|
BugTraq
RFC: virus handling Jan 28 2004 03:45PM Thomas Zehetbauer (thomasz hostmaster org) (13 replies) RFC: content-filter and AV notifications (Was: Re: RFC: virus handling) Jan 29 2004 12:00PM Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) (andris aernet ru) (1 replies) Re: RFC: content-filter and AV notifications (Was: Re: RFC: virus handling) Feb 03 2004 04:07PM Peter J. Holzer (hjp wsr ac at) Re: RFC: virus handling Jan 28 2004 10:00PM John Fitzgibbon (fitz jfitz com) (1 replies) Re: RFC: virus handling Jan 28 2004 06:24PM Patrick Proniewski (patpro patpro net) (1 replies) Re: RFC: virus handling Jan 28 2004 06:07PM Jeremy Mates (jmates sial org) (1 replies) Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 03 2004 12:11PM Larry Seltzer (larry larryseltzer com) (3 replies) Re: Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 05 2004 12:18PM Andreas Marx (amarx gega-it de) Re: Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 04 2004 02:31PM Valdis Kletnieks vt edu (2 replies) Re: Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 05 2004 08:33AM Stephen Samuel (samuel bcgreen com) (1 replies) Re: Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 06 2004 10:07PM Valdis Kletnieks vt edu (1 replies) Re: Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 08 2004 01:01PM Shawn McMahon (smcmahon eiv com) RE: Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 04 2004 02:41PM Larry Seltzer (larry larryseltzer com) (1 replies) Re: Hysterical first technical alert from US-CERT Feb 04 2004 12:27PM Philip Rowlands (phr doc ic ac uk) Re: RFC: virus handling Jan 28 2004 05:54PM 3APA3A (3APA3A SECURITY NNOV RU) (1 replies) getting rid of outbreaks and spam (junk) [WAS: Re: RFC: virus handling] Feb 03 2004 09:11AM Gadi Evron (ge linuxbox org) (4 replies) Re: getting rid of outbreaks and spam (junk) [WAS: Re: RFC: virus handling] Feb 04 2004 08:04PM Georg Schwarz (geos epost de) Re: getting rid of outbreaks and spam (junk) [WAS: Re: RFC: virus handling] Feb 04 2004 06:27AM der Mouse (mouse Rodents Montreal QC CA) Re: getting rid of outbreaks and spam (junk) [WAS: Re: RFC: virus handling] Feb 03 2004 11:07PM James A. Thornton (jamest u-238 infinite1der org) |
|
Privacy Statement |
>
> cannot possibly verify whether each report is legitimate or not. So they
> would have a choice of either:
> 1. Ignore all reports. "It's not our job to protect our lusers from viruses."
> or
> 2. Automatically take action against all reports. Thus is becomes a great
> way to DoS your enemies, just report them as infected.
You're forgetting a third option:
Find or develop a method of scanning their hosts for the
virus/worm/trojan/foo, and cut off access on the necessary ports when
those hosts are found.
That's what Road Runner, for instance, did in some areas in response to
Code Red and Nimda.
A more extreme position (that I favor) is to put a note in the account's
file that they are infected and causing a problem, then cut off their
access entirely. When they call tech support, they find out they're
infected.
If ISPs do this (and as I've stated, some do), then reporting infections
to them is vital, because unless they understand that it's a large
number of their users, they won't bother dealing with it.
--
Shawn McMahon | Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
EIV Consulting | that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
UNIX and Linux | hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure
http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK
[ reply ]