't - or can't be bothered to - properly maintain their stuff.

Is it even illegal for an ISP to deny service to their users? Not that I'm aware of. The only thing stopping them is that it would completely alienate their customers, leaving them with less revenue to draw from when they "vote with their wallets", as Senor put it.

i dunno how it is where you live, but in russia, when a firm i work for got ddos-attacked, all isp's that were asked immediately shut off every ip from which we were being attacked. if i'm not mistaken, they also provided logs and assisted our admins and lawers when this issue was being reported to law enforcement.

Not here in the states. Did the authorities at least find out who was responsible and apprehend them?