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.
"...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.
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.
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