North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Open Letter to D-Link about their NTP vandalism

  • From: Alain Hebert
  • Date: Thu Apr 13 00:04:49 2006


With the way you named your address book (North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes).

We now know where to fill your futur comments.
(In the killfile that is)

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:32:26PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

On the plus side, after seeing D-Link's (lack of) reaction to this, I'll bet none of us will buy another of their products again.

If it was legal to sell whatever you people are smoking that makes you think dlink gives a flying crap about you as customers, I'd be a very rich man. What part of "mass consumer product" isn't clear here, 99.9% of their target market doesn't know NTP is, and doesn't care.

I am absolutely appalled by the number of "slashdot warriors" here, ready to launch a crusade of spreading misinformation to the media in hopes of obtaining a large monetary payout or otherwise causing dlink, in the name of "doing the right thing", and without any consideration or understanding of the facts at hand. You know why dlink can't just come forward and say "woops we're sorry, we didn't see that you wanted this used for DIX members only, our bad"? Because they have to contend with people who will take that apology and then use it in court as an admission of guilt, and seek many tens of thousands of dollars or more in non-existent damages.

As a (older, since '87) operator of a small network, I'll always help other operators when its question of making the 'net better.

Good luck advocating the next turd coming from sub-standard design flow that contributed to the DIX issues with DLink.

Me, I prefer to strive for excellence...

I think we all know that dlink was wrong. They should have double-checked the list of NTP servers they included in their default shipping firmware to make certain that the owners were ok with having their services used publically, there is no question about this. However, just because they made this mistake, it is not an excuse for everyone involved to start cashing in like they hit the lottery. Imagine that you get rear ended in traffic by an inattentive driver, and they dent your bumper. Yes it is their fault, yes they made a mistake and they should be responsible for it, but it is not okay for you to start screaming whiplash as soon as you see that you got hit by a Mercedes. It also doesn't mean that you are going to get a new car instead of them paying to have your bumper fixed.

FYI I didn't read anything about somebody looking to make money on this...

If anyone else is going to carry this as a story, please act responsibly and do a little fact checking. We're talking about 37 packets/sec, less than a dialup worth of bandwidth, and any number of technical solutions which could completely mitigate that traffic without ANY additional expenses. Also, IANAL, but I think that refusing to take reasonable action to mitigate the damages because you feel the other party is "at fault" and should be 100% responsible is probably a good way to hurt any kind of case you might actually have against them too.

Yeap.... x packets/sec times millions...

Alain Hebert [email protected] PubNIX Inc. P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7
tel 514-990-5911 fax 514-990-9443