de-peering for security sake

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Sun Jan 17 02:48:38 UTC 2016


On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:09:27 -0800, Owen DeLong said:

> > Making the owner of the host responsible for an attack -personally-
> > responsible would require every grandma & 6 year old to have insurance before
> > buying a laptop or Xbox. And would bankrupt your favorite startup no matter how
> > smart & competent the first time a zero-day caught them by surprise.

> Agreed… I think, instead, that the commercial purveyors of vulnerable software
> should be held liable.

And this is another one that needs *really* careful definitions.

How much time does Redhat get to patch a bug in (say) OpenSSH or the kernel
or any other package from upstream, before you want to hold them liable?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160116/c143c17f/attachment.sig>


More information about the NANOG mailing list