- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Make them legally liable for service outages related to network attacks. They’ll clean that shit up instantly.
Speaking as a high level ISP worker, you have no idea how archaic and disorganized the internet infrastructure of this country is. Nothing happens instantly, even if they made ISPs legally liable. The likely outcome of that would be jacked up rates and lots of workers thrown under the bus who are already overworked. Investor capitalism leeching all profits away from upgrading equipment and hiring enough workers to secure things properly is the issue. As it has become the issue with almost every major business in every industry in the west these days. Not saying legal liability is a bad idea, but it will still take years to get resolved even so. Internet should be a public utility anyway.
I do. I’ve been in the industry a long time.
Fact is, none of these network providers will work to secure their own infrastructure if they aren’t required to, or have financial incentive. They have no reason to improve their systems aside from making money. Threaten that, and they’ll get on board with being more rigid in their security standards.
Your argument is with late-stage capitalism, not the actual effect of my comment.
Didn’t realize you were also in the industry. I think the word “Instantly” was my qualm. I don’t think anything with internet infrastructure can change in a time frame anyone would consider instant. Otherwise, I agree with you.
“Instantly” on a geological scale 🙃
Give the law a window to take effect, then.
I have similar thoughts on scam phone calls. Make the companies liable for accepting and connecting an untraceable VoIP and watch how swiftly everything changes.
And then there’s this 🙃
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Federal Communications Commission wants to verify that Internet service providers are strengthening their networks against attacks that take advantage of vulnerabilities in Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).
"We propose that all providers of broadband Internet access service prepare and update confidential BGP security risk management plans.
The FCC said the initial design of BGP that remains widely deployed today “does not include intrinsic security features to ensure trust in the information that is relied upon to exchange traffic among independently managed networks on the Internet.”
The FCC will take public comments on its proposed rulemaking for 45 days after it is published in the Federal Register, and it could finalize the regulations in the coming months.
The draft said the stricter reporting requirements would apply to AT&T, Altice, Charter, Comcast, Cox, Lumen (aka CenturyLink), T-Mobile, TDS (including subsidiary US Cellular), and Verizon.
The large providers would be allowed to stop submitting annual plans once they “attest that they are maintaining ROAs covering at least 90 percent of originated routes for IP address prefixes under their control.”
The original article contains 631 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
