advise on network security report
mcallahan at bullseyetelecom.net
Wed Nov 1 20:09:59 UTC 2006
>I beg to differ, wither I aggregate my announcements does not impact the
>$50B charge identity theft puts on the US economy.
Perhaps a better start on impacting this would be for the credit card companies to pursue the people that abuse their cards/systems instead of just writing fraudulent purchases off as a loss and not pursuing them any further. I been through it myself and I know for a fact that at least one major cc company operates in this way. In this model there's nothing to discourage someone from using stolen numbers. Just my $.02
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:02 PM
To: Barry Greene (bgreene)
Cc: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: advise on network security report
Barry Greene (bgreene) wrote:
> Postings like this to NANOG will not have any impact. So if your goal is
> instigate action, posting is not going to work. The core data point is
> the weekly CIDR report. It only works if you have peers using the weekly
> list to apply peer pressure to the networks listed to act.
I beg to differ, wither I aggregate my announcements does not impact the
$50B charge identity theft puts on the US economy.
would it assist if I associated a dollar value for each bot hosted, we
can estimate the number of credit cards stolen per bot and extrapolate
in to something with some zeros on it.
> Sharing summaries to communities like dshield, NSP-SEC, DA, SANs and
> other security mitigation communities along with a subscription web page
> that would allow an organization to get enough details to take action.
nsp-sec players still won't let us in their sand-box... but we will
share to the communities you have enumerated.
More information about the NANOG