Congress may require ISPs to block fraud sites H.R.3817
dgolding at tier1research.com
Fri Nov 6 08:58:35 CST 2009
On Nov 5, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:40:09 CST, Bryan King said:
>>> Did I miss a thread on this? Has anyone looked at this yet?
>>> `(2) INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS- Any Internet service provider
>>> that, on
>>> or through a system or network controlled or operated by the
>>> service provider, transmits, routes, provides connections for, or
>>> any material containing any misrepresentation of the kind
>>> prohibited in
>>> paragraph (1) shall be liable for any damages caused thereby,
>>> damages suffered by SIPC, if the Internet service provider--
>> "routes" sounds the most dangerous part there. Does this mean that
>> we have a BGP peering session with somebody, we need to filter it?
> Also "transmits". (I'm impressed that someone in Congress knows the
> word "routes"....)
Don't get hung up on the wording. A DNS blackhole list will do the
trick as well. I don't think border ACLs on routers will be necessary.
- Daniel Golding
More information about the NANOG