I am sure there are some beneficial aspects of porn. The author of this article seems to assume it is all negative or that the negatives outway the positives.
And porn has never been scientifically proven to harm kids. In countries like the Netherlands where there are no age restrictions on porn they have lower crime rates and lower child abuse rates, so explain that.
Lastly, opposition to porn is totally a religious issue and without merrit.
Go ahead and cover your kids eyes at the monkey exibit at the zoo, they don't want to see you looking either.
The 5% they are talking about is virus/malware delivery, sites etc.
I don't think anyone is ignorant enough to consider a porn site as unsafe unless you are in the heart of Bible country where 90% of the people are just plain idiots.
Somehow this became a discussion of morality and porn and really it is more a discussion of malware delivery.
There is no debate that malware and virus sites are unsafe so drop it.
While we are on the discussion, no scientific study has ever proven porn can harm kids. The people that think this, will cover their kids eyes when 2 dogs are copulating, which I think is more against any God than just letting the kids see the dogs copulating and explaining to them that this is the process that causes baby dogs to be born.
Of course only parents with real balls explain copulation to their kids, the others cover their eyes and assume any knowledge or vision of animal or human copulation is harmful.
Actually, I think lack of knowledge is more harmful in any topic presented.
An example is a kid who has been sexually assulted that does not even know how to describe it, or thinks it is too ashaming, to even mention.
A knowledgeable kid would say, "Uncle Denny stuck his penis in my butt, will I now have a baby in my tummy?" This would alert parents of a sexual assult and they could respond by calling the police. A child that has been sheilded from knowledge may not even realize something bad has happened and will not even discuss it because it involves penises and butts, which have been forbidden to discuss and the child did what they expect during copulation exposure, which was to cover their eyes, and forget about it.
Always consider that lack of knowledge is more destructive than knowledge itself!
Sites that contain malware hooks and worms are most of the 5%.
Seems pretty elementary to me.
I think you are talking about nudity and such and the sampling results are talking about virus and malware delivery sites.
Might want to get on the same page.
.me or.mytrademark is the way it will be in the future. The only question is how long will it take us to get there. There is a fantasy out there that root servers cannot handle it, bull****!
Sure the root servers in their current configuration would have issues, because they were designed that way. These issues are making millions for morons that have connections.
Ultimatly if it does not go this way (.anything), then the Internet DNS will split up into many multiple DNSs based solely on the purpose of language.
After all, I wonder in how many languages.com is actually a swear word, or if.org is like an orgie.
This is about tongue movements and sounds, americans think the English language and.com is it , but Americans like me say quit making people sound like they are choking and drop the dot com crapola.
Lets have some fun and change.com to.cum, if you are going to sound like you are gasping for air while choking down sperm you may as well have the proper spelling.
I know tell them you left your lunch sack too close to your computer keyboard and the bananna fell out and triggered the RETURN key and you acidentally abused the hell out of the 10 million people on the Internet for 10 minutes Tuesday at 4PM.
Oops the darn banannas!
Glad to hear that
as I do not favor blacklists and bans and consider any form of Internet blockage as a last resort and temporary measure only to ensure the viability of the particular Internet resource under attack.
We will fix it in the next revision, sorry for the misunderstanding.
I always write it as SPAM because it is a BIG problem and is a very LOAD way to say it.
Excellent points well taken. DDOS and false reporting are being developed as we speak for IIALP. We are trying to include all simple to impliment and widly accepable methods for authentication and validity checking Its cool that people take the time to point out problems will no doubt help in the refinement of this IIALP work in progress. Keep an eye out the next revisions and please continue to dicect it for flaws. We plan to start an open source project for the server/client raw code. This way it can be in theory implimented for a very reasonable fee after people make it into bloatware.exe's.
If you can still say that 3 months from now I will be surprised. What you are reading right now is the scope of the project, all the mechanisms are not there yet to dispute. DDOS prevention is at the top of the list for requirements for IIALP.
IIALP is in the todler stage and has just begun to walk, in three months after we get this this re-tuned by industry experts, you will not even see the kid run by you.
Each abuse type has its own templte to minimize false positives.
Obviously, the port scanning template will need to be very exact and there will need to be many types of port scan templates.
IIALP does not block anything it can be used as another tool for watching your Internet backside.
IIALP is not an incident exchange format, but INCH is, IIALP is like dshield.org on steroids.
The problem is a lot of the exchange attempts are too narrow and fail. dshield.org is great for port scans tracking.
IIALP is more infinite because it is based on an infinite set of templates that get created for each new type of abuse, and mostly because it is a protocol not a website.
The port scan and real-time atributed log records IIALP template design is going to be a tricky and meticulous process to design.
I guess the best way to put this is if IIALP were in use in lets say, zone alarm version xyz, novice Internet users always say, "what is all that stuff attacking my firewall." "Who are they?" well if Zone alarm was using IIALP, it could append a complaint quantity to the IP so as to show the novice user that this is not your neighbor trying to share files , but it is a malicious machine that has done this bad thing 14,768,953 times in 2 days. Probably has NIMDA or Code RED variants.
At least then the guy knows it is not his neighbor and also knows not to let the traffic in because millions of other people have blocked that address as well.
Maybe this is not the greatest example, but I personally would like to query AS numbers to find out the most abusive networks and IP addresses to see which companies and countries are failing in their job at network security and perhaps bring the light on the real problem which is a lack of knowledge, tools and $$$ to secure Internet connected networks everywhere.
I do beleive you are missing the scope of IIALP here.
Layer 2 and layer 3 network abuse templates could both be created. Usually layer 2 network abuse is cause by poor administration of the network, but because it concerns you it will be given some more thought as we move forward.
IIALP can have an infinite number of abuse template types, for each type of abuse be it Layer 2 or 3. But as the name applies, the Internet is layer 3, so IIALP is primarily a layer 3 tool.
Having said that, there is already in the works a template for phone abuse, and abusive phone numbers. There are plans for IM abuse templates which can contain info/stuff from layers 3-7.
There is also a template in the works for abusive domain names which are not even in the network stack they just are mapped via DNS to layer 3 IPV4 addresses.
The things that get logged are predominately IP addresses but can also be domain names, and phone numbers.
There are 2 things at play here, the abuse log template which determines what info is collected and what is passed upstream from the collected information and there can be an infinite number of templates which describe the abuse and its logging format. The other part is the (IAHT) Identifying Asset Holder Type, this specifies the thing that is "owned" on the Internet which is abusing people, such as an IP address, phone number, or domain name, there can also be an infinite number of IAHTs defined as well. The protocol has these 2 open ended features so as not to be obsoleted by IPV6 or Internet 2 etc...
The IIALP log files have a TTL value that auto-expires the logs based on the specifications which are unique for each abuse type. The TTL is specified by the root servers for each template (abuse) type. So they won't end up on a list for a year unless the TTL is 1 yr. And remember it is only a log not a block list, if you choose to block based upon the logs, then that is a separate issue.
The TTL may be different if the real-time flag is set on the abuse log entry vs. if the real-time flag is not set.
The TTL can be set to a different greater value than the Root IIALP server for a specific abuse type but it cannot be set less than the root server.
TTL and other template artifacts are passed down the hiearchy from the Root IIALP servers, to the Subordinate IIALP servers and finally to the Rougue and Subscription Based IIALP servers.
Because the IIALP protocol uses templates which are different for each type of abuse, they can be somwhat self verifying. e.g. if you fill in all the blanks and you have permission to submit to the IIALP server you are affiliated with, IIALP only logs it does not block, when you use IIALP to block , YOU would need to verify the validity of the records as well as use the white list and black list features which are both global and template specific.
Remember it is a protocol not a law.
What you do with it is your resposibility.
It will be a great tool to see Internet abuse records without an act of congress needed or without large administrative efforts.
Slashdot Mirror
I am sure there are some beneficial aspects of porn. The author of this article seems to assume it is all negative or that the negatives outway the positives. And porn has never been scientifically proven to harm kids. In countries like the Netherlands where there are no age restrictions on porn they have lower crime rates and lower child abuse rates, so explain that. Lastly, opposition to porn is totally a religious issue and without merrit. Go ahead and cover your kids eyes at the monkey exibit at the zoo, they don't want to see you looking either.
The 5% they are talking about is virus/malware delivery, sites etc. I don't think anyone is ignorant enough to consider a porn site as unsafe unless you are in the heart of Bible country where 90% of the people are just plain idiots. Somehow this became a discussion of morality and porn and really it is more a discussion of malware delivery. There is no debate that malware and virus sites are unsafe so drop it. While we are on the discussion, no scientific study has ever proven porn can harm kids. The people that think this, will cover their kids eyes when 2 dogs are copulating, which I think is more against any God than just letting the kids see the dogs copulating and explaining to them that this is the process that causes baby dogs to be born. Of course only parents with real balls explain copulation to their kids, the others cover their eyes and assume any knowledge or vision of animal or human copulation is harmful. Actually, I think lack of knowledge is more harmful in any topic presented. An example is a kid who has been sexually assulted that does not even know how to describe it, or thinks it is too ashaming, to even mention. A knowledgeable kid would say, "Uncle Denny stuck his penis in my butt, will I now have a baby in my tummy?" This would alert parents of a sexual assult and they could respond by calling the police. A child that has been sheilded from knowledge may not even realize something bad has happened and will not even discuss it because it involves penises and butts, which have been forbidden to discuss and the child did what they expect during copulation exposure, which was to cover their eyes, and forget about it. Always consider that lack of knowledge is more destructive than knowledge itself!
Sites that contain malware hooks and worms are most of the 5%. Seems pretty elementary to me. I think you are talking about nudity and such and the sampling results are talking about virus and malware delivery sites. Might want to get on the same page.
.me or .mytrademark is the way it will be in the future. The only question is how long will it take us to get there. There is a fantasy out there that root servers cannot handle it, bull****!
Sure the root servers in their current configuration would have issues, because they were designed that way. These issues are making millions for morons that have connections.
Ultimatly if it does not go this way (.anything), then the Internet DNS will split up into many multiple DNSs based solely on the purpose of language.
After all, I wonder in how many languages .com is actually a swear word, or if .org is like an orgie.
This is about tongue movements and sounds, americans think the English language and .com is it , but Americans like me say quit making people sound like they are choking and drop the dot com crapola.
Lets have some fun and change .com to .cum, if you are going to sound like you are gasping for air while choking down sperm you may as well have the proper spelling.
You mean any further than it has already gone....oops it already went further since you posted this.
I know tell them you left your lunch sack too close to your computer keyboard and the bananna fell out and triggered the RETURN key and you acidentally abused the hell out of the 10 million people on the Internet for 10 minutes Tuesday at 4PM. Oops the darn banannas!
Glad to hear that as I do not favor blacklists and bans and consider any form of Internet blockage as a last resort and temporary measure only to ensure the viability of the particular Internet resource under attack.
We will fix it in the next revision, sorry for the misunderstanding. I always write it as SPAM because it is a BIG problem and is a very LOAD way to say it.
Excellent points well taken. DDOS and false reporting are being developed as we speak for IIALP. We are trying to include all simple to impliment and widly accepable methods for authentication and validity checking Its cool that people take the time to point out problems will no doubt help in the refinement of this IIALP work in progress. Keep an eye out the next revisions and please continue to dicect it for flaws. We plan to start an open source project for the server/client raw code. This way it can be in theory implimented for a very reasonable fee after people make it into bloatware .exe's.
If you can still say that 3 months from now I will be surprised. What you are reading right now is the scope of the project, all the mechanisms are not there yet to dispute. DDOS prevention is at the top of the list for requirements for IIALP. IIALP is in the todler stage and has just begun to walk, in three months after we get this this re-tuned by industry experts, you will not even see the kid run by you.
I agree, I do not like blacklisting, blacklisting is a last resort for short-term problems.
A pre-emptive DDOS protection mechamism needs further work and is in the plan to be implimented soon.
Each abuse type has its own templte to minimize false positives. Obviously, the port scanning template will need to be very exact and there will need to be many types of port scan templates. IIALP does not block anything it can be used as another tool for watching your Internet backside.
IIALP is not an incident exchange format, but INCH is, IIALP is like dshield.org on steroids. The problem is a lot of the exchange attempts are too narrow and fail. dshield.org is great for port scans tracking. IIALP is more infinite because it is based on an infinite set of templates that get created for each new type of abuse, and mostly because it is a protocol not a website.
The port scan and real-time atributed log records IIALP template design is going to be a tricky and meticulous process to design. I guess the best way to put this is if IIALP were in use in lets say, zone alarm version xyz, novice Internet users always say, "what is all that stuff attacking my firewall." "Who are they?" well if Zone alarm was using IIALP, it could append a complaint quantity to the IP so as to show the novice user that this is not your neighbor trying to share files , but it is a malicious machine that has done this bad thing 14,768,953 times in 2 days. Probably has NIMDA or Code RED variants. At least then the guy knows it is not his neighbor and also knows not to let the traffic in because millions of other people have blocked that address as well. Maybe this is not the greatest example, but I personally would like to query AS numbers to find out the most abusive networks and IP addresses to see which companies and countries are failing in their job at network security and perhaps bring the light on the real problem which is a lack of knowledge, tools and $$$ to secure Internet connected networks everywhere.
I do beleive you are missing the scope of IIALP here. Layer 2 and layer 3 network abuse templates could both be created. Usually layer 2 network abuse is cause by poor administration of the network, but because it concerns you it will be given some more thought as we move forward. IIALP can have an infinite number of abuse template types, for each type of abuse be it Layer 2 or 3. But as the name applies, the Internet is layer 3, so IIALP is primarily a layer 3 tool. Having said that, there is already in the works a template for phone abuse, and abusive phone numbers. There are plans for IM abuse templates which can contain info/stuff from layers 3-7. There is also a template in the works for abusive domain names which are not even in the network stack they just are mapped via DNS to layer 3 IPV4 addresses. The things that get logged are predominately IP addresses but can also be domain names, and phone numbers. There are 2 things at play here, the abuse log template which determines what info is collected and what is passed upstream from the collected information and there can be an infinite number of templates which describe the abuse and its logging format. The other part is the (IAHT) Identifying Asset Holder Type, this specifies the thing that is "owned" on the Internet which is abusing people, such as an IP address, phone number, or domain name, there can also be an infinite number of IAHTs defined as well. The protocol has these 2 open ended features so as not to be obsoleted by IPV6 or Internet 2 etc...
The IIALP log files have a TTL value that auto-expires the logs based on the specifications which are unique for each abuse type. The TTL is specified by the root servers for each template (abuse) type. So they won't end up on a list for a year unless the TTL is 1 yr. And remember it is only a log not a block list, if you choose to block based upon the logs, then that is a separate issue. The TTL may be different if the real-time flag is set on the abuse log entry vs. if the real-time flag is not set. The TTL can be set to a different greater value than the Root IIALP server for a specific abuse type but it cannot be set less than the root server. TTL and other template artifacts are passed down the hiearchy from the Root IIALP servers, to the Subordinate IIALP servers and finally to the Rougue and Subscription Based IIALP servers.
Because the IIALP protocol uses templates which are different for each type of abuse, they can be somwhat self verifying. e.g. if you fill in all the blanks and you have permission to submit to the IIALP server you are affiliated with, IIALP only logs it does not block, when you use IIALP to block , YOU would need to verify the validity of the records as well as use the white list and black list features which are both global and template specific.
Remember it is a protocol not a law. What you do with it is your resposibility. It will be a great tool to see Internet abuse records without an act of congress needed or without large administrative efforts.