dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed
« Remote Remove
This is a sub-selection from Open can of worms


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to jlivingood

Re: Open can of worms

said by jlivingood:

You may want to tell that to the folks who designed the Internet. The problem of bots does not apply only to the Comcast network - it is a massive, global problem.
Al Gore?

Now I'm confused. You are trying to fix the entire internet?

My point was that a bad user on your network should not be affecting a good user on your network.

No user, knowingly or unknowingly, should be able to affect another user.


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

My point was that a bad user on your network should not be affecting a good user on your network.
this is why they're going through the mitigation process and why they are trying to stop all botnet traffic from subscribers through the process outlined in the links provided by jason.

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


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

1 edit
reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua:

My point was that a bad user on your network should not be affecting a good user on your network.

No user, knowingly or unknowingly, should be able to affect another user.
What the heck are you talking about? If a user can send packets to another user, then they can affect that user. Depending on what software is on the receiving end of those packets, it can be something pretty nasty. It doesn't even matter if both users are on the same ISP's network, the vector here is TCP/IP.


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by vpoko:

If a user can send packets to another user, then they can affect that user.
Obviously. I'm talking about the case where "A"'s service should not be affected if "B" is attacking "C".


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
said by jjoshua:

said by vpoko:

If a user can send packets to another user, then they can affect that user.
Obviously. I'm talking about the case where "A"'s service should not be affected if "B" is attacking "C".
Yes, then shared vs. dedicated capacity makes a difference, but the real focus here is protecting "C", who is being attacked by "B", who doesn't even know that he's attacking anyone because his computer is infected.


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by vpoko:

said by jjoshua:

said by vpoko:

If a user can send packets to another user, then they can affect that user.
Obviously. I'm talking about the case where "A"'s service should not be affected if "B" is attacking "C".
Yes, then shared vs. dedicated capacity makes a difference, but the real focus here is protecting "C", who is being attacked by "B", who doesn't even know that he's attacking anyone because his computer is infected.
I think that you hit the nail on the head with the first part of your statement.