Comcast Cuts Infected PCs' Network Connections 592
fidget42 writes "I just noticed this article over at Infoworld. It seems that Comcast is finally doing something about the machines on their network that are being used by spammers. They are now cutting off service to those customers who have computers that have been hijacked by spammers. Now, if only other broadband ISPs would start policing their user base ..."
Other ISPs start to do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
ATTBI (back in 2002) was disabling people's account for being infected with worms... People's modem CFG file would be set to disabled.cfg and they would have block sync but wouldn't be permitted onto the network.
If Comcast took over from ATTBI and is using parts of their existing network, I just can't understand why modems were not being disabled recently for infection by worms.
Re:Other ISPs start to do this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hell, it might as well uncap the modem while it's at it too.
Re:Other ISPs start to do this? (Score:3, Interesting)
For one, aren't there enough ISP- and cable-modem-specific issues with updating the CFG file (eg. different community strings and cable-modem IPs) that one virus is unlikely to work for a majority of cable modem connections?
For two, it'd be pretty trivial for the cable company to detect the change and cut off that connection at the CO, limiting the damage to just the users on the same physical cable connection, no?
Re:Other ISPs start to do this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Other ISPs start to do this? (Score:5, Informative)
Now, most cable modems have solder pads for a diagnostic connector, which is usually a 3 wire RS-232 serial connection. Sometimes it uses an unusual voltage, and you need a little box to change the levels. If you got access to the diagnostic connector, and your modem had the proper flash image in it, then you could program it through the diagnostic interface.
I can imagine that some modems you purchase from Fry's or what have you will look for config on ethernet, though I doubt many of them do.
For more insight on why this typically won't work, the default route on the device typically points to the cable interface, or does not exist if the cable interface is not hot, and the device has two modes of operation with regard to IP addresses on the internal interface; either it sets itself to 192.168.100.1, or it sets itself to whatever the config file tells it, and it starts proxying DHCP requests. Either way it is not going to be able to find your bogus TFTP server on the network unless it is badly misconfigured to begin with.
Re:Other ISPs start to do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. user self-policing
2. ISP self-policing
3. federal government "pound-me-in-the-ass" policing
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. user self-policing
That might be true in an ideal world. However, these users were disconnected because they failed to police themselves.
I know someone who's running a Win98 box thats been infected with SoBig.F for over a month. Yet his copy of Norton AV has been sitting on his desk for the past year. His excuse for not cleaning it up? No time and he doesn't want to reinstall everything.
I'd say it's fair to assume that the vast majority of these Comcast customers are just like him - clueless and happy that way.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
> spambot. But are there any valid reasons why I
> shouldn't be allowed to run a spambot?
Yes, because it _will_ (NOTE: not 'can') be used to relay spam to other networks. This is costing other people time and money.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is the internet free? Freedom of speech is a whole lot different from the freedom to use/abuse the connection you purchased from your ISP in a manner which violates the contract you have with your ISP.
This is yet another bad precedent we're being encouraged to believe is good for us.
Bullshit.
Freedom demands eternal vigilance, and you just gotta do it for yourself. That doesn't mean you can demand others apply that vigilance to their own lives; their concept of Freedom might just be different than yours.
There are valid reasons why I shouldn't run a spambot. But are there any valid reasons why I shouldn't be allowed to run a spambot?
Sure, because as part of your internet service you agreed to follow an Acceptable Use Policy given by your ISP. If you then violate your agreement, you give up your right to the freedoms your ISP granted to you.
This isn't some kind of constitutional right. You are paying for a commercial service. Part of that transaction involves certain restrictions in what you're able to do with the service. If you do not like those restrictions, you can choose to not use the service and either start your own or find an alternate service more to your liking.
But don't whine about how your supposed freedoms are being trampled on. It's nothing of the sort.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not. But you should be made responsible for all done with it. That includes, but is not limited to selling controlled substances, assisting the sale and smuggling of controlled substances across country borders, selling counterfeit/pirated software, financial and mail fraud.
So if you have deliberately decided that it is OK for you to run a SPAM bot, you should also agree to be held responsible for what it is used for.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
40 Comcast customers who have sent out more than 100,000 e-mail messages a day, with many sending close to 1 million daily e-mail messages
The net is a shared resource. When your "misconfiguration" screws it up for the rest of us, you get no sympathy from me.
I'm no fan of corporate policing, but these people had the same opportunities to lock down their machines as everyone else. They failed to exercise that ability, and are now paying the price.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, Comcast is a company. They are in business to make money, not to allow you the freedom to do with your net connection in any way you see fit. The way you express your thoughts in such a matter is via freedom of choice and you leave Comcast for another company.
The Internet may indeed be free, but access is not. Pay the company you prefer to go with or go into business yourself. However, don't attempt to cloud the discussion with a foggy definition of what "freedom" means and what your responsibilities are within a "free" system.
Don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
Blues Brothers (Score:5, Informative)
Jake: "Hey what's goin' on?"
Cop: "Oh those bums won their court case so they're marching today"
Jake: "What bums?"
Cop: "The fucking Nazi party!"
Jake: "Illinois Nazis"
Elwood: "I hate Illinois Nazis!"
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I sure don't agree with you. Use of the internet is a privilege, not a right - like everything else in this world. Think you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? That's poppycock, because if your pursuit of happiness infringes on someone else's, let alone their life or liberty, society might decide to take away your life or liberty in turn, because you have abused it. You must have a license to drive, even though you pay for the car. Why should the internet be any different? The lack of education problem is not the responsibility of those in the know, it's the responsibility of the user, just as knowing how to drive is the responsibility of the driver, not of people who know how to drive. If it were, then race car drivers would never have time to race, because obviously they know more about driving than the rest of us, and they should be teaching people how to drive, right?
There is such a thing as lack of malicious intent, which is why it's reasonable to prevent these people from spamming, but not to take away their computer. If you pick up a gun, knowing it is deadly but not knowing how to operate it, and you kill someone with it accidentally, you are still guilty of manslaughter. You should really have not picked the thing up since it's deadly and you have no idea what you're doing. If you operate a computer, and you leave it unprotected and you spam people, you are still guilty of spamming. You should really not have plugged the thing in to the internet since you don't know what you're doing.
In both cases, there is no law that says you must be certified before you operate the device in question; in both cases, no one can take responsibility for your education but you. In both cases, you should pay the price for your lack of responsibility because an action once taken cannot be undone.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
We as the People-Who-Know need to be spending time helping those who don't to become self-reliant, rather than telling them 'Sorry. You can't access the net until you clean up your system. Sorry, I can't really help you do it. Call someone else.'
Comcast is already doing this. From the article:
So, they block their access to trigger the support call, and then help them secure their machine. I think this is the right approach.Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
You think you're funny, but you're damn right!
Enforcement should be delegated and hierarchal, just like DNS lookups.
If a clueless and lazy user can't bother to patch up their box, then the ISP should cut `em off.
If the ISP is too cheap and lazy to enforce good network behavior on their users, then their broadband provider should cut `em off.
All the way to the backbone, to the biggest router!
Start with the premise of responsibility, enforce only when responsibility is not exercised.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's presumably a terms-of-service violation so technically you're in breach of contract and they can do what the hell they want.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you missed the point of the parent entirely... just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Yes, the contract allows Comcast to cut off users like that, but do we want them to? And, in what other situations do we want them to (or not to)?
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the contract allows Comcast to cut off users like that, but do we want them to?
What an easy question. Yes.
These people DO have the capability to take care of themselves. However, they have repeatedly shirked the responsibility of learning the basic tenets of computer use on a connected, global network.
Comcast is cutting these people off and basically walking them through the process of using their computer like they're helpless small children because, frankly, when it comes to computing, they are. There are plenty of resources out there to teach you some very basic safeguards that require only common sense and a few guided mouse clicks to eliminate a huge portion of this problem. These people consistently refuse to use these resources, or simply choose to ignore them when it becomes slightly inconvenient to do otherwise. How many people ran out to find out how to turn off the deep-sixing of executables in Outlook when Microsoft added that feature? Did these idiots run out to find out why their PC was rebooting, how they got infected, and how they could prevent similar attacks in the future when Blaster hit? Of course not. They still don't patch, they still execute attachments, they still download and run crap like Gator, they're still grabbing executables off of Kazaa, and they STILL aren't turning on ICF. I could understand people getting burned once, but these imbeciles are getting burned again and again and again by the same thing over and over. I mean, look how lazy these spam-virus writers are now. They have the ultimate exploit: people with an IQ of about 2 when they're around computers. Shit... the goddamn viruses come with instructions on how to install them now and these morons are STILL getting infected!
Look, I'm sorry, but we don't let mentally retarded people do a lot of dangerous things in "real" life, why should we let the Internet equivalent do the equivalent things on the net? It's not exactlyl a matter of freedom, it's a matter of truly incompetent people repeatedly failing to live up to even the most basic obligations of owning a broadband connection.
I see no problem with this, whatsoever. In fact, I hope they start barring chronic offenders from the network permanently if they can't even take basic care of the connection.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure my cust-serv problems are more related to the whole "No Help Helpdesk" thread of a few weeks back, but at what point do/can we start holding the ISP's liable for their users?
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe you should claim that you are the author of some (benign) sub-component of the Virus, and as such you'll be able to send them a DMCA request for the identity of the user.
Betcha the tech who saw that would get a laugh, and probably put it through!!
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Because we all know Corporations policing is a VERY GOOD THING!tm
Well, a coworker brought in his virus-ridden computer for me to take a look at, precisely because Comcast threatened to turn off his pipe. The interesting thing is that he knew he had a problem, but because he could work with a slower computer he didn't take care of it. So at least one zombie box that would have been 'put up with' by its owner is now off the net.
OTOH, I'm worried about the precedent this sets. Who knows what other things will bring the 'death penalty' from the ISPs? What ports will be shut down because 'you don't need them'?
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
My dream ISP service agreement would be one that guarantees full access to all ports and protocols, but the ISP reserves the right to shut off my connection if it is hijacked.
Re:Yes Yes! (I have to dissent) (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand that techies across the world think this is super-fantabulous, but this is horrendous for the average end-user. Comcast doesn't (I will refrain from saying can't or won't) say what a user's system is infected with, or what exactly it's doing...just that there's some "illicit traffic" coming from that IP. That's great, now how am I supposed to diagnose the problem? It wouldn't be that difficult if the machine were in front of me, but how to I walk Mary End User through complicated tasks over the phone while she's already frustrated? If Comcast were doing more - i.e. they told you what the problem was and the steps you can take to remedy it - I would be more supportive of this. As it stands, it's just going to make a lot of end-users get cheated by shady local PC repair places while they get the run-around from fifteen different vendors. Make jokes about virus scans all you want, but nothing is fool-proof...and since any fool is equipped with a computer these days, infections will happen and malicious attacks will succeed. So +1 to Comcast for taking some initiative, and -2 for crappy execution and not giving half as much of a flying foo as they'd leave their customers to believe.
Re:Yes Yes! (I have to dissent) (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
I've already set them up with a good firewall... controlling what they do with their Email attachments is a bit more problematic.
I support cutting off accounts for abuse, whether intentional or simply clueless/negligent. Hell, I'd be delighted if somebody warned me that som
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind so much if consumers are offered consumer-grade access. It does bug me, though, that EVERYONE was once offered geek-level access for $9.95/month and now you get port 80 inbound for $21.95/month. If you cut your service, you should cut your pricing.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you be willing to pay more for ICMP?
Absolutely not. I signed a contract that said "internet access". Correct me if I'm wrong, but ICMP is still an internet protocol, is it not?
Earthlink started blocking outbound 25. I dropped the sum'bitches like a bad habit. If I want "web access" I'll go waste my money on AOL. If I signed up for "internet access" you can be damn sure I'd better be getting. I think there's a potential breach of contract case if my ISP decides to start chopping out protocols, depending on other wording in the agreement (and "we can do whatever we want without telling you" isn't absolute in the eyes of a court - those kind of sweeping, general clauses are meant to scare consumers, not withstand a lawsuit).
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's their service and you're likely violating their AUP by allowing (through ignorance) your machine to be a spamming source. They have every right to police their own network to enforce their TOS.
After all, we've seen how well relying on users to police themselves has worked.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a good thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets put it another way: the ISP states in their terms & conditions something like: "Subscribers are not allowed to distribute spam or worms over their connection, nor are they allowed to carry out DDOS attacks.". Doesn't sound too unreasonable, does it? Not even if the user breaks this rule unwittingly, because his computer is infected with something nasty.
A rule like this puts the responsibility for the cleanliness of the subscriber's computer firmly with that subscriber. Rightly so, since that user is in an excellent position to do something about it. It sucks being disconnected because of a worm on your machine, but the alternative is to allow the worm to continue to spread.
The only things I worry about is the accuracy of the detection mechanism used on the ISP's side, and the promptness with which they reconnect you after you fix the problem on your machine.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, you make it sound like a conspiracy theory as if your rights are being taken away. What they're doing is right. It's THEIR network, they can do whatever you want. It's not like you have a right to use the internet.
If I owned an ISP and some computer illiterate moron failed to keep up with patches, I would dump them too. People need to start getting with it and taking responsibility for their own actions. How many years now have all kinds of viruses and worms been glorified in the media? Far back as I can remember.. so saying, "Well, I didn't know" no longer cuts it.
If you're gonna go on someone's network, the least you could do is be kind enough to educate yourself about how to update/protect your own PC.
Re:Yes Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've lost count of the number of times a virus-infested "spammer zombie" Comcast box has tried to hit our mail servers, and the problem's been going on for at least the last six months. In fact, it has gotten bad enough that I have two entire domains (client.comcast.net and client2.comcast.net) blocked out of our servers altogether.
If Comcast's cable broadband customers are too ignorant or too stupid to take even the most basic of computing security precautions, why should the rest of the 'net have to suffer for their utter lack of responsibility for their systems? If they lose their connection until they TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for cleaning up their system, they have only themselves to blame.
I, for one, am stunned that Comcrap actually DID something useful! Their abuse-handling unit has, in times past, shown all the responsiveness of a sun-warmed snail on vallium.
Re:Or maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if people start losing service they'll finally start to educate themselves. Education is still the best weapon to use to further secure the 'Joe User' PC's out there.
Re:Or maybe... (Score:3, Informative)
I use my university's network for internet access, paying UK60 a year for access in my room. At the start of the year there were a lot of virus-related problems, mostly people bringing machines in from home and plugging them in without a firewall or AV software.
Network Services don't insist on this. They don't insist on a virus scan first. What they DO do is cut you off if your PC is causing a nuisance to the network, because they'
if everyone did this (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd be first in line to moan about them 'infringing' on your interweb right!
wtf (Score:4, Insightful)
also, say grandma gets infected. She is best off downloading updated definitions for her old version of symantec, and letting AV take care of it. how do you do that with no intarweb?
Re:wtf (Score:3, Insightful)
Giving helping hand to grandma (Score:3, Insightful)
ISP could set up captive portal (like on WLANs) with information and pointers to AV software updates. Either all traffic is relayed through proxy or then packets are allowed to AV sites.
But false positives are the problem, of course. But once you get confirmed spam, virus or worm traffic, then you can be quite sure.
Lay the burden by the one causing the trouble (Score:3, Interesting)
With cut offs it is different. An infected machine is a pain to the entire internet community except (often) the person whose machine got infected. If such a machine gets blocked from the i
Plot by virus scan companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Blocking web access also means that those users aren't able to download good, free virus scanners like Grisoft's AVG.
Re:Plot by virus scan companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
My sister's university would not allow her PC back on the school network after they cut ALL student network access in the wake of MyDoom, until it could be verified by a tech at the school that she was running Norton AV.
Her PC runs Debian and only Debian. It took more than a month for her to find a sane enough tech in admin to realise that it was pointless trying to do so. All of the rest tried the different bullshit techniques telling her why all PCs are a problem regardless of OS.
The most classic was one of the last techs, a supposedly bright 35 year old guy who came around with a warezed copy of NAV to attempt installing on her PC. He not only knew what Linux was when he recognised it, but told her to make her PC secure she'd have to install Windows and THEN put NAV on.
Re:Plot by virus scan companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the school was insisting that all user PCs had to be running NAV, it's possible they bought a site license, so it wasn't necessarily a warezed copy of the software, just something on a CD-R. Also, Symantec does make a linux version of their command line scanner, so it's not absurd that they require she install "NAV" on her machine.
That said, the guy mentioned above is a dumbass on par with a tech at Adelphia cable I once spoke to when my modem lost sync. "We don't support Linux. You need to get a REAL operating system before I can help you."
Re:Plot by virus scan companies? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Doesn't just apply to viruses... (Score:4, Insightful)
I work in system support. This conviction of mine that the numbers out stupid people outweigh the power users is borne of considerable experience and many thousands of hours of fixing things for those friends who only call when they have a problem.
There is a massive hard core of people who just DO NOT LEARN from their mistakes. Frankly if ISPs are going to let these dangerously ill-educated people onto the web they should have a duty to deal with the consequences
Anything ISPs do to protect these people or us techies from their side-effects is a good thing.
This isn't a whinger or an outsider speaking. I've got the T-shirt and it wasn't worth what they charged.
Nice but... (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, I administer a mail server, and occasionally have to mail a virus or spam to myself to check that the filters are operating correctly. It would be very inconvenient if I got my connection pulled each time that happened.
Re:Nice but... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nice but... (Score:4, Informative)
you know, where you see stuff like this recurring in your web server's logs...offending ip removed...
the people they are cutting off are sending out daily attacks to multiple machines, not just once or twice sending out crap here and there. i think you'll be ok.
Re:Nice but... (Score:4, Informative)
Cox does this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cox does this... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am also a Cox subscriber and I believe that their phone "service" should be labeled cruel and unusual punishment.
Also, has any other Cox users noticed a decent amount of Port Scanning from Cox? Is this part of their scanning for Viruses/worms? After one weekend where I was scanned twice in a matter of hours, I sent my logs to their "abuse" address. I have yet to hear back from them. Coincidentally, I have yet to be scanned since then.
Re:Cox does this... (Score:3, Interesting)
But it worked. And they blacklisted addresses and names of repeat spammer offenders and refused service to them in the future. He said they had the same people buying ISDN lines under different names all the time. Or the same name at a neig
Is this right? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm glad. (Score:5, Insightful)
A good decision here (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets hope they hold to this once the calls start coming in from people who have everything from Bagle to Netsky (along with probably a heavy dose of spyware too)
Whose fault is this really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Try sending out an ISP bulletin with the simple tips on how to avoid getting exploited in the first place. It's dead simple.
1. install patches regularly
2. virus scan
3. don't open attachments
4. don't install spyware.
If people used these 4 simple techniques, while it wouldn't be perfect, it would by my thoughts drop the number of infected machines down by three quarters, which will DRAMATICALLY reduce the efficiency and productivity of running a spamming business, and spammers won't have any choice but to leave you alone.
Cutting people off is just going to get them to take infected machines somewhere else.
Re:Whose fault is this really? (Score:5, Insightful)
You could send out that email every day, with detailed instructions, and it would have very, VERY little effect on the number of infected/hijacked machines.
Most users just won't do that stuff. Especially if it involves anything more complicated than "Click here". Multi-step instructions are not going to be followed. Unless, of course, it's going to win them a free trip to Disneyland.
As far as "don't install spyware"...well, spyware is hard to classify, and a lot of it installs pretty silently. Expecting users to be able to distinguish between "bad" pop-up dialogs asking to install Gator and "good" pop-up windows asking to install Flash (or whatever) is asking too much.
Attachments in emails are just going to be opened, period. No one ever learns their lesson in that regard.
Re:Whose fault is this really? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. install patches regularly
2. virus scan
Again, automagic updates would be nice too. This one would probably work out most of the time.
3. don't open attachments
'But it was from my mother/sister/brother/son and they said they loved me!'... This won
A better solution... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A better solution... (Score:5, Interesting)
quarantined sub-net
My ISP, NTL [ntlhome.com], did this during the Blaster epidemic. They used some kind of portscan to determine which machines were infected and then put their connections in a 'walled garden'. All web traffic that went through this 'walled garden' resulted in a page describing what the problem was and included lots of pretty pictures explaining how to fix the problem.
The portscanning caused some alarm to those of us with firewalls, until it became clear what they were doing.
I believe their patching instructions were:
Happened to me. (Score:3, Informative)
Anyhow, my friends at AT&T Broadband (the ones that never answered their phone) sent me a nastygram telling me that I was doing a bit too much port scanning for their liking (duh...)
So I ripped the machine of the network and poked around. Yep, it turned out that my machine was infected a few hours after I installed the OS, and it was doing it's bad thing for WEEKS.
At the time, AT&T just "informed me" that I should stop doing bad things. I think it would have been prudent for them to kill my service until I took corrective action.
Of course, this was 3 years ago or so... a more innocent time...
That explains it (Score:4, Funny)
I for one... (Score:5, Interesting)
First time for me...
I agree that this should be done in extreme cases where the customer is CONTACTED before so that information and education can be PROVIDED. Simply clipping the wire does not fix the issue for anyone but the ISP.
Second, Backroads.net [backroads.net] implemented the policy above with much success. I was happy as a customer of theirs.
It is unfortunate that this has to be done, but wouldn't a more effective solution be to block all ports but 80 or maybe even force all their traffic to a URL with an explaination of the virus and let them know that they can not do anything on the web until it is fixed?
SP
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
It fixes the issue for me as well. And you. And, in fact, anyone at all who isn't the person infected.
Having said that, I agree with your point about prior contact. I'm fully in favour of cutting off virused connections however, and in a reasonably swift time limit too.
Cheers,
Ian
Code Red Lives! (Score:4, Interesting)
It is about bloody time that a large provider has become willing to proactively cut off infected machines. Now if only UUNet would do the same, as most of the Code Red hits I receive come from within my own NSP's network.
-Chris
So if we take a "blaster" scenario... (Score:4, Insightful)
Debtor's Prison (Score:5, Insightful)
How can these people fix the problem without access to up-to-date patches and virus scans?
Business Plan (Score:5, Interesting)
Write up a small business plan based around these knocked-off-the-network infected PCs.
You can charge "$50 + travel fees. Usually under $100" to clean their computer, and get them back online. Yeah. It's a fee, and many people wont be happy about paying it. But, at the same time, it'll teach them a lesson about security on their pc. If they dont want to pay it again, theyll have to do their own security stuff.
You see politics, I see opportunity.
The only real trick to this would be streamlining with comcast, which is next to impossible.
How To Take Care of Comcast (Score:3, Interesting)
Just nuke the following -
client.comcast.net
and
client2.comcast.net
And for good measure - client.attbi.com
That should take care of most of the zombie / virus / idiot mail. None of their residential customers should be sending email directly from a dymamic IP address. This will seriously cut a good bite of the spam / viruses you are receiving, and you don't have to worry about missing email because they should be relaying through central mail servers.
self defeating (Score:3)
Sooner or later, mail admins, the target will be you. Today, it's the "clueless" home user. Tomorrow, it will be the clueless admin at a small company. In the end it will be everyone but AOL/M$N/McDisneyNet.
All praise for Comcast. Comcast's actions will make blocking their clients redundant. This makes it so you won't, in the future, need a license to send email. As a cable subscriber, I want the
One Good Result (Score:5, Insightful)
'Net Users Need a Certain Amount of Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this is something that seems to be lost on the clients of broadband always-on connections, especially those that are used by folks with little or no proficiency. While they have no intention of becoming spam-hosts, or DDOS platforms, by not keeping their machines protected against the various evils that lie in waiting out there, they unwittingly become part of the problem.
This does not reduce the hassles and costs to other sysadmins and users of the 'net as a whole. That said, it seems only fair for an ISP to mitigate the problem by pulling the connection of a user whose systems(s) are spewing out malware.
There are reasonable precautions one should take, that is, having a good firewall, keeping the machine patched and having good virus protection. No, this does not come without some effort and not always without cost. But, to be connected to the internet full-time, it is a cost of doing business, not unlike having insurance for your car in case you cause an accident. Liability insurance is to protect the public, and you from losing everything should you do harm to others. Keeping worms, trojans and viruses off of your machine also protect not only you but others as well.
So, it is really a matter of responsibility.
Why not... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I guess it is easier to just shut them off, and then charge a reconnection fee... eh?
--ryan
Re:Why not... (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm putting a Solaris box on their network, I don't want to have to install ZoneAlarm on it. I know how to secure Solaris boxes, thankyouverymuch. If they see a problem coming from my IP, they have my permission to nuke it, but until then, leave me alone.
In other words, presume innocent and assume the user will deal with it until proven otherwise -- and then respond with extreme prejudice.
Re:Why not... (Score:3, Insightful)
Personal firewalls are crap. They cannot - by design - interfere with the other operations of the PC, so they won't allocate a large enough pool of memory for keeping state on active connections. This results in lots of false alerts if TCP FINs are retransmitted, and on our busy ad banner servers, they sometimes are retransmitted. The PC firewalls think this is a FIN scan, because they have already purged the session
Comcast Terms Of Service / Acceptable Use Policy (Score:3, Informative)
From the AUP:
Note: Comcast reserves the right to immediately terminate the Service and the Subscriber Agreement if you engage in any of the prohibited activities listed in this AUP or if you use the Comcast Equipment or Service in a way which is contrary to any Comcast policies or any of Comcast's suppliers' policies. You must strictly adhere to any policy set forth by another service provider accessed through the Service.
So they can terminate service, based on violation of the subarticles:
(vii) restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information;
And transmitting a virus is definitely a violation. Still, it would be nice if there was more information on what will cause them to pull the plug.
Overkill (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about the easiest thing ion the world for the ISP to and it's _very_ effective. Another option would be for ISP's to force all SMTP traffic through their own mailserver and virus scan it. They could easily spot a home user sending a couple of thousand messages in an hour or one spreading infected email everywhere.
If you want unfettered access you can pay for a co-lo box and take the responsibility too. People can't keep hiding behind their ISP and dynamic IPs. I'm all for personal freedoms on the net, but with freedom comes responsibility. Deal with it.
Adelphia (Score:3, Informative)
-First, the customer is identified, then placed into a 'walled zone'.
-This walled zone will route/allow the cable modem to go only to one specific location, a certain web page in this case.
-Said web page will include downloads for virus fixes and such. Customer goes there, downloads, and cleans up his computer.
-When it has been verified that the customer has gone there and cleaned up, they check his system, then reactivate his account.
To me it seems like a pretty nifty way of stopping virus spreading while keeping the customer informed of what's going on.
the better way to do this (Score:4, Insightful)
why not (say) decrease the dhcp lease time from whatever to an hour or so. when whatever mechanism they're using to detect spam/whatever infection (hope to god they're not just listening for smtp traffic, that'd be evil but sadly likely) goes off, it would tell the cable modem ot use a different config which would then allow the user to get a different dhcp lease. this lease would set their router to something different, which would then pipe a single page to the user - similar to what many universities install for when users try and access pr0n or something like that from a school computer.
some mechanism ('m not familiar with routing protocols unfortunately) would then be provided to drop all traffic at the router except for http traffic through a specific gateway, possibly to specific hosts such as mcaffee, symantec, windowsupdate.microsoft.com, and the vairous other free virus and malware scanning packages.
This is a bit more complex, but surely it's possible - I've seen and/or read about all the various mechanisms I mentioned above.
We do this (Score:3, Informative)
Bad Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, here's my humble suggestion for a better solution. If a PC is identified as a compromised machine, it's added to a pool of machines that all gets a special IP and special DNS servers (I assume they run DHCP - if they don't they should). Now, the new DNS servers resolve all addresses to a special page dedicated to downloading anti-spyware and virus checkers. Maybe even an online scanner like housecall. [trendmicro.com] So, when Joe Luser fires up his web browser, he reaches this page no matter what he types. Once he's machine is cleaned, he will be removed from the compromised pool.
Send them a thank you note. (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent (Score:3, Interesting)
They'd better get it right (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering a) I'm running Linux and b) I do forensics on trojans at work, I'm not going to be infected.
I checked my wife's box which was Windows at the time, and it was clean. I checked mine and it was clean.
A little more digging and the "attack" comes down to SpamAssassin. Anyone who was running SpamAssassin or MailWasher got these warnings because RR couldn't manage their freaking DNS servers correctly.
I for one do not want to get cut off because of the incompetence of the ISP.
My experience with this (Score:5, Informative)
The problem here is that Comcast is doing shutting down people's connections with no recourse to find out why or to re-enable it.
I received an email and an automated phone call from Comcast stating that I had an infected computer and I must clean it up. I was immediately pleased that they noticed, but frustrated that I could be infected. 5 PCs with varying OSs, all with firewalls and/or antivirus software, so I thought it was unlikely but possible. After doing a full scan I found no viruses.
So I called Comcast's 800 number. They said I need to call a different long-distance number. That number is an automated system with nothing but dead ends. If I select the option about "Viruses and spam emails" then it tells me to email abuse at comcast.net if I get a bad email. But I don't want to report a spam, I received a report. All the options did approximately the same thing: Told me something I already know then hung up. Several calls later, I used the "leave a message" option. A week goes by and I received no call back. I replied to the email but received no response. Nobody on the service number would talk to me about it.
So I receive another email telling me that my service may be disabled if I don't fix the problem. So what do I do now?
To top it off, this isn't the first time. About 8 months ago, Comcast calle and told me I was reported for sending spam. When the read me part of the SpamCop report (which they refused to do many times) it turned out to be a SpamCop report that my roommate made! We _reported_ the spam, we didn't _send_ it! After much arguing, the guy finally got it and left us alone. Mistakes happen, but what irks me the most is that they wanted to tell me I sent a spam, and make sure I corrected my behavior, but refused to tell me the source of the report, or what the email was, or when it was sent, or anything!
Below is the email Comcast sent me. It looks like a form email, with no specific statement about what went wrong.
I work for Comcast (Score:4, Informative)
But, users are dumb, and I'll agree with that. Last summer when the blaster worm came out, we emailed out customers ahead of time telling them they need to download the microsoft patch.
On top of that, the Microsoft Windows Update popup that comes up by default, once a week, users still continue to ignore it because they don't know what it does.
Personally, I'd like to see more type of this internet policing by ISP's. They should also be blocking people who have open SMB shares on their Windows Networks. I cant count the number of times I've purposely went in Someones SMB share and dropped a text file telling them how to fix it.
I, however, disagree with the Government policing of the internet. I believe the internet should be policed by the people who pay for it to be there. That would be us and the ISP's
Re:Thank you! Next, please take out the virus-infe (Score:4, Interesting)
DHCP message? Since when? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be even better to send them a "Net Send " but thats been disabled due to viruses and spam.
Frankly those users have ignored all the obvious aspects of being infected (100% cable light flashing) and have probably consumed more bandwidth than an army of teenagers downloading MP3s. That cable *should* be cut and I stand by my comments about desiring cable access being denied to them UNTIL they remove their virus.
Frankly, they AREN't running a virus scanner because... obviously... the logs go on for days. Weeks. A few for months. So how exactly do you want to make them call in for more information? Why, you cut out their access. Very quickly they call in. If they don't, well, they weren't using the service and they will call in when they want to... at which point a qualified technician can 'walk them thru' downloading a virus scanner and installing it.
Because lets face it- if they are spamming the net with a virus thats been on their machine for months, a little DHCP message (hah) ain't gonna do nothing to stop them.
Re:DHCP message? Since when? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:DHCP message? Since when? (Score:4, Informative)
My cable light has been flashing intermittently ever since the latest Windows worm. It's not because my (Fedora Linux) computer is infected, it's because every other infected computer on the net is periodically scanning my entire block of IP addresses. Every time they try to infect an unused address in that block, our helpful routers send an ARP packet to every cable modem user. I've seen more than a hundred per second during bad periods.
Maybe DSL users (who don't have to share the same bandwidth with everyone in their neighborhood) or users at smarter cable modem companies (who could be caching these things a bit longer, not sending out ARP requests for the same IP address every few seconds) would see a difference if they were infected by a virus, but at least Road Runner Austin users are probably all used to constantly flickering cable modem lights by now.
Re:Thank you! Next, please take out the virus-infe (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for one of the largest meta-ISPs. To put things simply, my employer operates the back-end of of a few hundred interest services. Said employer shall remain nameless, and no, my email address does not reflect said employer.
Anyway. I'm a graveyard shift network operator. There isn't a whole lot to do on the graveyard shift except make sure nothing bursts into flames. So I'm pretty bored until about 5am when our authentication logs gets rolled into the database.
And this is when i can go through all the complaints about spam, viruses, port scans, and whatever else our teeming masses of end users have perpetrated, and figure out exactly who's computer is doing what. And then shut 'em off.
I agree completely that it would be great if there were some way i could efficiently get the end user to disinfect or secure their systems without having to resort to strong-arm tactics, but the truth is that, for 99.99999% of home users, disabling their supply of email and porn is the only way we can get them to sit up and pay attention.
Think about it. If you got some popup on your screen that said you have a virus and your internet connection is at risk, you'd just close it and go about your business. Unless your connection didn't work, and then you'd call customer service and try and get it 'fixed'.
Heck, most people get popups that tell them that sort of thing all the time.
Would a smart person trust that the 'free' antivirus tools are indeed what they claim to be without some way of independently verifying that? I sure wouldn't.
Would an *average end user be able to use them effectively? That joke isn't even funny. I did my time in tech support - the sheer number of people who have asked me what a comma is while I'm trying to help them disable call waiting on their phone line are shadowed only by the monumental stupidity of the woman who was overheard - on several calls - shouting at her husband - over and over - "IT'S THE A IN THE CIRCLE! THE *A* IN THE *CIRCLE*!!!". It would be funnier if it didn't make one lose all faith in the future of humanity.
Furthermore, have you considered the liability issues here? You want a corporation to tell a user to run a program that proports to remove a virus from their system? a FREE program? What happens when it runs across some new variant of some virus, thinks it's the old variant, does the wrong thing to remove it, and ends up rendering the whole system inoperable? I'll tell you what, some arm-chair attorney is going to threaten legal action. You have no idea how frequently this really happens. Even if you so much as recommend third party software.
So we cut 'em off. Just to force them to call us. And then we tell them, essentially, "Look, buddy. Your computer has this problem. And your computer's problem is our problem. And that makes it your problem. We don't care what you do to solve this problem, but you better do it. We suggest antivirus software as a first step. We hear that you can get a free version of something called AVG."
And then, if they seem to understand, we turn their connection back on, so that they can update their norton or download avg or whatever.
And every week, there's two or three end users who get their accounts totally closed because we've been over this with them three times already and they haven't managed to get the picture.
I wish there were a kinder, gentler way to do it. So far, I don't think there is.
Re:Overkill (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time! (Score:3, Funny)
Except that... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hi, I'm the admin from [YourISP]. We think you have a virus. Please run the attached program, and blah blah blah."
The next round will have something like "Please type in [EvilURL].com and run the 'virus remover' you see there."
How is Joe Averages' Grandma supposed to tell the difference?