North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Even you can be hacked

  • From: David Schwartz
  • Date: Fri Jun 11 13:39:47 2004

> At 7:07 PM -0700 2004-06-10, David Schwartz wrote:

> >  	Most of the people on this list see things from the ISP's
> > perspective.
> >  However, step back a bit and see it from the user's perspective. Do you
> >  expect to pay for phone calls you didn't make or do you expect
> > the person
> >  whose deliberate conscious action caused those calls to be made? Do you
> >  expect to be responsible for patrolling your electric lines to
> > make sure
> >  someone hasn't plugged into your outside outlets?

> 	If you had a PBX in your home that was misconfigured and allowed
> people to dial-in and then dial back out and get free long distance,
> and your telephone company warned you about this weakness, forgives
> your first month overages due to your being hacked, and yet you still
> refused to fix the system, then you're toast.
>
> 	Under those circumstances, if someone makes $10M worth of long
> distance calls via your PBX, then you're going to have to pay up.

	Of course, except in this case, the phone company can't easily tell the
legitimate calls from the illegitimate ones and block only the illegitimate
ones. Every analogy will break down, so don't expect to be able to convince
people with analogies that seem so obviously right to you. Nothing is
exactly accurate except the actual situation itself.

	And, again, alomst every contract has some insurance elements to it. There
will be unusual cases where it's actually possible for the utility to lose
money if something unusual happens. My main point is that the understanding
that seems so obviously right to you may not seem so obviously right to your
customers.

	As for all the people who talk about turning off their DSL access when
they're away from home, they're missing the point. Obviously a person could
do that. We could shut off our electricity when we leave home. We could have
our telephone service temporarily disabled when we go on vacation too. A
person could do all of these things. My point is that it's also perfectly
reasonable for a person not to do these things. Because in general an ISP
has more ability to control these things and it makes very little sense for
a home user to insure an ISP, it makes more sense for the ISP to insure the
user.

	In any unfortunate situation, you can find a hundred things that anyone
could have done differently that would have avoided the situation. But that
is not how you establish responsibility, financial or moral. You look at
people who failed to use reasonable prudence.

	And, of course, the ISP always (or very nearly always) insures the user
against the costs of inbound attack traffic that exceeds his line rate. The
more demands you make of your customers, the more you decrease the value of
your very own product.

	Frankly, if I ruled the world, obtaining Internet access would require a
serious cluefulness test and you'd take a lot more responsiblity for
generated traffic. I know a lot of people on this list wish things were the
same way and sometimes want it so much that they're able to convince
themselves that this is the way things actually are in the real world today.
But they're not, and you may find that outside your group of friends, your
views are found to be very odd by the majority of 'normal' (but, admittedly,
inferior) people.

	The arguments that seem so obviously right to you may be greeted by
amusement and the analogies you think work will be found unconvincing. This
is because this argument is largely about other people's expectations.

	DS