Wed Jun 23 18:02:11 2004 Shameful Internet providers
Posted by Tony Lawrence
Search Keys: security cox cable isp security
A client of a client (in other words, I sub to the person this company does business with), finally got high speed internet access last Friday. They didn't think to ask me or anyone else about it; they just called Cox cable who came in and put a static ip address on one of their machines without updating Microsoft updates or Norton Anti-virus.
Of course they were immediately attacked. That's when I got called to come down with a firewall router. All's well now (I hope!), although I had a heck of a time getting the box up to date.
Shouldn't internet providers like this be just a little more conscientious? I think it's just disgusting that they would do this, and even more so because the ONLY reason I was called was because the machine couldn't print after being attached to the Cox modem. Well, of course it couldn't: it was no longer attached to the internal network and now had a static, routable ip address anyway!
I'm sure the installer had a protected machine - they always do, so they can test. He or she could have temporarily gated the clients machine through that and made sure that Microst Updates were current (I had 22 critical updates to install!) and that Norton Anti-Virus was up to date.
I don't blame the customer for not knowing any better, but I do blame Cox for not educating them and for not insisting on a firewall router. All this does is add more problems to the whole Internet for the rest of us to deal with.

Enter your email address for automatic notification of new posts here
(be sure to whitelist 'feedburner.com' if you use spam filtering)
| Views for this page | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | This Week | This Month | This Year | Overall |
| 1 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 2,440 |
Have you tried Searching this site?
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates
This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.
Publish your articles, comments, book reviews or opinions here!
CommentsBlog938 :
~ ISP's should be liable for bandwidth ONLY. No firewalls, proxies, or other filters should be applied. That would be like public libraries being required to ban certain politically incorrect books that are frowned upon by the Christian coalation. Think about that. When an ISP sets up an internet account, all they should do is exactly what they did... although some precautionary advise would have been nice to give.
~jay
Yes, I don't mean that they should PROVIDE a firewall - just cautionary advice.
Consider that compromised machines just add to all our grief..
--TonyLawrence
The analogy of the public library isn't exactly appropriate. He's not suggesting that the ISP should filter the client's content.
He's suggesting that the installer/ISP, of all people, know's the risks involved in establishing a static IP address, and should be liable to inform the user of such risks, as well as ways to minimize it. (Most do this as a way to sell additional software or hardware.)
A more appropriate analogy would be a fireworks vendor selling a large and, unbeknownst to the buyer, dangerous firework. All the buyer knows is that it's going to look really pretty in the sky. He's being sent out without being informed that this thing can blow his arm off. Just my .02
-Anonymous
---July 8, 2004
Or, if we want to use the library analogy the book you want may have been contaminated with Anthrax. The librarian should warn you..
--Foobah
Click here to add your comments