Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
Joe Shen
joe_hznm at yahoo.com.sg
Wed Apr 27 06:56:10 UTC 2005
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 <info at n-connect.net> 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!?
嫌邮箱太小?雅虎电邮自助扩容!
http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/10m/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/event/10m.html
More information about the NANOG
mailing list