I've read the three existing comments from anonymous people who all oppose a new government agency.
Perhaps they missed the point: this is a proposal by someone who is not in the position to make any recommendation to the government. The purpose of this theoretical proposal is to get people discussing the bigger issue: how do you address the problem of infected systems?
I'm curious if any of these anonymous people (or anyone else) have suggestions for alternate methods of dealing with this problem. There are only two proposed long-term solutions that I have heard so far.
1. This paper's proposal for a new government-sponsored advisor who would mainly monitor the situation, react to massive outbreaks, and attempt to educate people.
2. Using ISPs to employ a penalty/reward system. The more secure your system, the more access you get. Infected systems would have reduced access (speed, services, etc.).
Perhaps they missed the point: this is a proposal by someone who is not in the position to make any recommendation to the government. The purpose of this theoretical proposal is to get people discussing the bigger issue: how do you address the problem of infected systems?
I'm curious if any of these anonymous people (or anyone else) have suggestions for alternate methods of dealing with this problem. There are only two proposed long-term solutions that I have heard so far.
1. This paper's proposal for a new government-sponsored advisor who would mainly monitor the situation, react to massive outbreaks, and attempt to educate people.
2. Using ISPs to employ a penalty/reward system. The more secure your system, the more access you get. Infected systems would have reduced access (speed, services, etc.).
Is there a third option for discussion?
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/newsbriefs/526/1987#1987