Slashdot Mirror
Australian ISPs To Disconnect Botnet "Zombies"
jibjibjib writes "Some of Australia's largest ISPs are preparing an industry code of conduct to identify and respond to users with botnet-infected computers. The Internet Industry Association, made up of over 200 ISPs and technology companies, is preparing the code in response to an ultimatum from the federal government.
ISPs will try to contact the user, slow down their connection, and ultimately terminate the connection if the user refuses to fix the problem. It is hoped that this will reduce the growth of botnets in Australia, which had the world's third-highest rate of new 'zombies' (behind the US and China)."
Not quite an accurate solution, but statistically close enough...
I'd rather not have my ISP decide what is a "virus" or "inappropriate communications" thank you. If the users are consuming too much bandwidth then disconnect them on those grounds, but please don't set this precedent.
What would happen if those ISPs notice increased profit and customer satisfaction (overall) when they are paying less for resources used up by bots? (Assuming they don't have problems with false-positives or find far too many customers being cut off, etc.)
having a computer beneath the notice of hackers is a great idea. that's why I only post on slashdot using my web-tv console.
What's up with this box everyone has to think inside of or outside of? Why does there have to be a box?
Its not like everyone knows how to (and in some cases cannot afford to hire someone to) remove botnets from their machine. I hope the ISPs will provide this kind of support as part of standard service before they consider disconnecting users...
if the user refuses to fix the problem
The users who are likely to be infected by a bot are the least likely to be able to "fix the problem".
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Quit trying to speak for the whole rest of the world. You are not qualifyied.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, it's more like your phone company disconnecting you for repeatedly making prank calls.
Which, in fact, they will.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
They don't discover that by listening in to content though. They do it after there have been complaints.
This SOUNDS like a good idea in theory, but what will end up happening is that Hackers will start to send fake notices to Australian users and will easily be able to trick people into giving personal information (ie account numbers, CC numbers, ect.) by claiming to be from the government and/or ISP. They need to create some sort of control around this, but I only see it causing problems....
They don't need to disconnect bad users. They should just give a discount to users who are running secure operating systems that are more resilient to malware infections than Windows is.
For example, give OpenBSD users a 50% discount, since it's quite unlikely that their system will ever get infected or compromised. The same can probably be done for users using Solaris, NetBSD, FreeBSD and commercial UNIXes.
Linux and Mac OS X are more widely used than the aforementioned systems, so the chance of them getting compromised is greater, although still virtually non-existent. Give such users a 25% discount.
Assume that the latest version of Windows is somewhat immune. Give Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 users no discount. That is, they pay the base rate.
Assume that older versions of Windows have been compromised. Give them a negative discount. A Windows XP user pays an extra 25%. A Windows 9x user pays 50% more.
Nobody needs to get disconnected this way. Disconnecting people from the Internet over something they're not willingly doing is completely absurd, and in may ways should be considered criminal in the Western world.
Seriously? This needed to be done for all countries 10 years ago.
Assuming you trust them to stop at botnets and not include p2p, vpn, uunet, private mail servers out of the country, list servers, and other legitimate traffic.
Buy a computer and/or a supposedly secure operating system, and then, unless the customer proactively protects against security breaches, they won't be allowed on the internet. Pardon me, but isn't protection against security breaches the OPERATING SYSTEM'S JOB???
They don't discover that by listening in to content though. They do it after there have been complaints.
And you don't think ISPs have been getting complaints about spam?
> Of course I'm OK if that software isn't particularly Mac compatible ;)
So you wouldn't mind being required to switch to Microsoft Windows 7? Because that is what your proposal would lead to.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
everyone talks about their rights, but few speak up about their responsibilities
if people don't live up to their responsibilities, they lose their rights. not as a matter of some government mandate, but as a simple logical, natural consequence of ruining things- the internet, safe roads, a healthy economy, etc., for other people
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Botnet - Collection of computers using large amount of bandwidth.
Largest Botnet - BitTorrent
ISP - "Job's a good 'un lads, let's go home."
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Sounds like another case of politicians regulating something they don't understand. Define botnet.
ISPs should be disconnecting zombied machines. The catch is they need a test which catches most zombie machines while not catching any non-zombies, and most ISPs are neither competent enough nor interested enough to do so. If their procedure has systemic problems which disconnects non-zombies, then the cure is worse than the disease.
I didn't completely RTFA, but.. If this works anything like the same way it does in here, it basically redirects you to a generic page where you can download virus / etc checks and fix your system. You can't simply reach other places (or no connection with other protocols) in that state. The ISP has basically just IP blocked you at that point (other systems under the same connection function like normal). The ISP also re-checks your system every hour or two to see if the issue has been resolved. This is also explained in the page with more detail. If it follows the same formula then I am all for it due to it working flawlessly so far. No false alarms so far in my rather heavy use. Oh yes, and I first ran into this on 2004.
Don't disconnect them. First, only block the ports being abused. If that doesn't work, confine them to a "walled garden" that tells them who to call and fix the problem. Then when the do call, help them fix the problem.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is a responsibility by any user not to interfere with others. Being infected with a botnet is certainly one for this category. Not responding to warnings of infection is negating this and is abusive of others using the net. Why should users that interfere with others be tolerated?
To simply say that a significant number of the people that have botnets don't know how to remove them, even after warnings is far to simplistic an excuse. The same can be said about their ability to pay to have them removed. Format C:/ is the lowest cost. Having a friend help remove personal data is the next and last 1 hour labour by the local shop to retrieve the personal data is not unreasonable. However this same group most likely don't have any significant personal data they can retrieve even for normal use as they have no idea where it is once they it save. They have never bothered or are incapable to learn the concept of directories or the concept of organizing their work. So they really don't have in a practical sense any personal data to recover. Am I heartless? No actually, just pragmatic.
Why do those botnet infected people have any right to interfere with others wanting to share this net resource? Why is there a large group defending them seem to think there is no personal responsibility involved when going on the net? There is no right to interfere with me or is there? Be it simply by being a pest or anything else. I don't care what you do as long as it does not impact me within reason. We all share the net. We all generally have contracts with our ISP's with a code of conduct. I see no reason why those that don't head warnings to fix their systems shouldn't lose the privilege of access from that equipment.
We qualify people for many things in our society. Most of those things revolve around protecting the rights of others. Just as a license is a privilege and requires a test, there are rules for bicycles, being an obnoxious drunk in public, etc. There is no right to thieve, assault, stalk, or be a public nuisance. A person with a botnet infection is part of interfering with others and they have no right to do that. But there certainly is a responsibility not to do that.
But who is responsible to prevent it? Is it mine? Do I have to incur expense and time trying to keep these people from bothering and interfering with me? The practical aspects with today's technology says that at best it's only a partial solution anyway. So why limit only one approach? There is no rule that requires only one solution to deal with this menace that costs everyone time and money. Money reflected in everything from my time to the rates I pay for access to the net, on up the chain to the carriers.
If I had my way there would be a fixed IP for all home connections. It is practical technically and is not a security problem to have one. Dynamic IP's offer negligible protection if any at all. A fixed IP certainly offers a measure ability for me to solve part of the problem. I see no reason why a system based on complaint or by discovery should not be used to cut these repeat offenders from using their own hardware to connect. They mostly have other options to get on the net if they fail to maintain their own equipment when notified. Where do any of you get off saying they aren't responsible for their own stupidity. So ok, If they have no obligation to others, then using that logic. There is no obligation to give them access or at least to that access from their infected equipment. They may get access from the library computer or other methods. They may still get on, just not using their trainwreck of a computer from home. All is then fair enough.
So what of people that don't know how or can afford to remove the infection. Cry me a river. That's not an excuse to abuse others. They have no friends? Can't afford one hour of tech time? I maybe my brothers keeper but it doesn't mean you can't give then a slap upside the head when they act like a moron. The know it is wrong. So get off the net until they find a solut
Wait - you are supposed to LOG IN to a hotspot? Seriously? Maybe I've been doing it wrong. I usually just spoof a MAC address, and take over an existing connection. Sometimes, I just log into the router, and change the settings more to my liking. There are so MANY imaginative ways to use a hotspot - why log in? Spoofing a MAC address has the advantage of making my terrorist network activities appear to be dozens of different people. Why, just last week I sold a suitcase nuke to an Ethiopian who had fallen on hard times.
I only deduced that he has fallen on hard times, because his certified cashier's check bounced. I'm still waiting to hear back from him.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Oh god, no. This is a very very bad idea. We do not need to have our PC's "certified" by a Ministry, Department, or any 3rd party for that matter. Yes, they have done that for cars for pollution testing but it makes no sense for computers.
Do you seriously want some twithead bureaucrat telling you what a "safe" PC is and what a "dangerous" PC is?
I want you to choose a number from 1 to 60. This number represents the amount of seconds before Linux (or some other disliked-by-those-in-power application) goes onto the "dangerous" list. This number also represents how many days you have to install a properly maintained OS, such as those produced by Microsoft, onto your PC. Within 10 days, please bring us proof that you have made the correct repairs and we will waive your fine. Oh, but court costs are 200 euro. Thank you, drive through.
I am deadly serious when I say this: This is one of the all-time worst ideas I have ever read on Slashdot.