Slashdot Mirror
ISPs Sign On To FCC Anti-Botnet Code of Conduct
Trailrunner7 writes "The U.S.'s leading Internet Service Providers signed on to a new FCC code of conduct to limit the impact of major cyber security threats, including botnets, attacks on the Domain Name System and Internet routing attacks. AT&T, CenturyLink, Comcast, Cox, Sprint, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile and Verizon were among the ISPs that participated in the agreement. 'The recommendations approved today identify smart, practical, voluntary solutions that will materially improve the cyber security of commercial networks and bolster the broader endeavors of our federal partners,' said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski."
A fact sheet from the FCC provides details on the recommendations, but they're pretty vague: "The CSRIC recommended ISPs participate in a U.S. Anti-Bot Code of
Conduct (PDF) that encourages ISPs to engage in: (1) end-user education to prevent bot infections; (2) detection of bots; (3) notification of potential bot infections; (4) remediation of bots; and (5) collaboration and sharing of information." They also recommend broader adoption of DNSSEC and the development of an "industry framework" to combat IP route hijacking.
Aww c'mon, there are some legitimate uses for bots!
!lart FCC
This will be used too liberally to cut off and punish high traffic users.
Voluntary bandwidth throttling. Check.
because ALL bots are BAD.
Yours In Minsk,
K. Trout, C.I.O.
"...attacks on the Domain Name System and Internet routing attacks..."
Something with teeth to finally stop the U.S. DOJ from shutting down websites arbitrarily.
Why does every little thing they do have to be for the CORPORATE networks and not the individuals?
Doesn't this mean that in order to detect the bots the ISPs must perform deep packet inspection, which everyone fought so hard against a few years ago?
Much of the abuse I see on the internet (such as spam, port scans, SSH login attempts, etc.) are from bots.
Most of the individual users have no idea their computer is compromised, let alone any idea how to fix the problem. Having ISPs take a more active role in securing their networks and helping users secure their systems is a worthy endeavor.
end-user education to prevent bot infections
Dear user:
This email is to inform you that you're internet service is being temporary halted so you can be educated.
Oh, and don't worry, you'll still pay full price for the next 3 months you are without internet.
We know best,
AT&T
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
The focus is realistic (aiming on the US specifically, which is where most bot activity originates anyways) and measured. They don't prescribe specific draconian regimens, but instead offer approaches and support the use of as many as are feasible. But most of all it takes the approach of "this is good for all of us," and ensure that the measures described fit that as well. This is the kind of approach that works well for industry by providing guidance, goals and options so that business can tailor their methods to what works well within their own operational constraints.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
"They also recommend broader adoption of DNSSEC and the development of an "industry framework" to combat IP route hijacking."
Does this mean that ISPs will also stop hijacking DNS themselves? I choose to use OpenDNS partly because the local telco [MTS Allstream] does this.. in some cases, it's like OpenDNS where they'll catch a typo and suggest the actual intended site, but a lot of the time it's being served their advertising or redirecting you whoknowswhere without permission [even from major common well-reputed sites]. It's one thing to choose that as a service, it's another to get commercially-poisoned DNS forced down your throat by default.
As long as Apple allows OS X on any machine that can run the code...
The definition of DPI is a bit broad.
But for the most part it only applies once you extract/examine the data portion of a packet.
It's a step beyond what ISPs should really care about (just the source/destination IP) as now they have to monitor the port number as well.
But they still don't need to identify that the traffic is DNS, or what hostname the DNS request is for - so it probably falls outside the definition of DPI.
The FCC has no juris[my]diction on anything to do with the Internet other than the inter-lata circuits it may use.
As to content, oversight, best practices, etc. they are not relevant.
Botnets aren't necessarily bad (think SETI at home). Cloud computing isn't bad. Encryption isn't bad.
You know what's bad? "Throttling", "N strikes", "watching your users' content". Those are all wrong.
E
DNSSEC implementation has been dismal so far, so it's great that people are agreeing to progress, but there's relatively little that ISPs can do, other than upgrading their caching nameservers. Most of the bottleneck is client software and zone administrators.
I got a notification plus "containment" of my network by my ISP of my being infected by the "DNSChanger" virus.
The problem is that they incorrectly detected the virus on my network, so I was removed from the net based on a false positive detection.
This royally pissed me off. It didn't help that the actual detection was 1 1/2 days before the notice and immediate action on their part, so it gave me no way to respond and tell them they were wrong.
I have tried to contact the FBI (who CenturyLink blamed for the detection), and they are still giving me the runaround about it.
Erich Boleyn
simple calculation: there a lot more linux servers than windows servers. but the percentage of linux servers hacked is a lot smaller than the percentage of windows-servers hacked.