[80186] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Shen)
Wed Apr 27 02:56:35 2005
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:56:10 +0800 (CST)
From: Joe Shen <joe_hznm@yahoo.com.sg>
To: Jerry Pasker <info@n-connect.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: 6667
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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@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!?
ÏÓÓÊÏä̫С£¿ÑÅ»¢µçÓÊ×ÔÖúÀ©ÈÝ£¡
http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/10m/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/event/10m.html
