Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Quarantine your infected users spreading malware
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:45:06 -0600




-----Original Message-----
From: Gadi Evron [mailto:ge () linuxbox org] 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 7:35 PM
To: frnkblk () iname com
Cc: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Quarantine your infected users spreading malware

Frank Bulk wrote:
We're one of those user/broadband ISPs, and I have to agree with the 
other commentary that to set up an appropriate filtering system 
(either user, port, or conversation) across all our internet access 
platforms would be difficult.  Put it on the edge and you miss the 
intra-net traffic, put it in the core and you need a box on every 
router, which for a larger or graphically distributed ISPs could be
cost-prohibitive.

I have a question here, do you have repeat offenders in your abuse desk who
are of the malware-sort rather than bad people? Can these be put in a
specific group?

FB> Most of the repeat offenders tend to be people who lack the ability to
choose website judiciously, to put it kindly.  But when we encourage them to
get a pop-up blocker, update their antivirus (either the whole program or
definitions), and install a firewall (Windows XP or cheap NAT router), the
problem usually fades away.  Most "just didn't know" that their computer was
spewing forth spam or viruses, being used as a proxy, or part of some kind
of botnet.

In relation to that ThreatNet model, we just could wish there was a 
place we could quickly and accurately aggregate information about the 
bad things our users are doing -- a combination of RBL listings, 
abuse@, SenderBase, MyNetWatchman, etc.  We don't have our own traffic 
monitoring and analysis system in place, and even if we did, I'm 
afraid our work would still be very reactionary.

And for the record, we are one of those ISPs that blocks ports 139 and 
445 on our DSLAM and CMTS, and we've not received one complaint, but 
I'm confident it has cut down on a host of infections.

Would you happen to have statistics on how far it did/didn't help reduce
abuse reports, tech support calls, etc.?

FB> We don't look at the logs for entries regarding ports 139/445, but when
we last looked it was a few unique IP addresses per day.  And due our size,
we have no idea how much it reduced abuse reports.  It's been in place for
several years.


Frank

        Gadi.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]