[Dshield] 64,000 ports, ISP's out of control
tonye at billy.demon.nl
Mon Oct 17 16:23:17 GMT 2005
må den 17.10.2005 Klokka 08:28 (-0600) skreiv Philip H. O'Neill:
> At what point does it become the ISP's responsibility to control
> applications that the client uses?
instance, if the client is abusing the law (national or international
pertaining to that ISP) or otherwise compromising services offered by
> The Internet is not owned by a single entity but by a collaboration
> based on standards. Those standards allow the Internet to operate so
> packets get from point A to point B as reliable as possible even in the
> event of failure along a given route. The content of the packet or the
> port being used are not of real concern, just that it can pass through
> their part of the Internet.
> The ISP will normally not take action unless there is a creditable
> compliant. It is the end-points responsibility to control access in or
> out of their network or systems. If there is a problem that is or can be
> documented then the ISP can take some form of action. But that action
> will generally be temporary and apply only to the complaining network. I
> say generally because of other complaints they may contact another ISP
> to help.
In Europe, we're fast becoming a federation of countries (is that 26?
I'm fast losing count) that makes up its own LAWS pertaining to that
federation. One of the LAWS that the EU is seeking to adopt, is that all
EU ISPs keep a record of all connections, together with the initiator,
for the last X number of years. That proposed LAW blueprint, and other
such stupid law blueprints, such as a proposed LAW of patent for
intellectual property, is fiercely being opposed by ISPs and other
In this scenario, the ISP is whiter than white, even though certain EU
ISPs have been found guilty of actively promoting and even financing
internationally-acclaimed illegal activities. At least one notable here
The point is, that it's often not up to the ISP alone to judge what is
misuse and what is not. Big Brother wants to (and has been doing so for
years here in Holland) watch you, and whatever Big Brother (AID -
Algemene Inlichtingen Dienst, here in Holland) wants, gets done. ISPs
have had to put up with that for years. The last months' radical
Islamitic-based murders, assassinations and plots have gained the
public's apathy, even acclaim, for what Big Brother is doing. This is
also the case in Britain, France and Germany. Me? Oh, I really do
approve and concur, wholeheartedly ;)
> Remember an ISP is a client of another ISP. Most will be willing to work
> with their clients to provide smooth transfer of packets and prevent
> disruption of service.
Major ISPs (the big time) don't give a damn about the content of what's
passing over their networks. However, if, as the EU seems to want,
they're going to have to ...
> Some access service providers " do
> block traffic on their network both by port and by content.
Not only "(AOL,MSN...)". Major ISPs here in Holland (most are
subsidiaries of the giant KPN) here in Holland do the same. *shrug* - I
use a proper ISP. If I conduct myself and my traffic correctly, he
doesn't care about port or content. But, rest assured, he's watching ...
> For some restricted access is the best solution but they will miss out
> on some content based prevailing religion and politics. Just look at
> China with there restrictions
... and the EU ...
> and how safe the Internet is ;)
The Internet as such is safe enough. It's the idiots, unwashed ignorant
and malevolent who use it that make it unsafe to us all. China doesn't
really have any restrictions if, as a Chinese one is rich enough (there
are enough of them) or a member of the nomenclature or a geek.
> The criminal element will exist even if there was only one entity
> running the Internet and only one port available.
I doubt it. Examples?
Mail: tonye at billy.demon.nl
More information about the list