|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
Hi, maybe this is an OLD topic, but the problem is "what is security? " or "how to define a secure internet access service ". E.g. should ISP respond for managing application transmitted across its backbone? if so, how to define "standard" appliation model while keeping internet a flexible platform? Could we maintein the scalability of IP network while keeping it secure & high performance? To business consideration , would people pay more money for a limited, "secure" internet access service while his/her child is able to visit those Nude website? So, IMHO, it's a good idea but it's not a feasible proposal. Joe --- Jerry Pasker <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I've been there -- I know how I feel about it -- > but I'd love > >to know how ISP operations folk feel about this. > > > > > It means 10 different things to 10 different people. > The article was > vague. "Security" could mean blocking a few ports, > simple Proxy/NAT, > blocking port 25 (or 139... or 53.. heh heh) or a > thousand different > things. There is a market for this, it's called > "managed services." > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? ������̫С���Ż������������ݣ� http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/10m/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/event/10m.html
|