dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
840
share rss forum feed

beck
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-29
On The Road
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Stablehost.com

6 of one, half dozen of the other

While I think it is GOOD that people get rid of these things, I'm not sure on how to notify them of it.

Keep teaching people to NOT open email that is not expected (not just from they don't know) and to run if some anti-virus stuff pops up because it's fake. I'm not sure how to resolve this. Because if we tell them "except Comcast" the scammers will be doing Comcast. The scammers are already doing Comcast emails to direct people to bad web sites or give them a trojan etc.

I don't know of a good way to notify customers other than shut them down so they finally call and then tell them. But that costs Comcast $$ for the tech and lots of being upset for the customer. Perhaps the notice has to go out in the US mail?
--
Some people are like slinkies - not really good for much.
But they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

Re: 6 of one, half dozen of the other

said by beck:

Keep teaching people to NOT open email that is not expected (not just from they don't know) and to run if some anti-virus stuff pops up because it's fake. I'm not sure how to resolve this. Because if we tell them "except Comcast" the scammers will be doing Comcast. The scammers are already doing Comcast emails to direct people to bad web sites or give them a trojan etc.
yes -- i'm sure there are contradictory messages that will confuse the sub. i'm assuming this is why the browser injection would happen. i would assume that this would come with an identification code and a phone number to call -- or even better -- with a note to just "call comcast customer service". the user would then use the known comcast customer service number and give them the message id to verify that this is indeed coming from comcast and action needs to be taken.

no system is perfect -- and education is most important. but, for the people who choose not to listen, this could be a good first step.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

And, the thing is, you can give people good advice until you're blue in the face, and they still won't take it. How many worms have we seen since "I LOVE YOU" hit back in 2000? Yeah, that wasn't the first, but it was the one that hit the media in a big way, and, since then, there have been dozens and dozens that have made the mainstream media, yet people still stupidly do the same things that get them infected.

As for security, hell, I know people who won't even take the most basic precautions, like not running Windows in administrator mode all the time. Yeah, XP running in limited user mode broke too many things, but Vista and 7 improved greatly on that. And the thing is, these folks can't even articulate why they don't want their account set up as a standard user, even if they'll also have access to an admin account should they need it. They simply think it's too much trouble and won't have it.

Sorry to rant, but I couldn't help myself.

jlivingood
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:2
said by beck:

I don't know of a good way to notify customers other than shut them down so they finally call and then tell them. But that costs Comcast $$ for the tech and lots of being upset for the customer. Perhaps the notice has to go out in the US mail?
Both good suggestions. We have several different notification options identified at »tools.ietf.org/html/draft-oreird···ection-6 and may explore some of these other ones at some point.
--
JL
Comcast

S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

Re: 6 of one, half dozen of the other

"Once an ISP has detected a bot, or the strong likelihood of a bot, steps should be undertaken to inform the Internet user that they may have a bot-related problem."
Where in you terms of service does it make you the responsible party to this, and if you are; then are you accepting liability for damages if this service fails?

"It is important to note that none of these methods are guaranteed to be one-hundred percent successful, and that each has its own set of limitations."

So here you are clearly stating that there will be false-positives. How will you compensate those whom are affected by such negative determinations?

And will this be added in to whats considered "reasonable network management" for legislative purposes?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

Re: 6 of one, half dozen of the other

So, then, what is to be done? Suspend the user's account? Place them inside a walled garden? What, exactly?

And before you say "nothing", that really isn't an option. No responsible ISP wants its network full of infected machines spewing out spam and malware.

Don't get me wrong, I have had many bones to pick with Comcast, but they're being treated unfairly on this one. People have been demanding for years that ISP's do something to get the infected computers on their networks cleaned up, yet, when they do something, people say that they shouldn't be interfering with users in this way.

S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

Re: 6 of one, half dozen of the other

Its not the job of the ISP. The ISP is Supposed to be the medium from which you travel from point A to point B. But that line of business is not lucrative enough, so in come the advertisements and sponsored sites. Pretty soon the mom & pop Point B is located somewhere around point Z, and if they're not sponsored, maybe they just get one of these false positives.

So since Comcast is interjecting themselves in this fashion, the question still has to be answered; Are they accepting liability for false positives and is this apart of what they consider "reasonable network management"?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

Re: 6 of one, half dozen of the other

OK, I get that ISP's are best being dumb pipes, and I agree with that. But let's talk about the case of infected computers. What, then, is the correct response to that?

S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

Re: 6 of one, half dozen of the other

People have been downloading crapware for a decade on Comcast. Everything from Winfixer to Nail.exe to the sh*t that Zango/180solutions was putting out. Millions of PCs trashed. Where was Comcast then?
Oh...I forgot...they handed out that state of the art McAfee security suite (freakin useless).
Their own proposal states that this isn't foolproof, so why would anybody rely on an ISP to provide this type of security when they haven't been able to block these applications in the past. They're not dumb pipes. The end users security should be just that...at the end. Theres really nothing else to talk about.
If people haven't learned by now how to protect their pcs, well then theres little hope!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

Re: 6 of one, half dozen of the other

But again, I ask, if they want to do something about infected PC's on their network, what is the correct response? I am aware that end users are ultimately responsible, but what do you do when they refuse to take responsibility?