Comments on: Who Protects The Internet?

By: bishan

bishan — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:16:42 +0000

Great information

Thanks

By: Romania in topul tarilor cyberwarfare enabled « CFerseta’s Blog

Romania in topul tarilor cyberwarfare enabled « CFerseta’s Blog — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:30:12 +0000

[...] http://www.tech...s-the-internet/ [...]

By: Boycott Novell » IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: December 8th, 2008 - Part 2

Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:53:40 +0000

[...] http://www.tech...8/12/02/w…; [...]

By: Top 10 links for December Week 1 - 2008 | Midstride Solutions

Top 10 links for December Week 1 - 2008 | Midstride Solutions — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 05:41:45 +0000

[...] Who Protects The Internet? Who does protect the Internet? This article should be of interest to anyone who uses the Internet, so that’s a lot of people. Techcrunch takes a go at reviewing where we are with the Internet. [...]

By: Review Teknologi Web dan Web Programming » Dibalik Teknologi Internet -- HrXONe

Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:19:28 +0000

[...] War!! Itulah yg sedang ngetrend saat ini (war kok ngetrend yah? ). Berikut ini kutipan yg mengatakan kalau pihak dari negara China sedang mengembangkan teknologi online yg sangat canggih [...]

By: Who Protects the Internet? — MiPro Unfiltered

Who Protects the Internet? — MiPro Unfiltered — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:37:18 +0000

[...] an interview with TechCrunch, US STRATCOM commander and head of all military cyber-warfare General Kevin Chilton [...]

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:53:43 +0000

No, the Internet isn’t going to go down. It can’t go down by design. You might be temporarily disconnected from some sites like youtube.com was recently when MAJOR screw ups occur. Even in those instances the site was accessible by a large number of people. The fix was applied relatively quickly (days-not weeks or months). That’s about it. Lots of money can be lost- but this is only the result of neglect on the parts of administrators and companies developing software like Microsoft, Apple, and so on to do their job in applying security patches-and writing secure software in general.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:44:30 +0000

The closest thing you could do to taking out the “Internet” is taking out the 13 root DNS servers. In practice this isn’t really going to take down the Internet. You can still connect to other users based on the IP address. It might prevent people from typing in addresses based on a domain name, but even that is questionable due to the nature of DNS. Lets not forget everybody relies on these 13 servers throughout the world. Your ISP caches the requests to these servers also- which means that not only would you have to take out these servers, but also every ISP’s servers- including every home wifi router to effectively disable all communication- that requires a user entered domain name to be entered. This has never happened and isn’t likely to ever happen. It is easier to take out the physical connections then take out the world’s core systems that make the “Internet” happen.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:31:33 +0000

The idea that the Internet somehow needs protection is an error in the understanding of how it all works. Unless you are refering the the physical security of the lines and connections between the networks (which is clearly not what is being discussed). It is the desktop computers and servers connected to the networks that make up the Internet that need to be secured. The way a computer or server is secured is by removing the bugs in whatever internet accessible software is running-and GOOD education. The state of insecurity on the computers connected to the Internet is primarily the fault of Microsoft, Apple, users, and some administrators/decision makers. Any company selling “Internet Security ” software is fraudulent. Security is not a product you can buy. Anti-virus/Anti-malware may be a necessity of proprietary operating systems and operating systems without package management systems such as MS Windows and Mac OS X, but these programs do not improve the security of your system. The physical equivalence would be like you leaving your doors wide open in a dangerous neighbourhood with a welcome sign and then simply checking every person wanting to enter against a list of people recently released from state prison- a list which isn’t accurate, complete (other state prisons), or sufficient. You will catch some of the bad guys- but completely miss anybody who lies to you or doesn’t show up on your list.

The solution is to switch to a better software distribution model. We need software repositories- or white lists and anything outside of these repositories should not be easy to install by the ill-qualified. That software distribution system must then be connected to an security update system. The only operating systems that come close to this model are GNU/Linux based solutions. While a minority of users are currently using such secure systems these systems have proven to be both reliable & practical.

By: Ed C

Ed C — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:50:35 +0000

Well, it’s not as if you don’t want a tank on a base somewhere, ready should the need arise, no? Or a police station somewhere in your town? I think people who have serious discussions about protecting the Internet do in fact understand its nature but also understand the theoretical possibility that large-scale coordinated efforts by powerful coherent state-sponsored entities could be effective in bringing down a significant portion of the “tens of thousands of individual autonomous networks” you talk about, or at least the networks that are important for strategic reasons. When they talk about protecting “the Internet,” they understand that “the Internet” is not a coherent, centralized entity. What they are talking about is protecting the ability for basically any person or organization to get online and use a network to do their business.

I’m just saying that this is a completely rational discussion to be having. Whether the government is the most effective way of dealing with this problem and whether the civil-libertarian concerns are too great is of course a different question altogether.

By: darkuncle

darkuncle — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:24:24 +0000

people who talk in seriousness about protecting “the Internet” as a whole betray an utter lack of understanding of the nature of the Internet. The statement makes no sense, if you understand that there is no single entity to protect, but rather a collection of tens of thousands of individual autonomous networks who agree to exchange traffic. The only way to protect “the Internet” would be to be the police force on each of those autonomous networks. Thanks, but no thanks – you want to protect something, protect your own network. I’ll take care of my own, and I expect my providers to do likewise.

I don’t expect, want or need the government to protect “the Internet” or my network, any more than I want a tank stationed outside of my house: even if it were warranted, the tradeoffs are quite a bit more than I’m comfortable with.

By: Inkampus

Inkampus — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:23:41 +0000

Or the secretary of the Internet: http://xkcd.org/494/

By: Inkampus

Inkampus — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:16:44 +0000

There were rumors that Obama might appoint Bill Joy as the CTO. That should be interesting.

–
New Site For College Students: http://www.inkampus.com

By: Shannon Beasley

Shannon Beasley — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:39:53 +0000

Am I the only one concerned that the person in charge of military cyber warfare just talked about “double clicking on your mouse for the screen to refresh”? Does he do that on the series of tubes known as the Internets?

By: links for 2008-12-03 | hxf148

links for 2008-12-03 | hxf148 — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:08:05 +0000

[...] Who Protects The Internet? [...]

By: links for 2008-12-03 « 個人的な雑記

links for 2008-12-03 « 個人的な雑記 — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:05:36 +0000

[...] Who Protects The Internet? (tags: security governance) [...]

By: Andrew Leyden

Andrew Leyden — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:54:31 +0000

Are there any organizations (formal or informal) that take an active role against bots, such as counter-hacking an infected machine to repair flaws (forced vaccinations)? I’ve read about the Air Force planning to have its own ‘bot network’ to do battle with other bots, but I’ve always been curious if it would just be easier to set up honeypots that repair infected machines.

By: Alain Garnier

Alain Garnier — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:29:12 +0000

Maybe it should rather be re appropriate sense of the Internet. A network precisely build to prevent external attacks or failures. But to save money and increase-left to lose its original concept – the network speed, we chose the opposite.
Adding that the U.S. remains central also for strategic reasons and do not want their other continents are equal on this subject…

By: pure acai

pure acai — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:08:47 +0000

word wtf lol +1

By: Albert

Albert — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:39:11 +0000

Perhaps a Department of Internet Defense xD?
If Bin Laden really wanted to cripple the US economy, they could easily do it by damaging the internet infrastructure in the US, possibly the future of terrorism if US doesn’t act on it. Can lives be taken if the Internet goes down?

By: Entity Level » Blog Archive » Who Protects The Internet?

Entity Level » Blog Archive » Who Protects The Internet? — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:12:09 +0000

[...] Reading @ http://www.tech...s-the-internet/ Filed in Uncategorized « Former Hilton employee sues after witnessing work [...]

By: MrGutts

MrGutts — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:56:17 +0000

Just a little info.

The NSA already does all the things that DHS wants.

DHS must go public for those things and starts to cry like a 2 year old till they get want they want. They are just jealous that NSA does it already and does it better than any other agency, but they just don’t share all the info. It’s all about the power game for the Generals and Admirals.

By: alphaxion

alphaxion — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:55:39 +0000

dyndns url or not, a government can demand the info from either your ASP or ISP if it sees fit. Makes no difference to where you run your site from. And I stick to my statement that I wouldn’t allow that kinda technology onto my network.

You could claim that I’m doing a similar thing anyway should I block access to certain sites using our proxy server or firewall, but this is inherently different to blocking access on a national level – on your home connection it is your time, at work it is the time of the company you work for.

Also, take note that the only people who are really screaming about the way governments are positioning themselves towards sanitising our vivid internet happen to be network admins or a few people who keep up with indepth IT news.

And for all intents and purposes, this is my “real” name – it’s the identity I choose to use rather than the one forced upon me by my parents. As rediculous as that sounds when read out loud.

Oh, and you’re welcome about iPiMP it certainly has a great potential as long as the makers of mediaportal can implement the right backend to support controlling a client via the app.

By: Pinky

Pinky — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:05:48 +0000

That may be so, alphaxion (if that is indeed your real name) – but if this were my view I wouldn’t post about it. Especially linking a dyndns url.

Although, iPiMP looks interesting, thanks for the link

By: dailytwitter

dailytwitter — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:48:00 +0000

So we have the NSA, CIA, Federal Agencies and probably other dark closet types, all are now scaremongering around the security, social dangers, likely terrorist mis-use and dangers of having freedom of expression (amongst others) without constraints and control.

Department of Homeland Security’s National Cyber Security Division’s real agenda is to control, monitor and begin to put more structure, order and identity management into the use of the internet – gently using the protection issue as a means to get under the ’skin of the internet’.

Next on the agenda would probably be identity management – how do we know who you are, what your doing and what you intentions are.

Well Google probably know more than you realise on this already, so i won’t be surprised to see Google VP’s and Exec’s in cahoots with some of the governments agencies as evangelists of the free speech piece.