Slashdot Mirror
ISP Restrictions Based on Hardware/Software?
An anonymous reader writes "IT Architect magazine is reporting that ISPs are working towards a greater restriction of a customer's right to run what may be 'insecure' software. From the article: 'A greater threat is that ISPs may try to restrict the customer's side by denying access to machines based on their hardware or software configuration. [...] former head of cybersecurity, White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke even said it should be made mandatory to quarantine malware.' Something that may also come as a surprise to some is that Microsoft is completely against this censorship of internet access. 'According to Chief Privacy Officer Peter Cullen, Microsoft is against ISPs doing anything that would restrict customers' choice of software. And he says this isn't just about the impracticability of demanding that data centers patch everything on the second Tuesday of the month. Laptop and home users also have the right to run an insecure PC.'"
What if the user is behind a SOHO router? It will be hard to figure out what the client's OS/version is. Try using www.grc.com and their ShieldsUp.
Anyways, this being the US, such practice will be considered discriminatory especially if poorer families cannot afford the latest M$ tax.
Of course Microsoft would object to this proposal. Any objective analysis (which the ISPs are certain to do) would put Windows high on the list of vulnerable systems. No matter how much Microsoft tries, it's always hard to configure a Windows system to be both secure and capable of easily running the software most users want to run without glitches. Putting a hardware firewall in front of it's just as bad from Microsoft's point of view: you're still telling users they have to spend more money and do more work to use Windows on the Internet. By contrast, many of the competing systems (Max OSX, *nix) are at low risk and would pass most security checks easily out of the box. No way does Microsoft want ISPs making it easier to put a Mac or a Linux box on the Internet than a Windows box.
Personally I don't care why Microsoft is against it - I'm sure they have their own agenda, but the enemy of my enemy is still my friend. If Microsoft are against it, it almost certainly won't happen - they have enough clout.
Anyway, such a law would be pandemonian, it would require international standards etc etc - it would never work...
1. It's impractical -
I can see how the White House might deal with this sort of restriction, but an ISP dealing with thousands of customers that don't WANT to cooperate - not to mention, there would be an absurd number of software and hardware iiterations, hacks, etc, all of which they'd have to deal with.
2. It's unfair -
I should be able to run the software I want on the hardware I want, as long as I'm not producing malware. A restriction on rights for security is inconsistent with democractic ideals, especially with the qualifier that the security doesn't necessarily protect rights.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the large ISPs are out to put a strangle hold on the "Services" they deliver. There will be problems with VOIP caused by port restrictions, Others will stop offering basic services like nntp access. They have taken the view that the network is theirs and that they will dictate what is run over them with consumers being and endless cash cow that can be milked for access to "Premium" applications.
> Laptop and home users also have the right to run an insecure PC
Absolutely. But do they have the right to abuse the ISP's network by sending spam/DDoS attacks etc?
Run what you may on your PC, but if you are using the network infrastructure owned and maintained by your ISP, you have to adhere to their Terms of Service, and they should have the right to enforce those terms of service.
If you don't like your ISP's TOS, find a different one. But don't confuse you right to run an insure PC with your right to abuse your ISP's network -- you do not have the latter.
Yes, but do they have the right to run an insecure PC connected to the Internet? When their insecure PC, if it gets 0wned, is going to have adverse consequences for others on the Internet?
An analogy: I have the right to drive a car that fails safety inspection - on my own land. I do not have the right to drive it on the public roads, where it can endanger others. (Of course, this analogy breaks down, because the government mandates the safety inspection, and the government owns the roads, and in the Internet case, it's not the government that mandates the safe PC, but rather the ISP... and the ISP owns the "road" that I'm putting the unsafe PC on, or at least the road I use to access it... hmm, maybe the analogy isn't that bad.)
Depending on your definitions, banning malware could mean banning Windows!
Or if the RIAA/MPAA have their way: P2P traffic. Be careful what you wish for.
Trolling is a art,
While true, I really doubt ISPs are going to start blocking Windows users from accessing the Internet. Not only because they'd be blocking somewhere between most and all of their customers (Why yes, we'll sell you Internet access, we just won't let you use it.), but I've also encountered a lot of ISPs that would get really freaked out (for no good reason) if they heard you planned on connecting with anything but a Windows PC.
Remember RFC 873!
> At the risk of pointing out the obvious, but - does it surprise anyone that the maker of the #1 target for malware writers is actively campagining against ISPs downthrottling infected users' PCs?
Of course, our idiotic "security" bureaucracy would probably put Windows on the short list of approved systems, since it's a Legitimate Product (tm) from a Legitimate Business (tm).
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Side #1: Microsoft is terrified of this because it will set a precedent whereby an ISP will be able to cut people off based on the ISP's view of their software configuration. So, ISPs will be able to threaten to kick Microsoft in the balls unless they get favorable treatment (RE: cheaper prices), and home users will be able to demand that tainted machines get knocked off the web until they're fixed (which will mostly affect MICROSOFT). Microsoft, God bless 'em, is naturally against the whole thing.
;)
Side #2: The TRUE result of this will be that lazy ISPs (read: most ISPs) will just lock out anything that doesn't match some piece of shit filter they put in place. So, a fully patched Microsoft or Apple box will probably be able to connect, but my Slackware box will NOT. And when I call tech support, the retard who takes my call will say "SlackWHAT? You can't run that on our network, for, uh... SECURITY reasons. Why don'cha run Winders like everyone else?" And I will be forced to resort to cruel, mocking language, upsetting his supervisor and getting me absolutely NOWHERE.
So, naturally, I'm against this bullshit too.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
The other concern Microsoft may well have is that if you can only run "approved" OS' on the Internet, it will kill their beta programs and may well make it harder to roll out service packs. After all, it changes the version ID, so won't be an "approved" OS any more. If nobody patches their system, for fear of being disconnected from the Internet, it will be Microsoft that suffers.
What about Linux users? Well, there's always the IP Personality patch. This disguises your OS, so that common methods of fingerprinting your computer will return the OS identity that you choose. You can always make a Linux box look like Windows XP or whatever.
That's probably another concern of Microsoft. Linux distributions can be easily modified to fool such restrictions and existing Linux users will likely install the necessary patches. This could make Linux more attractive to the Walmarts of the world (fewer customer complaints) and also to corporations (no risk of unexpected downtime, due to ISPs not keeping up).
I'm all for these restrictions, because they don't apply to Open Source software - masquerading as other software is already quite standard. Only closed-source vendors and closed-minded customers have anything to be scared of, and I've no problem with them being scared silly by Homeland Security.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
...blah blah blah, of course Microsoft is against it blah blah blah...
But this IS a horrible practice? Restricting people's internet access based on their computer? Does anyone see what is wrong with this or are you all going to complain about MS?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Quarantined connections are a very, very good thing. Corporate networks already do this -- there is, if I recall, a Cisco client which enforces router rules based on the security software installed on the PC. Windows RRAS can enforce a quarantine network based on whether or not the connecting machines are patched up-to-date. Captive portal software allows only authenticated users to connect to the greater network -- same with VPN tunnels.
All of these things work in a very good, and non-censoring way: they require the user connecting to the network, to take certain "safe computing" steps. Requiring virus/spyware protection is overkill (I for one have never run spyware or virus protection, and have only had one spyware infection that required a reformat and two viruses -- in 11 years of being connected to networks unprotected. All of those infections were 3+ years ago.) but requiring that computer users, say, don't broadcast worm packets and don't have unpatched security holes, is a very good thing.
It's one thing for the ISP to shut off people for downloading certain types of content, it's another if the user is abusing the network resources. Similar to, a phone company won't cut your line for calling people they might not agree with the opinions of -- but if you, say, wardial your entire neighborhood on a daily basis, they have some recourse against you.
Overall, the ISP restricting access to its network to people who aren't infected and are secure, is only a good thing -- on every possible front. And, from the stand point that Windows updates generally are denied to people using pirate copies, it will reduce software piracy rates as well. There's no excuse for people to still be broadcasting the Sasser worm, other than the fact that it isn't worth their time to fix it. This will make it worth their time, to no longer be a deliberate nuisance to everyone else.
That depends entirely on how you can tell. If the method is your silly Cisco router which checks for this or that piece of Windoze shit, it sucks. If the method is detecting obvious spam and worm broadcasting signatures, great. Detecting spammbots is getting tricker all the time because the spammers are smart enough to not want damage the user's performance enough for the user to want to fix the computer. ISPs have been turning off blatantly broken computers for a while and it is a very good thing.
Windows updates generally are denied to people using pirate copies, it will reduce software piracy rates as well.
How do you equate the two without advocating some really stupid and lazy method of punishing people for not having whatever Bill Gates wants you to have right now? A check which provides that kind of solution will outlaw all the software that's actually secure.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.