Question:
Hello all, I recently installed a couple of new phone jacks. It’s a small house so I just ran wire from the interface doo-hickie. Jacks work fine but when I went to test them with my line tester it said they were reversed polarity. I didn’t wire them wrong and sure enough every jack in the house is reversed. Is there any reason not to simply reverse the two wires that lead to the main interface from which all the individual wires run. I’ve read that reversed polarity can screw up modems, etc. Any ideas would be helpful. Thanks, Nathan —
Response:
I recently installed a couple of new phone jacks. It’s a small house so I just ran wire from the interface doo-hickie. Jacks work fine but when I went to test them with my line tester it said they were reversed polarity. I didn’t wire them wrong and sure enough every jack in the house is reversed. Is there any reason not to simply reverse the two wires that lead to the main interface from which all the individual wires run. I’ve read that reversed polarity can screw up modems, etc.
It also makes it impossible to dial out. Sounds like your tester needs to be reversed.
Response:
Reversed polarity doesn’t cause any dial out problems. I clip onto lines all week long in my job, and make test calls, etc. Many times I am reversed. Your modem will work fine too. It’s not right to leave it this way though, and things are for a reason, though typically you will not see a problem. If every one in your house is coming up wrong, you can absolutely revers the red and green from the interface box (customer premises side) and you will be just fine and fix your issue. Have fun Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I recently installed a couple of new phone jacks. It’s a small house so I just ran wire from the interface doo-hickie. Jacks work fine but when I went to test them with my line tester it said they were reversed polarity. I didn’t wire them wrong and sure enough every jack in the house is reversed. Is there any reason not to simply reverse the two wires that lead to the main interface from which all the individual wires run. I’ve read that reversed polarity can screw up modems, etc. It also makes it impossible to dial out. Sounds like your tester needs to be reversed.
Response:
Reversed polarity doesn’t cause any dial out problems.
It does here in NYC. I discovered it by accident 15 years ago. If you reverse the polarity, the phone’s buttons won’t generate a tone, of at least it won’t on the old Bell phones. However incoming calls work fine. I don’t have a clue why it does this but I used it for years in my old recording studio to enforce an "incoming only" phone in the control room.
Response:
I recently installed a couple of new phone jacks. It’s a small house so I just ran wire from the interface doo-hickie. Jacks work fine but when I went to test them with my line tester it said they were reversed polarity. I’ve read that reversed polarity can screw up modems, etc. It also makes it impossible to dial out. Sounds like your tester needs to be reversed.
Very little modern equipment is polarity sensitive. The old 2500 sets were polarity sensitive, and would not dial with reversed polarity. In the olden days when touch-tone dialing was a premium service, you could get 2500’s to work by reversing your own service lines – that was often the trick Ma Bell used to force you to pay up for the service. I haven’t run into any phones that cared about polarity in a long time, and while there might be a few high speed modems that care, it’s unlikely. Most equipment doesn’t draw power from the DC on the line as older equipment did (and thus is protected or doesn’t care). Also: Are you *sure* the polarity is reversed? In the bizarro world of Bell, the tip (green) is positive with respect to the ring (red). Between each wire and a good earth ground, green will be slightly positive and red will be about 48 volts negative. (This drops to about 6 volts when a phone is off the hook on the circuit. Hope that helps. — | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
Response:
Reversed polarity doesn’t cause any dial out problems.
Just to show that I haven’t been sniffin’ glue: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/TELECOM_Digest_Onlin… http://www.ale.org/archive/ale/ale-2000-12/msg00305.html I’m told that most modern phones have a polarity senser to correct polarity problems automatically.
Response:
Very little modern equipment is polarity sensitive. The old 2500 sets were polarity sensitive, and would not dial with reversed polarity.
Yeah, that’s how I tested the polarity when I home ran new phone lines in my house. I love those old Bell phones.
Response:
Reversed polarity doesn’t cause any dial out problems. I’m told that most modern phones have a polarity senser to correct polarity problems automatically.
In most cases, it’s just a diode bridge to ensure that the polarity enters the phone correctly. And those are only found in phones that draw their operating power from the line, which are increasingly uncommon. — | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
Response:
Also: Are you *sure* the polarity is reversed? In the bizarro world of Bell, the tip (green) is positive with respect to the ring (red). Between each wire and a good earth ground, green will be slightly positive and red will be about 48 volts negative. (This drops to about 6 volts when a phone is off the hook on the circuit.
It’s not so bizarre. Telephone circuits are typically 48 volts positive ground. Having a negative potential on the lines reduces oxydation.
Response:
Also: Are you *sure* the polarity is reversed? In the bizarro world of Bell, the tip (green) is positive with respect to the ring (red). It’s not so bizarre. Telephone circuits are typically 48 volts positive ground. Having a negative potential on the lines reduces oxydation.
Yeah, sure. 
The basic elements of telephone signals are probably the oldest "new" technology still in use, and they are bass-ackward and upside down from most newer implementations of similar technology. The polarity of local telephone loops has no real justification; it’s just how it was designed almost a hundred years ago. The bit about reducing oxidation is post hoc. Just like the order of keys on a touch-tone pad. If you ask, you’ll be told that time-and-motion studies proved this layout (key 1 upper left) was somehow easier, faster, etc. Which is BS. It was designed that way because the design devolved to one senior Bell engineer, whose only instruction was "don’t make it look like a desk calculator." (Old-style electric desk calculators were universal on desktops in the 1940s and later. They have the same pattern as modern calculators, with 1 in the bottom left. Bell was concerned that the new touch-tone phones would be confused with calculators or that unfavorable comparisons would be made, hence the design imperative…) — | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
Response:
It does here in NYC. I discovered it by accident 15 years ago. If you reverse the polarity, the phone’s buttons won’t generate a tone, This only applies to antiques.
Antiques, maybe. But two of my antiques are still in service and going strong despite countless drops. I’ve never had to replace the handset cables, never had to change the batteries, never heard a drop out, click or chainsaw noise. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for the modern phones I’ve bought since. Bring ‘em back, I say.
Response:
I recently installed a couple of new phone jacks. It’s a small house so I just ran wire from the interface doo-hickie. Jacks work fine but when I went to test them with my line tester it said they were reversed polarity. I didn’t wire them wrong and sure enough every jack in the house is reversed. Is there any reason not to simply reverse the two wires that lead to the main interface from which all the individual wires run. I’ve read that reversed polarity can screw up modems, etc. Any ideas would be helpful. What kind of telephone service drop or lateral do you have? Single pair airiel service drops have a ridge on one side to indicate the ring side of the pair. The terms tip, ring, and sleeve come from the parts of a 1/4" phone plug that was used to connect calls on manual switch boards. These plugs are identical to the ones to be found on stereo head phones with 1/4" plugs. Multi pair cable will be color coded to indicate tip and ring. In most service drop or lateral cables to single family residences the wires having a white color with a colored stripe will be the ring conductor. The wire having a solid color with or without a white stripe will be the tip conductor. The metal cable jacket in underground cabling will be the sleeve or earth ground conductor. Four wire "JK" station wire should have the tip on the green and the ring on the red. If there is a second line in the station wire the tip will be on the black and the ring on the yellow. The rhyme that outside plant trainees were taught was "the ring is ridged or red, readable to ground, and terminates on the right". "Readable to ground" means that you can measure forty eight volts DC between the ring and earth ground with all instruments on hook. The ring side of the pair should be forty eight volts positive relative to earth ground potential. The tip side of the pair will be at or close to ground potential. When touch tone service was first offered it was a premium service for which customers were charged an additional fee. Those customers who did not purchase it had there pair reversed at the exchange so that the polarity sensitive touch pads would not work. This practice has long since been abandoned but many reversed polarity pairs remain in service. If you have an interior point at which all of your station wires are terminated then the simplest thing is to flop the lead between that point and the NID. If all of your station wires terminate directly to the NID customer terminals then you will have to reverse them all. — Tom
Response:
It does here in NYC. I discovered it by accident 15 years ago. If you reverse the polarity, the phone’s buttons won’t generate a tone, of at least it won’t on the old Bell phones. However incoming calls work fine. I don’t have a clue why it does this but I used it for years in my old recording studio to enforce an "incoming only" phone in the control room. The first touch tone phones were made by western electric. Reversed polarity was used to prevent customers from using touch tone phones on lines that were not paying for touch tone service. Modern telephones use bridge rectifiers to supply power to the touch pad and are unaffected by reverse polarity. — Tom
Response:
Snip Just like the order of keys on a touch-tone pad. If you ask, you’ll be told that time-and-motion studies proved this layout (key 1 upper left) was somehow easier, faster, etc. Which is BS. It was designed that way because the design devolved to one senior Bell engineer, whose only instruction was "don’t make it look like a desk calculator." (Old-style electric desk calculators were universal on desktops in the 1940s and later. They have the same pattern as modern calculators, with 1 in the bottom left. Bell was concerned that the new touch-tone phones would be confused with calculators or that unfavorable comparisons would be made, hence the design imperative…) The first touch pads were identical to electric calculators. They sere used by operators not customers. Operators who had secretarial or accounting experience would dial faster than the electro mechanical equipment of there day could handle. The pad pattern was changed to force the operators to slow down to a speed that the equipment could manage. My great uncle was working in the office were the redesign was done and that really is the reason. — Tom
Response:
Question:
at the minimum they need to educate their staff on "good practice" and make sure their systems make it clear to the user when Internet accesses are happening. — Roger Barnett
This is a lot easier said than done. Two recent additions to my collection of programs (QB 2000 & McAfee ActiveShield) have what I rather cynically refer to as an "ET call home" provision. I’m not at all comfortable with this trend, but I’m not sure as to what I can / should do about it. I suppose I could unplug the phone cord when I’m not online, however that only works with a dial up, and the coming thing appears to be continual access. Thoughts? — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
Response:
Warning: There’s a Unix/Linux version of this one out there as well. I got hit with it today and I have no idea how to go about recovering my system. Here it is: This is the Unix/Linux version of "I Love You". It works on the honor system. If you receive this mail, you should delete a bunch of GIFs, MP3s, and binaries from your home directory, then send a copy of this e-mail to everyone you know. Thanks for your cooperation, Malicious Coder
If you are more technical, try this one — you will need to have access to root . . . this one works on the honor system… 1. cd to /usr/bin 2. type ls -l and pick 3 or 4 files at random 3. type rm -f filename for each of the chosen files 4. forward this email to 50 friends also running linux.
Response:
I know this thread is poking fun at various PC issues, but it reminded me of something I had been meaning to ask. If you received the ILOVEYOU virus in another email package, such as Eudora, wouldn’t the virus still delete the multimedia files on your system without replicating itself? Mike.
Response:
I know this thread is poking fun at various PC issues, but it reminded me of something I had been meaning to ask. If you received the ILOVEYOU virus in another email package, such as Eudora, wouldn’t the virus still delete the multimedia files on your system without replicating itself? Mike.
I don’t know, but I suspect that it would. I use Eudora Pro for email, Netscape for browsing, and McAfee Active Shield for a bug screen. I recently checked all our computers to be sure that Windows Scripting Host was turned off (it is in Windows, not Explorer – as I had previously thought) I DO NOT open attachments I am not sure of. I try to use reasonable precautions including the avoidance of programs that make it easy for bugs to propagate. So far I have not had a serious virus. If I did get one, the chance of passing it on to others is pretty remote (I think). I am a lot more comfortable with programs that are not too tightly integrated – even if the overall scheme lacks a bit of "functionality". — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
Response:
If you received the ILOVEYOU virus in another email package, such as Eudora, wouldn’t the virus still delete the multimedia files on your system without replicating itself?
Only if you launched it, the program started up the *.vbs script and the script didn’t rely on Outlook being running. But the damage would be a bit more contained, since the virus would not be able to replicate itself by invading the address book.
Response:
If you received the ILOVEYOU virus in another email package, such as Eudora, wouldn’t the virus still delete the multimedia files on your system without replicating itself? Only if you launched it, the program started up the *.vbs script and the script didn’t rely on Outlook being running. But the damage would be a bit more contained, since the virus would not be able to replicate itself by invading the address book.
Ed, Do you know if it is possible to remove outlook without also removing MS Internet Explorer. I normally use Netscape, however I use some software (QB 2000 & MCAT) that insist on I.E.. I’m admittedly a bit paranoid about this, but I am fearful that someone will figure out a way to get these "high functionality" programs to self launch and do God only knows what while I’m totally unaware of it. Thanks — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
Response:
You are confusing Outlook and Outlook Express. Outlook is part of MS Office. In addition to email, it includes contact management and calendar functions. Outlook Express is the email and news client that is bundled with Internet Explorer. It is also the news client that is called by Outlook, which does not have its own news capabilities. Little wonder that you (and many others) find this confusing. Anyway, "yes", you can use IE without using either OL or OE. With IE open, click Tools, Internet Options, Programs to specify which mail and news software you wish to use. (This doesn’t actually remove any software, but should prevent the unwanted programs from opening unintended.) Outlook can be removed through the MS Office Set-Up. Outlook Express can be removed through the Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs.
Do you know if it is possible to remove outlook without also
removing MS Internet – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Explorer.
Response:
I use Eudora Pro for email
I love Eudora Pro and if I had really understood what I was getting into with OutLook 98 I would not have changed from Eudora Pro. Be sure to keep yourself up to date on Eudora security patches. One of the things hackers love about Eudora is that it keeps the attachemnts as separate files in your attachment directory. They can send you any damned thing they want, Back Orifice, NetBUs or whatver, and it will certainly come into your inbox and be stored on your disk. They can give it any seductive name, for example, "Dear CPA here is a list of all CPE" and a file "CPEList.doc" which could even behave as a normal word doc. If you don’t delete the attachment file, and they can figure out a way to get into your machine (usually easy) *they* can execute the file they sent you even if *you* don’t, * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * XML accounting, WebLedgers, ASPs, GL dialtone, whatever it takes
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I use Eudora Pro for email I love Eudora Pro and if I had really understood what I was getting into with OutLook 98 I would not have changed from Eudora Pro. Be sure to keep yourself up to date on Eudora security patches. One of the things hackers love about Eudora is that it keeps the attachemnts as separate files in your attachment directory. They can send you any damned thing they want, Back Orifice, NetBUs or whatver, and it will certainly come into your inbox and be stored on your disk. They can give it any seductive name, for example, "Dear CPA here is a list of all CPE" and a file "CPEList.doc" which could even behave as a normal word doc. If you don’t delete the attachment file, and they can figure out a way to get into your machine (usually easy) *they* can execute the file they sent you even if *you* don’t,
Todd, Thanks for the heads up. If I am understanding this correctly, I need to delete unwanted attachments separately from the unwanted email to which they are attached. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are confusing Outlook and Outlook Express. Outlook is part of MS Office. In addition to email, it includes contact management and calendar functions. Outlook Express is the email and news client that is bundled with Internet Explorer. It is also the news client that is called by Outlook, which does not have its own news capabilities. Little wonder that you (and many others) find this confusing. Anyway, "yes", you can use IE without using either OL or OE. With IE open, click Tools, Internet Options, Programs to specify which mail and news software you wish to use. (This doesn’t actually remove any software, but should prevent the unwanted programs from opening unintended.) Outlook can be removed through the MS Office Set-Up. Outlook Express can be removed through the Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs.
Vernon, Thanks. I just reset IE to use Eudora for email and tested same. It seems to work as desired. I was not able to reset the newsreader function (to Netscape – Eudora doesn’t read news), however I’ve never heard of anyone getting a virus through a newsgroup. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
Response:
If I am understanding this correctly, I need to delete unwanted attachments separately from the unwanted email to which they are attached.
I believe that is right. I do know that Eudora has that "helpful" habit of saving its attachments automatically and requiring separate housekeeping to remove them. But, to be honest, the biggest advantage of Eudora is the fact that it isn’t the most used program. So that means that even if there was a glaring security hole, only someone specifically interested in compromising your system would be interested. The current set of worms (Melissa and I Love You) are set to create a huge overall effect rather than attack a single machine.
Response:
I am a lot more comfortable with programs that are not too tightly integrated – even if the overall scheme lacks a bit of "functionality".
While that’s true, it’s also true that merely using programs that aren’t the "most used" provides protection from the viruses that are being written in macro/scripting languages–because authors of those bugs are naturally drawn to the biggest audience.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If I am understanding this correctly, I need to delete unwanted attachments separately from the unwanted email to which they are attached. I believe that is right. I do know that Eudora has that "helpful" habit of saving its attachments automatically and requiring separate housekeeping to remove them. But, to be honest, the biggest advantage of Eudora is the fact that it isn’t the most used program. So that means that even if there was a glaring security hole, only someone specifically interested in compromising your system would be interested. The current set of worms (Melissa and I Love You) are set to create a huge overall effect rather than attack a single machine.
I just got a security alert from Eudora. One of their suggestions was to set up a customized attachment folder, which I just did. They also recommended updating their "warning script" which I just did also. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
Response:
Ha, how shallow to assume I am angry for my own sake and have done something wrong. Nope. I was a CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) who protected the children removed from homes for abuse. Nothing in my past, just reality I witnessed in the courts, Child Services and Legal teams and their attitudes and actions. Also, I know a mother who smokes pot, we brought the policeman to our house and he talked to the child, recognized the descriptions he gave and did nothing other than going to her house and chastising her. I guess it’s okay to smoke and drive. Uh huh, people do care even when they have nothing personal at stake. Sorry you didn’t consider that option. Laws are laws. I have my priorities and I have my time limits. I was just stating the laws that are important to me. That’s all. c. Cindy Fox Computer Training Solutions www.cindyfox.com (602) 692-8923 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Also, speaking of laws. Let me know when we will pass laws to protect children instead of treating them as property and trying to reunite them with worthless parents. This is higher on my list than monetary and computer related issues. c. — Cindy Fox Computer Training Solutions www.cindyfox.com (602) 692-8923 <snip Rather a non-sequitar isn’t it? You wouldn’t happen to be a mother who had her children taken from her and given to the father would you? Too many times there is more to these stories than one wants to admit to. — Steve Thompson OSP LLC 330/335-9907 office 330/334-2097 fax Remove "_" in email address to contact me — anti-spam measures in use
Response:
Also, speaking of laws. Let me know when we will pass laws to protect children instead of treating them as property and trying to reunite them with worthless parents. This is higher on my list than monetary and computer related issues. c. — Cindy Fox Computer Training Solutions www.cindyfox.com (602) 692-8923
<snip Rather a non-sequitar isn’t it? You wouldn’t happen to be a mother who had her children taken from her and given to the father would you? Too many times there is more to these stories than one wants to admit to. — Steve Thompson OSP LLC 330/335-9907 office 330/334-2097 fax Remove "_" in email address to contact me — anti-spam measures in use
Response:
One of the problems is that the underlying Internet technology is inherently insecure – remember that its basic design objective was to be resilient against damage to parts of the network. One consequence of this is that there is no control over the path taken by a message (or part of a message) to get from source to destination. IMO the problem is that business latched onto what looked like a free resource, i.e. the Internet infrastructure that then comprised mostly academic and research resources, and has subsequently been unwilling to invest in establishing and then paying for a commercial alternative (which I think is what Todd really wants – a parallel Internet with inherent support for the rules of doing business, such as no anonymity). Of course, if companies believe in the effectiveness of the Internet for advertising to individuals then they will insist on a single infrastructure, in which case IMO they have little comeback when the same infrastructure fails to protect them. With regard to the ILY trojan/worm, I see two problems: – any email reader which executes code in attachments (as opposed to reading data from attachments, which can still be dodgy but is probably reasonable with suitable precautions) is deliberately broken; claiming that it is a configurable option is no excuse at all. – companies who think they can use the Internet as an invisible extension to their office systems are misled (often by others who know better); at the minimum they need to educate their staff on "good practice" and make sure their systems make it clear to the user when Internet accesses are happening. — Roger Barnett
Response:
Unfortunately the Internet (which is world wide) cannot be regulated within national boundaries. The Australian Government has passed laws to outlaw pornography on the net, but all they have done is to drive the operators off shore.
Those are all good points. We certainly need to be able to implement some form of protection against criminal attacks on the net. I would be interested to hear if you have some ideas on how this might be achieved.
I posted them. The principle thrust is to stop treating the internet like citizens band radio — hell this is even worse! Any dumb ass can setup a transmitter with unlimited speed, and unlimited bandwidth connection to the internet and spew out unlimited volumes of spam, port scans, viruses and hacker attacks and say, "Oh gee, I’m sorry, we don’t know where those packets came from!" Of course the "internet community" i.e. big infrastructure operators, actually DO have working arrangements in this case and the offending parties are subject to being blocked if they offend in certain ways. This only proves the point that the industry is CAPABLE of policing itself, but doesn’t want to spend the money other than to the extent necessary to optimize its OWN profit. Do you understand what I’m saying? This is a classic tragedy of the commons, which calls for legislative remedy. Not many will agree with my ideas since after all, they are not fun, and are all business. But the current lack of regulation makes it impossible for small business to get things we need very badly, in terms of payment and commerce capabilities, secure communications, non-repudiation, and authentication. We are entitled to a reasonable degree of protection from criminal activity on the internet, and if the present profit-making operators of the routers and infrastructure don’t see fit to improve the situation, then the proper avenue for redress is thru our elected representatives, who are always eager to jump in and take over problems like this. There are many, many instances historically, of industries that ultimately failed to regulate themselves and are now being regulated very nicely by state and national laws. So, it will not be the end of western civilization if the internet becomes regulated. Todd * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * XML accounting, WebLedgers, ASPs, GL dialtone, whatever it takes
Response:
Haha. :) It’s not like anyone’s life is at risk. And if you’re going to argue the old stalker stuff, if they are not bright enough or old enough to prevent their own harm, stay off. People want children to have net nannies and such. I say, "Train your children." Talk with them. Understand what they are doing, who they are communicating with, at school, in the neighborhood, on the phone, on the net. All is the same, only the method differs. I know one woman who won’t allow her children to use the internet because she doesn’t understand it. Smart woman. Risks outweigh the benefits in her mind and she is taking right action. She will be taking an internet class this summer. Responsible. Property is property. It is illegal to damage it. If I knew of someone harming someone or trying to, I’d report it if there was a place, otherwise, whatever. I’m not so enamored with the police anyway as when I have tried to report things – speeding cars, angry drivers, child abuse, the red tape to get through or the lack of caring is enough to frustrate anyone. So far, I’ve not taken the law into my own hands, but it is darn tempting at times. And all I want to do is enforce it! But I can’t. I have to obey it, watch others flaunt it, have no recourse and have people talking about making more useless laws. Let’s get the ones we have right first. Let’s get our priorities straight. People, not products. :) HA! I can be a liberal AND a conservative at the same, exact time! Help people, but keep government out of it! :) c. — Cindy Fox Computer Training Solutions www.cindyfox.com (602) 692-8923
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Amen Cindy. I have a real problem with people who see government intervention as the solution to everything. They are all to willing to trade my freedom for what they perceive to be their sense of security even if it’s false. The first question they ask is, what’s the government going to do to protect us. The answer is, it can do nothing even though there are plenty of bureaucrats who are all too willing to take away everyone’s freedom. The truth is the government can’t even protect itself let alone anyone else. Thousands of government PC’s fell victim to the virus. I agree, if the internet is too risky for you then stay the hell off. I have to strongly disagree with you here. I am licensed as a ham operator and the main reason I accept the FCC regulating me is the "limited" bandwidth, so that it must be allocated or have chaos. The internet does not have a "real" limit, only a manufactured one. In fact, there really aren’t limits as you can choose what you go look at, what newsgroups send things to you and in general what part of the ‘bandwidth’ you interact with. Criminals can just as easy broadcast illegally over the air waves, but it is extremely expensive and not much payback. REGULATION IS NOT THE ANSWER. Despite any regulation, it is still easy, cheap and has a high return (to ego or money). I obey streetlights because I want everyone else to. If I didn’t care, NOTHING stops me from barreling down the street anywhere I want, until I crash or get arrested. Hmm, then they take my license away. I can drive without a license. My point is, that regulation puts burden on those that enforce it without really detracting from those who want to ignore it. Most of what people are doing now is illegal. If you disrupt a business, it’s illegal. If you share porn, it’s illegal. I can agree that countries should work towards supporting each other laws, but I love the internet being open as possible. You are not entitled to have someone else protect you on a medium that you have the option of not interacting with. If you don’t like the internet’s many, many benefits, go away. I don’t want you to go away, but I want you to choose, not have me regulated for your comfort. And by the way, the internet is NOT just for business. Although that is 80% of my use, I love reading other people’s philosophies, learning about other cultures and geography and shopping for an RV, right now. :) I’ll accept the risks and problems to support freedom any day! :) Take care, c. — Cindy Fox Computer Training Solutions www.cindyfox.com (602) 692-8923 Unfortunately the Internet (which is world wide) cannot be regulated within national boundaries. The Australian Government has passed laws to outlaw pornography on the net, but all they have done is to drive the operators off shore. Those are all good points. We certainly need to be able to implement some form of protection against criminal attacks on the net. I would be interested to hear if you have some ideas on how this might be achieved. I posted them. The principle thrust is to stop treating the internet like citizens band radio — hell this is even worse! Any dumb ass can setup a transmitter with unlimited speed, and unlimited bandwidth connection to the internet and spew out unlimited volumes of spam, port scans, viruses and hacker attacks and say, "Oh gee, I’m sorry, we don’t know where those packets came from!" Of course the "internet community" i.e. big infrastructure operators, actually DO have working arrangements in this case and the offending parties are subject to being blocked if they offend in certain ways. This only proves the point that the industry is CAPABLE of policing itself, but doesn’t want to spend the money other than to the extent necessary to optimize its OWN profit. Do you understand what I’m saying? This is a classic tragedy of the commons, which calls for legislative remedy. Not many will agree with my ideas since after all, they are not fun, and are all business. But the current lack of regulation makes it impossible for small business to get things we need very badly, in terms of payment and commerce capabilities, secure communications, non-repudiation, and authentication. We are entitled to a reasonable degree of protection from criminal activity on the internet, and if the present profit-making operators of the routers and infrastructure don’t see fit to improve the situation, then the proper avenue for redress is thru our elected representatives, who are always eager to jump in and take over problems like this. There are many, many instances historically, of industries that ultimately failed to regulate themselves and are now being regulated very nicely by state and national laws. So, it will not be the end of western civilization if the internet becomes regulated. Todd * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * XML accounting, WebLedgers, ASPs, GL dialtone, whatever it takes
Response:
Also, speaking of laws. Let me know when we will pass laws to protect children instead of treating them as property and trying to reunite them with worthless parents. This is higher on my list than monetary and computer related issues. c. — Cindy Fox Computer Training Solutions www.cindyfox.com (602) 692-8923
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have to strongly disagree with you here. I am licensed as a ham operator and the main reason I accept the FCC regulating me is the "limited" bandwidth, so that it must be allocated or have chaos. Hi Cindy, I was a ham for a number of years, WA7DGZ… expired now, though. The internet does not have a "real" limit, only a manufactured one. In fact, there really aren’t limits as you can choose what you go look at, what newsgroups send things to you and in general what part of the ‘bandwidth’ you interact with. The question isn’t whether the network’s limits are real. There can be no doubt, that misbehaving citizens on the network cause damage to the ability of other peoples’ servers, data and connectivity. Criminals can just as easy broadcast illegally over the air waves, but it is extremely expensive and not much payback. REGULATION IS NOT THE ANSWER. You still haven’t made any coherent argument as to the reasons for your position. Despite any regulation, it is still easy, cheap and has a high return (to ego or money). I obey streetlights because I want everyone else to. If I didn’t care, NOTHING stops me from barreling down the street anywhere I want, until I crash or get arrested. Hmm, then they take my license away. I can drive without a license. I agree that effective mechanisms making crime impossible are preferred over regulations that end with the result "… and then you go to jail". Anything that requires human monitoring and enforcement, or after-the-fact remedy is an inferior solution. Here are the choices 1. components that make it mechanically difficult or impossible to spoof, hack, intrude, etc. such as IPV6, 1024 bit encryption, smartcards, biological authentication 2. components or practices that make it impossible to commit crimes without being recorded or detected, such as logging and monitoring systems, but which are easy for clerks of low intelligence to trace the individual an prosecute, and which have high percentage of prosecution e.g. the IRS’ reporting of income at source, stuff like that. 3. components that make it impossible to get away with crimes without leaving some kind of evidence but which require expensive investigation an evidence gathering, and can only be enforced on small percentage of violations. So we are in agreement, number one is the preferred form of regulation? My point is, that regulation puts burden on those that enforce it without really detracting from those who want to ignore it. I agree that any regulations should actually be effective enough at some particular objective that they would unquestionably yield net economic gain to the internet community at large. If such regulations were proposed, and gains could be demonstrated, would you then support them? Most of what people are doing now is illegal. If you disrupt a business, it’s illegal. If you share porn, it’s illegal. I can agree that countries should work towards supporting each other laws, but I love the internet being open as possible. Porn is legal. Theft, child abuse, etc are illegal and the internet community should pull their heads out of their irresponsible asses and help enforce the laws, instead of protecting criminals in their ranks. You are not entitled to have someone else protect you on a medium that you have the option of not interacting with. If you don’t like the internet’s many, many benefits, go away. I don’t want you to go away, but I want you to choose, not have me regulated for your comfort. And by the way, the internet is NOT just for business. Although that is 80% of my use, I love reading other people’s philosophies, learning about other cultures and geography and shopping for an RV, right now. :) I’ll accept the risks and problems to support freedom any day! :) Thanks for your post. I hope that you will also support the freedoms that are provided by a lawful society. Most of the people who argue the loudest for unregulated internet actually want the benefits of a lawful society — but want to hold in reserve, their ability to break the law when it suits them. Now look– I am a radical, I am a Vietnam era protester and have been a freedom fighter my whole life. But if you don’t want to obey the law, get involved in the democratic process and speak out to protect your rights and your interests. It is insane for a civilized society to put laws on the books and then allow them to be broken, and refuse to enforce them, on the internet. That is just stupid. Todd BOyle CPA
Response:
Amen Cindy. I have a real problem with people who see government intervention as the solution to everything. They are all to willing to trade my freedom for what they perceive to be their sense of security even if it’s false. The first question they ask is, what’s the government going to do to protect us. The answer is, it can do nothing even though there are plenty of bureaucrats who are all too willing to take away everyone’s freedom. The truth is the government can’t even protect itself let alone anyone else. Thousands of government PC’s fell victim to the virus. I agree, if the internet is too risky for you then stay the hell off. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have to strongly disagree with you here. I am licensed as a ham operator and the main reason I accept the FCC regulating me is the "limited" bandwidth, so that it must be allocated or have chaos. The internet does not have a "real" limit, only a manufactured one. In fact, there really aren’t limits as you can choose what you go look at, what newsgroups send things to you and in general what part of the ‘bandwidth’ you interact with. Criminals can just as easy broadcast illegally over the air waves, but it is extremely expensive and not much payback. REGULATION IS NOT THE ANSWER. Despite any regulation, it is still easy, cheap and has a high return (to ego or money). I obey streetlights because I want everyone else to. If I didn’t care, NOTHING stops me from barreling down the street anywhere I want, until I crash or get arrested. Hmm, then they take my license away. I can drive without a license. My point is, that regulation puts burden on those that enforce it without really detracting from those who want to ignore it. Most of what people are doing now is illegal. If you disrupt a business, it’s illegal. If you share porn, it’s illegal. I can agree that countries should work towards supporting each other laws, but I love the internet being open as possible. You are not entitled to have someone else protect you on a medium that you have the option of not interacting with. If you don’t like the internet’s many, many benefits, go away. I don’t want you to go away, but I want you to choose, not have me regulated for your comfort. And by the way, the internet is NOT just for business. Although that is 80% of my use, I love reading other people’s philosophies, learning about other cultures and geography and shopping for an RV, right now. :) I’ll accept the risks and problems to support freedom any day! :) Take care, c. — Cindy Fox Computer Training Solutions www.cindyfox.com (602) 692-8923 Unfortunately the Internet (which is world wide) cannot be regulated within national boundaries. The Australian Government has passed laws to outlaw pornography on the net, but all they have done is to drive the operators off shore. Those are all good points. We certainly need to be able to implement some form of protection against criminal attacks on the net. I would be interested to hear if you have some ideas on how this might be achieved. I posted them. The principle thrust is to stop treating the internet like citizens band radio — hell this is even worse! Any dumb ass can setup a transmitter with unlimited speed, and unlimited bandwidth connection to the internet and spew out unlimited volumes of spam, port scans, viruses and hacker attacks and say, "Oh gee, I’m sorry, we don’t know where those packets came from!" Of course the "internet community" i.e. big infrastructure operators, actually DO have working arrangements in this case and the offending parties are subject to being blocked if they offend in certain ways. This only proves the point that the industry is CAPABLE of policing itself, but doesn’t want to spend the money other than to the extent necessary to optimize its OWN profit. Do you understand what I’m saying? This is a classic tragedy of the commons, which calls for legislative remedy. Not many will agree with my ideas since after all, they are not fun, and are all business. But the current lack of regulation makes it impossible for small business to get things we need very badly, in terms of payment and commerce capabilities, secure communications, non-repudiation, and authentication. We are entitled to a reasonable degree of protection from criminal activity on the internet, and if the present profit-making operators of the routers and infrastructure don’t see fit to improve the situation, then the proper avenue for redress is thru our elected representatives, who are always eager to jump in and take over problems like this. There are many, many instances historically, of industries that ultimately failed to regulate themselves and are now being regulated very nicely by state and national laws. So, it will not be the end of western civilization if the internet becomes regulated. Todd * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * XML accounting, WebLedgers, ASPs, GL dialtone, whatever it takes
Response:
I have to strongly disagree with you here. I am licensed as a ham operator and the main reason I accept the FCC regulating me is the "limited" bandwidth, so that it must be allocated or have chaos. Hi Cindy, I was a ham for a number of years, WA7DGZ… expired now, though.
Cool. :) The internet does not have a "real" limit, only a manufactured one. In fact, there really aren’t limits as you can choose what you go look at, what newsgroups send things to you and in general what part of the ‘bandwidth’ you interact with. The question isn’t whether the network’s limits are real. There can be no doubt, that misbehaving citizens on the network cause damage to the ability of other peoples’ servers, data and connectivity.
Damage, yes. But causing damage is already against the law. My point is that people shouldn’t regulate one medium differently than other mediums. In example, making laws agains unsolicited emails or faxes, but not against unsolicited phone calls, paper mail or knocks on the door. I support laws against activites, but not against the method of the activity. Criminals can just as easy broadcast illegally over the air waves, but it is extremely expensive and not much payback. REGULATION IS NOT THE ANSWER. You still haven’t made any coherent argument as to the reasons for your position.
See above and below. :) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Despite any regulation, it is still easy, cheap and has a high return (to ego or money). I obey streetlights because I want everyone else to. If I didn’t care, NOTHING stops me from barreling down the street anywhere I want, until I crash or get arrested. Hmm, then they take my license away. I can drive without a license. I agree that effective mechanisms making crime impossible are preferred over regulations that end with the result "… and then you go to jail". Anything that requires human monitoring and enforcement, or after-the-fact remedy is an inferior solution. Here are the choices 1. components that make it mechanically difficult or impossible to spoof, hack, intrude, etc. such as IPV6, 1024 bit encryption, smartcards, biological authentication
Okay, where do you propose placing these and who pays? 2. components or practices that make it impossible to commit crimes without being recorded or detected, such as logging and monitoring systems, but which are easy for clerks of low intelligence to trace the individual an prosecute, and which have high percentage of prosecution e.g. the IRS’ reporting of income at source, stuff like that.
So, what about the protection of this tracing for people who don’t want to be monitored and while are not doing anything wrong, could have trouble with people twisting things. ie I read anything and everything. I am a philosopher and curious about other people and why they do what they do. Because I go to a site, does not mean I will do anything. Good example – if I read about the bomb that went off in Oklahoma City and said, hmmm, I wonder how easy it was for them to make that bomb and then went to a site that descibed that and other activities, even if the things they describe are illegal, my looking at or reading about them is not and should not be illegal or tracked. I like to understand and what I do in my head is my business. If I then do something illegal, the act should be punished, but not the potential for the act. I don’t want people tracking my income. It’s my business and no one else’s. I gladly pay taxes, although SIDE NOTE I don’t see why we can’t electronically register what it should be spent on – ie direct representation. 3. components that make it impossible to get away with crimes without leaving some kind of evidence but which require expensive investigation an evidence gathering, and can only be enforced on small percentage of violations.
Like what? So we are in agreement, number one is the preferred form of regulation?
Not really. Who pays? I’d rather say put in place whatever you want to pay for. Protect your information in whatever way you feel safe. My info is important, but not enough to pay for protection. I’ll risk the loss and restore via backups. I’ll risk someone stealing my info and publishing it or whatever, because there’s nothing that would hurt me enough to pay for protecting it. It’s all a matter of perspective, but I feel that people who have something to protect want us that don’t to pay for them. Nope! Pay for your own protection. Free for all. Don’t lock people out because they can’t afford to pay for your protection. My point is, that regulation puts burden on those that enforce it without really detracting from those who want to ignore it. I agree that any regulations should actually be effective enough at some particular objective that they would unquestionably yield net economic gain to the internet community at large. If such regulations were proposed, and gains could be demonstrated, would you then support
them? See above comments. I feel that the answer would be no. How would it benefit ME and others like me? It benefits big business and big govt. They can pay for it themselves. I don’t want to pay for it. Give me the particular objective and "net" economic gain, although I have to ask to whom is the gain given to. I tend to be against any regulation because of cost and incompetence. Anything can be weasled around. Why waste money trying to fix a world wide issue. It would be a lot harder for a hacker to deal with a million different security systems than one universal one which would then become a prime target for admiration of who could break in and then share the info with other hackers. Give me specifics and I’ll give you my opinions on pros and cons, but until then, no to regulation as a general principle. :) Most of what people are doing now is illegal. If you disrupt a business, it’s illegal. If you share porn, it’s illegal. I can agree that countries should work towards supporting each other laws, but I love the internet being open as possible. Porn is legal. Theft, child abuse, etc are illegal and the internet community should pull their heads out of their irresponsible asses and help enforce the laws, instead of protecting criminals in their ranks.
How are they protecting criminals in their ranks? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are not entitled to have someone else protect you on a medium that you have the option of not interacting with. If you don’t like the internet’s many, many benefits, go away. I don’t want you to go away, but I want you to choose, not have me regulated for your comfort. And by the way, the internet is NOT just for business. Although that is 80% of my use, I love reading other people’s philosophies, learning about other cultures and geography and shopping for an RV, right now. :) I’ll accept the risks and problems to support freedom any day! :) Thanks for your post. I hope that you will also support the freedoms that are provided by a lawful society. Most of the people who argue the loudest for unregulated internet actually want the benefits of a lawful society — but want to hold in reserve, their ability to break the law when it suits them. Now look– I am a radical, I am a Vietnam era protester and have been a freedom fighter my whole life. But if you don’t want to obey the law, get involved in the democratic process and speak out to protect your rights and your interests.
I do get involved. :) I vote on every issue after research and discussion. I talk and discuss issues that are important to me. I respect everyone’s right to vote on everything and respect the decision when made, whether I agree or not. I live in a city where it is against the law to smoke – whoo hoo for me! :) I like that. But it is legal to smoke in other cities and I respect that. I don’t go there, but if I can’t avoid it, I accept and deal with smoke. :) As far as wanting to be protected and do what I want, it is very simple: I obey laws that make sense and accept consequences if I break a law. It is insane for a civilized society to put laws on the books and then allow them to be broken, and refuse to enforce them, on the internet. That is just stupid.
Okay. What’s different about this than what I say. I just don’t want certain laws on the books and I will speak out against them. Do remember that part of inter net means inter national. :) Would you support the laws of Iran if they support our laws? Who will you support being extridited and on what grounds? If a woman or child is considered property there, would you have us return them or protect them? While we’re wandering, what was your opinion on the Elian Gonzalas situation? Todd BOyle CPA
Thanks so much for your opinions. :) I’m enjoying our discussion. :) I invite others to join. I support everyone’s right to an opinion and I will defend to the death, your right to have it, no matter what I think about it. But I’ll also support the action I think is right. Two different things. :) Take care, c. — Cindy Fox Computer Training Solutions www.cindyfox.com (602) 692-8923
Response:
I have to strongly disagree with you here. I am licensed as a ham operator and the main reason I accept the FCC regulating me is the "limited" bandwidth, so that it must be allocated or have chaos. The internet does not have a "real" limit, only a manufactured one. In fact, there really aren’t limits as you can choose what you go look at, what newsgroups send things to you and in general what part of the ‘bandwidth’ you interact with. Criminals can just as easy broadcast illegally over the air waves, but it is extremely expensive and not much payback. REGULATION IS NOT THE ANSWER. Despite any regulation, it is still easy, cheap and has a high return (to ego or money). I obey streetlights because I want everyone else to. If I didn’t care, NOTHING stops me from barreling down the street anywhere I want, until I crash or get arrested. Hmm, then they take my license away. I can drive without a license. My point is, that regulation puts burden on those that enforce it without really detracting from those who want to ignore it. Most of what people are doing now is illegal. If you disrupt a business, it’s illegal. If you share porn, it’s illegal. I can agree that countries should work towards supporting each other laws, but I love the internet being open as possible. You are not entitled to have someone else protect you on a medium that you have the option of not interacting with. If you don’t like the internet’s many, many benefits, go away. I don’t want you to go away, but I want you to choose, not have me regulated for your comfort. And by the way, the internet is NOT just for business. Although that is 80% of my use, I love reading other people’s philosophies, learning about other cultures and geography and shopping for an RV, right now. :) I’ll accept the risks and problems to support freedom any day! :) Take care, c. — Cindy Fox Computer Training Solutions www.cindyfox.com (602) 692-8923
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Unfortunately the Internet (which is world wide) cannot be regulated within national boundaries. The Australian Government has passed laws to outlaw pornography on the net, but all they have done is to drive the operators off shore. Those are all good points. We certainly need to be able to implement some form of protection against criminal attacks on the net. I would be interested to hear if you have some ideas on how this might be achieved. I posted them. The principle thrust is to stop treating the internet like citizens band radio — hell this is even worse! Any dumb ass can setup a transmitter with unlimited speed, and unlimited bandwidth connection to the internet and spew out unlimited volumes of spam, port scans, viruses and hacker attacks and say, "Oh gee, I’m sorry, we don’t know where those packets came from!" Of course the "internet community" i.e. big infrastructure operators, actually DO have working arrangements in this case and the offending parties are subject to being blocked if they offend in certain ways. This only proves the point that the industry is CAPABLE of policing itself, but doesn’t want to spend the money other than to the extent necessary to optimize its OWN profit. Do you understand what I’m saying? This is a classic tragedy of the commons, which calls for legislative remedy. Not many will agree with my ideas since after all, they are not fun, and are all business. But the current lack of regulation makes it impossible for small business to get things we need very badly, in terms of payment and commerce capabilities, secure communications, non-repudiation, and authentication. We are entitled to a reasonable degree of protection from criminal activity on the internet, and if the present profit-making operators of the routers and infrastructure don’t see fit to improve the situation, then the proper avenue for redress is thru our elected representatives, who are always eager to jump in and take over problems like this. There are many, many instances historically, of industries that ultimately failed to regulate themselves and are now being regulated very nicely by state and national laws. So, it will not be the end of western civilization if the internet becomes regulated. Todd * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * XML accounting, WebLedgers, ASPs, GL dialtone, whatever it takes
Response:
I have to strongly disagree with you here. I am licensed as a ham operator and the main reason I accept the FCC regulating me is the "limited" bandwidth, so that it must be allocated or have chaos.
Hi Cindy, I was a ham for a number of years, WA7DGZ… expired now, though. The internet does not have a "real" limit, only a manufactured one. In fact, there really aren’t limits as you can choose what you go look at, what newsgroups send things to you and in general what part of the ‘bandwidth’ you interact with.
The question isn’t whether the network’s limits are real. There can be no doubt, that misbehaving citizens on the network cause damage to the ability of other peoples’ servers, data and connectivity. Criminals can just as easy broadcast illegally over the air waves, but it is extremely expensive and not much payback. REGULATION IS NOT THE ANSWER.
You still haven’t made any coherent argument as to the reasons for your position. Despite any regulation, it is still easy, cheap and has a high return (to ego or money). I obey streetlights because I want everyone else to. If I didn’t care, NOTHING stops me from barreling down the street anywhere I want, until I crash or get arrested. Hmm, then they take my license away. I can drive without a license.
I agree that effective mechanisms making crime impossible are preferred over regulations that end with the result "… and then you go to jail". Anything that requires human monitoring and enforcement, or after-the-fact remedy is an inferior solution. Here are the choices 1. components that make it mechanically difficult or impossible to spoof, hack, intrude, etc. such as IPV6, 1024 bit encryption, smartcards, biological authentication 2. components or practices that make it impossible to commit crimes without being recorded or detected, such as logging and monitoring systems, but which are easy for clerks of low intelligence to trace the individual an prosecute, and which have high percentage of prosecution e.g. the IRS’ reporting of income at source, stuff like that. 3. components that make it impossible to get away with crimes without leaving some kind of evidence but which require expensive investigation an evidence gathering, and can only be enforced on small percentage of violations. So we are in agreement, number one is the preferred form of regulation? My point is, that regulation puts burden on those that enforce it without really detracting from those who want to ignore it.
I agree that any regulations should actually be effective enough at some particular objective that they would unquestionably yield net economic gain to the internet community at large. If such regulations were proposed, and gains could be demonstrated, would you then support them? Most of what people are doing now is illegal. If you disrupt a business, it’s illegal. If you share porn, it’s illegal. I can agree that countries should work towards supporting each other laws, but I love the internet being open as possible.
Porn is legal. Theft, child abuse, etc are illegal and the internet community should pull their heads out of their irresponsible asses and help enforce the laws, instead of protecting criminals in their ranks. You are not entitled to have someone else protect you on a medium that you have the option of not interacting with. If you don’t like the internet’s many, many benefits, go away. I don’t want you to go away, but I want you to choose, not have me regulated for your comfort. And by the way, the internet is NOT just for business. Although that is 80% of my use, I love reading other people’s philosophies, learning about other cultures and geography and shopping for an RV, right now. :) I’ll accept the risks and problems to support freedom any day! :)
Thanks for your post. I hope that you will also support the freedoms that are provided by a lawful society. Most of the people who argue the loudest for unregulated internet actually want the benefits of a lawful society — but want to hold in reserve, their ability to break the law when it suits them. Now look– I am a radical, I am a Vietnam era protester and have been a freedom fighter my whole life. But if you don’t want to obey the law, get involved in the democratic process and speak out to protect your rights and your interests. It is insane for a civilized society to put laws on the books and then allow them to be broken, and refuse to enforce them, on the internet. That is just stupid. Todd BOyle CPA
Response:
Todd, You say "Federal regulation of Internet services is overdue." Unfortunately the Internet (which is world wide) cannot be regulated within national boundaries. The Australian Government has passed laws to outlaw pornography on the net, but all they have done is to drive the operators off shore. We certainly need to be able to implement some form of protection against criminal attacks on the net. I would be interested to hear if you have some ideas on how this might be achieved. — Ken Russell Sydney Australia
Now that ILoveYOu is over with, and my computer is still working, I been researching how to prevent the next one. Here is a deja news search with the latest/greatest technical discussion
+2000&todate=Dec+31+2000&LNG=ALL&format=threaded&DBS=1&showsort=score&maxhi t – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – s=100&defaultOp=AND The root of the problem seems to be Windows Scripting Host. As long as you have that on your computer, it’s only a matter of time until more viruses come along to use it. Granted, there are plenty of other executables an intruder can use to hurt you, but WSH appears to be a bigger risk than others. There are scripts you can run in linux that increase the security of the computer by going around tightening up fifty things… I wonder if there are any scripts like that for WinNT4? That would be the only good use of WSH or vbscript I can think of <G Another problem is the lack of regulation of the internet. The security of the internet could be greatly improved by expenditures by ISPs and infrastructure providers on better security. Many good and worthy things would result from a more secure internet. Since self regulation has not emerged, the security situation on internet today is a "tragedy of the commons". The industry’s savings of $1 on security is costing the rest of society $5. Federal regulation of internet services is overdue. Cost of bandwidth would increase modestly, for all carriers, equally, and the benefits to the economy will exceed the costs. Federal regulation of the internet should include the following: 1. ISPs prohibited from routing packets from their zone or subnets containing source address not in their subnet. This would have prevented the DDoS attack that took place against Yahoo in February. 2. Know your Customer regulations, making ISPs and carriers liable for damages for acts by their subscribers if they do not document minimal compliance to know their customer and control their nets. 3. Some minimal logging of IP traffic. 4. Some minimal monitoring for obvious hacker activity like repeated port scanning of multiple remote addresses. 5. Mandatory adoption dates for IPv6 soon, like within 24 months, and sunset date for IPV4 for large carriers first, followed in stages by smaller carriers. Telcos have no incentive to improve security of the free internet. Their incentive is to drive businesses to secure private links. Likewise they have no interest in a well-performing internet, that would provide clear IP telephony. At this late date it is crystal clear that large telecomms companies, mass media content providers actively want to screw the small business sector from participating in e-commerce. The software companies who are beholden to enterprise clients also have little interest in a secure internet. If the internet were secure we could all have a static IP address and run our entire home or business marvelously, with it. You could run a webserver, FTP server or online commerce from your home. You could run an open telephone or videoconference connection, which anybody could call, anytime just as they can now connect with a telephone. These things are impractical today because the firewall is 100 times more expensive and complex than the application itself. When big business is bitten by hackers, Pres. Clinton and all his cronies in the telecoms and banking biz. pretend concern. Meanwhile, nothing is being done to fundamentally fix the internet. Let’s talk about why the government sector wants the internet to be insecure: to maintain their absolute grip on the banking system and commerce in this country, which is the key to easy collection of taxes. If citizens could conduct business over the internet, we might stop driving to the bank and exchanging pretty pieces of paper. That might result in the government sector shrinking below the present 35% of the GNP. So, they need hordes of thieves and vandals, keeping the internet insecure. Read about digital cash http://www.philodox.com * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3107
Response:
Now that ILoveYOu is over with, and my computer is still working, I been researching how to prevent the next one. Here is a deja news search with the latest/greatest technical discussion +2000&todate=Dec+31+2000&LNG=ALL&format=threaded&DBS=1&showsort=score&maxhi t s=100&defaultOp=AND The root of the problem seems to be Windows Scripting Host. As long as you have that on your computer, it’s only a matter of time until more viruses come along to use it. Granted, there are plenty of other executables an intruder can use to hurt you, but WSH appears to be a bigger risk than others. There are scripts you can run in linux that increase the security of the computer by going around tightening up fifty things… I wonder if there are any scripts like that for WinNT4? That would be the only good use of WSH or vbscript I can think of <G Another problem is the lack of regulation of the internet. The security of the internet could be greatly improved by expenditures by ISPs and infrastructure providers on better security. Many good and worthy things would result from a more secure internet. Since self regulation has not emerged, the security situation on internet today is a "tragedy of the commons". The industry’s savings of $1 on security is costing the rest of society $5. Federal regulation of internet services is overdue. Cost of bandwidth would increase modestly, for all carriers, equally, and the benefits to the economy will exceed the costs. Federal regulation of the internet should include the following: 1. ISPs prohibited from routing packets from their zone or subnets containing source address not in their subnet. This would have prevented the DDoS attack that took place against Yahoo in February. 2. Know your Customer regulations, making ISPs and carriers liable for damages for acts by their subscribers if they do not document minimal compliance to know their customer and control their nets. 3. Some minimal logging of IP traffic. 4. Some minimal monitoring for obvious hacker activity like repeated port scanning of multiple remote addresses. 5. Mandatory adoption dates for IPv6 soon, like within 24 months, and sunset date for IPV4 for large carriers first, followed in stages by smaller carriers. Telcos have no incentive to improve security of the free internet. Their incentive is to drive businesses to secure private links. Likewise they have no interest in a well-performing internet, that would provide clear IP telephony. At this late date it is crystal clear that large telecomms companies, mass media content providers actively want to screw the small business sector from participating in e-commerce. The software companies who are beholden to enterprise clients also have little interest in a secure internet. If the internet were secure we could all have a static IP address and run our entire home or business marvelously, with it. You could run a webserver, FTP server or online commerce from your home. You could run an open telephone or videoconference connection, which anybody could call, anytime just as they can now connect with a telephone. These things are impractical today because the firewall is 100 times more expensive and complex than the application itself. When big business is bitten by hackers, Pres. Clinton and all his cronies in the telecoms and banking biz. pretend concern. Meanwhile, nothing is being done to fundamentally fix the internet. Let’s talk about why the government sector wants the internet to be insecure: to maintain their absolute grip on the banking system and commerce in this country, which is the key to easy collection of taxes. If citizens could conduct business over the internet, we might stop driving to the bank and exchanging pretty pieces of paper. That might result in the government sector shrinking below the present 35% of the GNP. So, they need hordes of thieves and vandals, keeping the internet insecure. Read about digital cash http://www.philodox.com * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3107
Response:
