Australian ISPs To Disconnect Botnet "Zombies" 213
jibjibjib writes "Some of Australia's largest ISPs are preparing an industry code of conduct to identify and respond to users with botnet-infected computers. The Internet Industry Association, made up of over 200 ISPs and technology companies, is preparing the code in response to an ultimatum from the federal government.
ISPs will try to contact the user, slow down their connection, and ultimately terminate the connection if the user refuses to fix the problem. It is hoped that this will reduce the growth of botnets in Australia, which had the world's third-highest rate of new 'zombies' (behind the US and China)."
Could it be a Good Thing to prune some leaf nodes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Open invite to hackers: Come steal our stuff!! (Score:3, Interesting)
This SOUNDS like a good idea in theory, but what will end up happening is that Hackers will start to send fake notices to Australian users and will easily be able to trick people into giving personal information (ie account numbers, CC numbers, ect.) by claiming to be from the government and/or ISP. They need to create some sort of control around this, but I only see it causing problems....
Re:Bad Precedent? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Give a discount to those running clean systems. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never heard people suggest that before, but the idea of "using open source = discount on your internet bill" is a good idea.
Nope. Market for software/services to try make a Windows machine actively running IE look to the outside like a Linux machine running FF/Konq in 3... 2...
I see hitting people's wallets as a good ides in another case though. Some will take the being cut off as a simple inconvenience and will after reconnection continue to behave as before and get cut off again after a couple of months - lather, rinse, repeat. Charging them a reconnection fee the second and subsequent time might be extra useful encouragement.
Your discount idea might be good if reversed though: Give people 5% discount if they stay malware free for, say, three months. Maybe offering a higher discount after a longer period (10% after 12 months?). This would hopefully encourage careful behavior (behaviour is the key, not just software choice - someone who is fooled into runnin random crap that secretly sends out junk mail on a Windows box will be just as likely to run the Linux/Mac/what-ever equivalent) from the outset, and might be popular with the ISPs as a user retention policy (if you move, you have to wait the few months to get your discount back) if the discount is managed on a per ISP basis. In any case the ISP would have to be very careful to be sure that the traffic they see is a problem, that it is properly logged/recorded (being careful not to step on any privacy laws that may be in effect over there) and that there is some sort of appeals process in place in case the system somehow misidentifies the source of a problem, otherwise they might be opening themselves to compensation claims down the line - which is all starting to sound like far too much hassle to me...
I think this has already been done in finland. (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
There is an inherent responsibility (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a responsibility by any user not to interfere with others. Being infected with a botnet is certainly one for this category. Not responding to warnings of infection is negating this and is abusive of others using the net. Why should users that interfere with others be tolerated?
To simply say that a significant number of the people that have botnets don't know how to remove them, even after warnings is far to simplistic an excuse. The same can be said about their ability to pay to have them removed. Format C:/ is the lowest cost. Having a friend help remove personal data is the next and last 1 hour labour by the local shop to retrieve the personal data is not unreasonable. However this same group most likely don't have any significant personal data they can retrieve even for normal use as they have no idea where it is once they it save. They have never bothered or are incapable to learn the concept of directories or the concept of organizing their work. So they really don't have in a practical sense any personal data to recover. Am I heartless? No actually, just pragmatic.
Why do those botnet infected people have any right to interfere with others wanting to share this net resource? Why is there a large group defending them seem to think there is no personal responsibility involved when going on the net? There is no right to interfere with me or is there? Be it simply by being a pest or anything else. I don't care what you do as long as it does not impact me within reason. We all share the net. We all generally have contracts with our ISP's with a code of conduct. I see no reason why those that don't head warnings to fix their systems shouldn't lose the privilege of access from that equipment.
We qualify people for many things in our society. Most of those things revolve around protecting the rights of others. Just as a license is a privilege and requires a test, there are rules for bicycles, being an obnoxious drunk in public, etc. There is no right to thieve, assault, stalk, or be a public nuisance. A person with a botnet infection is part of interfering with others and they have no right to do that. But there certainly is a responsibility not to do that.
But who is responsible to prevent it? Is it mine? Do I have to incur expense and time trying to keep these people from bothering and interfering with me? The practical aspects with today's technology says that at best it's only a partial solution anyway. So why limit only one approach? There is no rule that requires only one solution to deal with this menace that costs everyone time and money. Money reflected in everything from my time to the rates I pay for access to the net, on up the chain to the carriers.
If I had my way there would be a fixed IP for all home connections. It is practical technically and is not a security problem to have one. Dynamic IP's offer negligible protection if any at all. A fixed IP certainly offers a measure ability for me to solve part of the problem. I see no reason why a system based on complaint or by discovery should not be used to cut these repeat offenders from using their own hardware to connect. They mostly have other options to get on the net if they fail to maintain their own equipment when notified. Where do any of you get off saying they aren't responsible for their own stupidity. So ok, If they have no obligation to others, then using that logic. There is no obligation to give them access or at least to that access from their infected equipment. They may get access from the library computer or other methods. They may still get on, just not using their trainwreck of a computer from home. All is then fair enough.
So what of people that don't know how or can afford to remove the infection. Cry me a river. That's not an excuse to abuse others. They have no friends? Can't afford one hour of tech time? I maybe my brothers keeper but it doesn't mean you can't give then a slap upside the head when they act like a moron. The know it is wrong. So get off the net until they find a solut
Re:Free botnet removal support? (Score:1, Interesting)
I work at an ISP and this is exactly how we do it.
If we get alot complaints about spam or botnet activity from a ip we put them in own vlan giving them access only to some antivirus sites. Very effective in getting the user to do something about it. Otherwise I'm sure that at least 60% of the users wouldn't even care, or wouldnt know how to fix it.
Same if they don't pay the bills. Then they only get access to the most popular banks online.