[191709] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Krebs on Security booted off Akamai network after DDoS attack
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eliot Lear)
Mon Sep 26 01:59:55 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: ryan landry <ryan.landry@gmail.com>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 07:59:48 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAK_-TSZGbDaxF+j2B=NtA22kBVwCzi7Dwp_h=8fVXzBkHZUD-A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, jtk@aharp.iorc.depaul.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--nvEr4k0wCCa48mixGj7olkeQh9oor7LXt
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
To: ryan landry <ryan.landry@gmail.com>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: jtk@aharp.iorc.depaul.edu, nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <abe06121-b0c2-c6d8-0e61-e2544372e8bb@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Krebs on Security booted off Akamai network after DDoS attack
proves pricey
References: <20160924144757.6291.qmail@ary.lan>
<CAL9jLaY_7cHK0qqi19toe=vMzy6WzyeF_FDSzvP78eirrPh4fw@mail.gmail.com>
<20160924184332.GA45065@excession.tpb.net>
<CAL9jLabYEGXF8Ax3CrChDJfrpmXiTUA0MWQBqZkoZ=Px-6+1nw@mail.gmail.com>
<A2E6B904-F963-4536-9F19-C8187B0424AD@the-watsons.org>
<6CB7A90CA0C0D3CE.6E724E09-9FD0-4486-89BF-1A624A0F076A@mail.outlook.com>
<AD636CD0-DDEF-4B8D-9461-595F3EB12FBA@puck.nether.net>
<CAN414UcQK=xD3ESL8XBmquj9wLVPorrG9VPcLd6rbdvP9ysZsQ@mail.gmail.com>
<600470265.16530.1474778588492.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com>
<CAN414Uf-OK-B72AHVt8DtzsoH21QRqr=KLCYKA=LFCrejaKHjQ@mail.gmail.com>
<235cdefe042147e4a14be955177c2e70@XCASPRD01-DFT.dpu.depaul.edu>
<20160925120021.79280a95@p50.localdomain>
<CALoKGd2oN=mq_Gn75UrugUPDKfGPeD6cfq_AY+f-M1XUaCo46Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20160925210725.A27185504B03@rock.dv.isc.org>
<CAK_-TSZGbDaxF+j2B=NtA22kBVwCzi7Dwp_h=8fVXzBkHZUD-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK_-TSZGbDaxF+j2B=NtA22kBVwCzi7Dwp_h=8fVXzBkHZUD-A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Ryan,
On 9/25/16 11:50 PM, ryan landry wrote:
> for isp's it's a resourcing vs revenue problem. always has been.=20
Sure. The question is whether IoT can make a change in consumer
attitudes. Riek, Bohme, et al have been working on this [1]. And there
is earlier work as well. What that earlier work shows, by the way, is
that if someone suffers a loss, or even if they know someone who suffers
a loss, they'll become considerably more risk averse towards Internet
technology, to one extent or another. The Riek analysis doesn't really
take into account IoT, by the way. It just looks at losses. But I
think the logic is likely to hold as IoT creates more risks. The
question is whether the impact will increase, and whether those losses
will motivate market opportunities for SPs. I think there's a good
chance of that if the solution doesn't involve a vast amount of work on
the consumer's part.
Eliot
[1] "Estimating the costs of consumer-facing cybercrime: A tailored
instrument and representative data for six EU countries/",
/http://weis2016.econinfosec.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/05/WEIS_=
2016_paper_54-2.pdf
=20
--nvEr4k0wCCa48mixGj7olkeQh9oor7LXt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX6LlVAAoJEIe2a0bZ0nozWcAIAK0+qhK9nmmDU8pqMom8LLnq
Yu50fMT1oCp97088Daa5VEG7GOQWzsjezdXlKpU96Ys7nu2MQHAoB4aB3yh1+MU8
uonPffA0lxg82Do+10f18mySrQeH6NIZe2FWMX3G6zHNYRkz0RJ6SwTmaLWrbUEg
bXSxVfppcExHF9+5RBYA82aCWBAhCZKHmbWAGHfXXmP+TPXNEP3J/16KP4MYUPl8
qN5sdMKKlX4WEeywJWkXBbrgXkbwI6eHbIRiYLlhF/k+mCGvL8zt6xeP2dBOlOIp
Ww1mXm9quo4bsJmHaapxzfvmBadwkK7dM3TEYGMPa2qXrt/qlmYCq55BADpZy5o=
=Dd0Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nvEr4k0wCCa48mixGj7olkeQh9oor7LXt--
