Kaspersky calls for end to net anonymity

http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/sec...2058697,00.htm

[Q] That's it? What's wrong with the design of the Internet?

[Kaspersky] There's anonymity. Everyone should and must have an
identification, or Internet passport. The Internet was designed not for
public use, but for American scientists and the U.S. military. That was
just a limited group of people--hundreds, or maybe thousands. Then it
was introduced to the public and it was wrong to introduce it in the
same way.

I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing
regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international
agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries
don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off.

********************************************

Maybe it's time to call for an end to Kaspersky's influence in computer
security.


jc

jc

You are getting to be a grumpy old man telling us about how wonderful
things used to be in his youth, and how everything is going to hell
nowadays. Don't.
I was also there in those good old days. I was I think one of the first
people in Canada to get an account on Arpanet and to run programs
remotely on the the MIT server-- tensor manipulation routines to do
General Relativity on-- connection via 300bps modem.

yes, at present there are a lot of problems with the net, but then even
with those passports, etc, there would be problems. If you think they
would not be successfully forged, then you are dreaming. Ie, this is
liable to bring more problems for people and few benefits.

Note that liablity for the software writers (eg MS and its software) would be a far
bigger advance.

And the whole issue of "big brother" is such as to make such a scheme
absolutely abhorent for me. That whole licensing scheme would rapidly be
used both by the gov't and by criminal elements to trackback stuff on
the web to you.





(Moe Trin) writes:

>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
><hbfsuj$el8$>, jc wrote:

>>http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/sec...2058697,00.htm

>Yeah, but you snipped a bit of context that explains some of his
>points.

>] Are you saying that people often don't understand the complexities of
>] the work security researchers are involved in? Consumers, businesses
>] and even governments?

>] Governments do understand because they are more and more in touch with
>] these problems. Enterprises, big enterprises, some of them have
>] dedicated teams of security experts and they really understand what's
>] going on. Consumers generally have no clue, but they don't need to
>] understand.

>Do you honestly think that even a hundredth of one percent of the users
>have any clue at all? People think that because they can have access,
>they can do anything without worrying about side effects.

>>The Internet was designed not for public use, but for American
>>scientists and the U.S. military. That was just a limited group of
>>people--hundreds, or maybe thousands.

> 0597 Host status. N. Neigus, E.J. Feinler. December 1973. (Format:
> TXT=11678 bytes) (Updated by RFC0603) (Status: UNKNOWN)

> 0603 Response to RFC 597: Host status. J.D. Burchfiel. December 1973.
> (Format: TXT=1482 bytes) (Updates RFC0597) (Updated by RFC0613)
> (Status: UNKNOWN)

> 0613 Network connectivity: A response to RFC 603. A.M. McKenzie.
> January 1974. (Format: TXT=2557 bytes) (Updates RFC0603)
> (Status: UNKNOWN)

>December 1973 is a bit before IP (RFC0791 - September 1981). But you
>probably want to look at RFC0832;

> 0832 Who talks TCP?. D. Smallberg. December 1982. (Format: TXT=42751
> bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC0833) (Status: UNKNOWN)

>and revisions (RFC0833-9, RFC0842-7 from December, 1982 to February,
>1983). That assumes you have enough clue to know what TCP is.

>Oh, and you clipped out an interesting one:

>] If I were Bill Gates, I'd run another company--100 percent owned by
>] Microsoft--that produces the antivirus under a different brand.

>I'd prefer to have Microsoft take responsibility for providing shitty
>code and security holes large enough to fly a dozen Airbus A-380s in
>line-abreast formation through. You know the chance of that happening.

>>I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing
>>regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international
>>agreement--about following Internet standards.

>In the 1970s and 1980s, computer users knew about _responsibility_
>for their activities. If you ****ed up, your account _could_ be toast
>and you lost access. As most who had access either used it as part of
>their job or school work, loss of access had severe repercussions.

>There is registration now - but the problem is that there are no
>repercussions for "bad" behavior, just as there are few agreed
>definitions of such behavior. Do you remember the last time a spammer
>was prosecuted or sued for loss of bandwidth? Spammers and on-line
>gaming and pr0n providers are just trying to make money - why single
>them out? Personally, I'd love to see every owner of an infected
>computer be fined the 'cleanup' costs, and loose access for a
>significant time - a year for the first proven offense - three years
>for the second, and so on. Is your computer a zombie/bot because YOU
>don't know or care to learn how to use it? Oh, yeah - I know! Your
>computer is protected by that 30-day demo version of $SCREWU
>Anti-mal-ware software that it came with when you bought it. Right.

> Old guy

Unruh

In <> (Moe Trin) writes:

[snip]

>them out? Personally, I'd love to see every owner of an infected
>computer be fined the 'cleanup' costs, and loose access for a
>significant time - a year for the first proven offense - three years
>for the second, and so on.

And then we can go after the folk who mistake "loose" for "lose".
And if we follow up by banning the people who add in an apostrophe
when using the possessive form of "it[']s", we'll have lots
and lots of spare capacity...

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key

[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

danny burstein

Moe Trin wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
> <hbfsuj$el8$>, jc wrote:
>
>> http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/sec...2058697,00.htm
>
> Yeah, but you snipped a bit of context that explains some of his
> points.
>
> ] Are you saying that people often don't understand the complexities of
> ] the work security researchers are involved in? Consumers, businesses
> ] and even governments?
>
> ] Governments do understand because they are more and more in touch with
> ] these problems. Enterprises, big enterprises, some of them have
> ] dedicated teams of security experts and they really understand what's
> ] going on. Consumers generally have no clue, but they don't need to
> ] understand.
>
> Do you honestly think that even a hundredth of one percent of the users
> have any clue at all? People think that because they can have access,
> they can do anything without worrying about side effects.
>
>> The Internet was designed not for public use, but for American
>> scientists and the U.S. military. That was just a limited group of
>> people--hundreds, or maybe thousands.
>
> 0597 Host status. N. Neigus, E.J. Feinler. December 1973. (Format:
> TXT=11678 bytes) (Updated by RFC0603) (Status: UNKNOWN)
>
> 0603 Response to RFC 597: Host status. J.D. Burchfiel. December 1973.
> (Format: TXT=1482 bytes) (Updates RFC0597) (Updated by RFC0613)
> (Status: UNKNOWN)
>
> 0613 Network connectivity: A response to RFC 603. A.M. McKenzie.
> January 1974. (Format: TXT=2557 bytes) (Updates RFC0603)
> (Status: UNKNOWN)
>
> December 1973 is a bit before IP (RFC0791 - September 1981). But you
> probably want to look at RFC0832;
>
> 0832 Who talks TCP?. D. Smallberg. December 1982. (Format: TXT=42751
> bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC0833) (Status: UNKNOWN)
>
> and revisions (RFC0833-9, RFC0842-7 from December, 1982 to February,
> 1983). That assumes you have enough clue to know what TCP is.
>
> Oh, and you clipped out an interesting one:
>
> ] If I were Bill Gates, I'd run another company--100 percent owned by
> ] Microsoft--that produces the antivirus under a different brand.
>
> I'd prefer to have Microsoft take responsibility for providing shitty
> code and security holes large enough to fly a dozen Airbus A-380s in
> line-abreast formation through. You know the chance of that happening.
>> I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing
>> regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international
>> agreement--about following Internet standards.
>
> In the 1970s and 1980s, computer users knew about _responsibility_
> for their activities. If you ****ed up, your account _could_ be toast
> and you lost access. As most who had access either used it as part of
> their job or school work, loss of access had severe repercussions.
>
> There is registration now - but the problem is that there are no
> repercussions for "bad" behavior, just as there are few agreed
> definitions of such behavior. Do you remember the last time a spammer
> was prosecuted or sued for loss of bandwidth? Spammers and on-line
> gaming and pr0n providers are just trying to make money - why single
> them out? Personally, I'd love to see every owner of an infected
> computer be fined the 'cleanup' costs, and loose access for a
> significant time - a year for the first proven offense - three years
> for the second, and so on. Is your computer a zombie/bot because YOU
> don't know or care to learn how to use it? Oh, yeah - I know! Your
> computer is protected by that 30-day demo version of $SCREWU
> Anti-mal-ware software that it came with when you bought it. Right.
>
> Old guy


I see. Shall we model the Internet after China's lead? Kaspersky is
proposing a virtual police state. Anonymity is essential for dissident
movements in many parts of the world, but in Kaspesrky's view this is
disposable for a little bit of what he views as "security." And, if I
want to visit a few p0rn sites inconspicuously, that's my prerogative.


jc

jc

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:15:53 -0700, jc wrote:

> http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/sec...2058697,00.htm
>
> [Q] That's it? What's wrong with the design of the Internet?
>
> [Kaspersky] There's anonymity. Everyone should and must have an
> identification, or Internet passport.

Go **** yourself, Kasp, Internet anonymity is the backbone of the
international rebellion against tyranny and George Bushit(e)s.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

♥Ari♥

[Kaspersky] There's anonymity. Everyone should and must have an
identification, or Internet passport.

Crap! - There is nothing wrong with the design of the internet.
Remember...it was originally designed for sharing information.
And, what is the problem about sharing information? Well, I guess only
if you have something to hide that may be a problem. But to the rest
of us - not. And security can also be born of "access to information",
as what you do not know can and most likely will affect you...

Just take a look at the Gary McKinnon case - that has been going on
for 7 years now.
http://freegary.org.uk/
And ask yourself [Kaspersky] is there any resemblance to nazi like
behaviour by the political elements?
Unless you advocate this type of tyranny - go **** yourself
[Kaspersky]

Elle

3ll3