Once a user's system is infected with malware, his bandwidth would be wasted on the spread of malware and spam and phishing attacks. In fact, most hosts have run into this situation.
In a perfect world, if the user's system is infected with botnets, he would not only receive the prompt message from the ISP, but also be isolated until he is confirmed to meet the “security requirement” of not being infected again.
From the point of global limits, what are users' attitudes to this management? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this mode? And how do security experts and fighters against the cyber crime think about this problem? Now, let us get to know about it.
A survey released by Abuse Working Group in 2010 shows that 65%of users blame Internet service providers and e-commerce service providers for causing spate of computer virus, spyware, and regular spam mails contained in fraudulent e-mails. And the next one to be criticized is anti-virus software providers.
Chaney declared, “If a device is indentified to pose a threat to the Internet, the user must be notified, and the device must be cleaned up, too. Before the job is done, the device should be prohibited from connecting to the Internet. We should try to reduce risks of infected devices contaminating others, or disrupting normal Internet activities in other ways.”
This advice pushes Internet service providers on the cusp again.
Internet service providers are standing at a unique position of revolution, just like ISP. And they are also standing at the best position as a distribution channel. They can provide (security) protection to users by relying on the shape of service. Their status will not be fluctuated as long as they choose the right technology.
We do not lack relevant solutions now. In addition to common reasons of posing a threat to the network's reputation and increasing potential income likely, some Internet service providers also claim that they need reasonable incentives to provide security services, but if they provide the wrong choice to users, the effect will be even worse. For example, in Australia, Internet service providers have already offered regulations aiming at limiting voluntary act of users infected with malware to connect to the Internet. By using “Walled Garden” guidelines, Germany insists on doing so these years, and passes the whole Germen anti-botnet solutions.
Only when marketing staffs of ISP recognize that security is service, this measure would become the most valuable asset of overall differentiation strategy, and effects of allowing users to access Internet happily and being considered to be responsible companies with industry credibility and having real concern to Internet reputation would be achieved.
Therefore, for the ISP, they should re-position themselves and regard the companies as socially responsible enterprises. They should not just serve as purely anti-virus software distributors, they should train their end users before they access to the Internet and when they are surfing the Internet. They should also cut off network connection of users infected with malware and message corresponding measures, isolate them and train them about standard security awareness course through a game or a simple questionnaire.
In a perfect world, if the user's system is infected with botnets, he would not only receive the prompt message from the ISP, but also be isolated until he is confirmed to meet the “security requirement” of not being infected again.
From the point of global limits, what are users' attitudes to this management? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this mode? And how do security experts and fighters against the cyber crime think about this problem? Now, let us get to know about it.
A survey released by Abuse Working Group in 2010 shows that 65%of users blame Internet service providers and e-commerce service providers for causing spate of computer virus, spyware, and regular spam mails contained in fraudulent e-mails. And the next one to be criticized is anti-virus software providers.
Chaney declared, “If a device is indentified to pose a threat to the Internet, the user must be notified, and the device must be cleaned up, too. Before the job is done, the device should be prohibited from connecting to the Internet. We should try to reduce risks of infected devices contaminating others, or disrupting normal Internet activities in other ways.”
This advice pushes Internet service providers on the cusp again.
Internet service providers are standing at a unique position of revolution, just like ISP. And they are also standing at the best position as a distribution channel. They can provide (security) protection to users by relying on the shape of service. Their status will not be fluctuated as long as they choose the right technology.
We do not lack relevant solutions now. In addition to common reasons of posing a threat to the network's reputation and increasing potential income likely, some Internet service providers also claim that they need reasonable incentives to provide security services, but if they provide the wrong choice to users, the effect will be even worse. For example, in Australia, Internet service providers have already offered regulations aiming at limiting voluntary act of users infected with malware to connect to the Internet. By using “Walled Garden” guidelines, Germany insists on doing so these years, and passes the whole Germen anti-botnet solutions.
Only when marketing staffs of ISP recognize that security is service, this measure would become the most valuable asset of overall differentiation strategy, and effects of allowing users to access Internet happily and being considered to be responsible companies with industry credibility and having real concern to Internet reputation would be achieved.
Therefore, for the ISP, they should re-position themselves and regard the companies as socially responsible enterprises. They should not just serve as purely anti-virus software distributors, they should train their end users before they access to the Internet and when they are surfing the Internet. They should also cut off network connection of users infected with malware and message corresponding measures, isolate them and train them about standard security awareness course through a game or a simple questionnaire.