664,
0, 16051, Eileen McCluskey, 12/19/2005 10:09:32 AM, Broken Net, Im
curious to know if the new architecture could be slipped into place
without interrupting e-activities -- an act akin to pulling the
tablecloth out from under the food and dishes. Except, of course, for
the additional trick of simultaneously sliding a fresh cloth underneath
the setup without disturbing anything. Yikes?
667, 0, 16051, artMonster, 12/19/2005 11:43:06 AM, Hogwash, The
internet is not broken, M.S. Windows is. The issue of unwanted email
(spam) warrants some changes in the underlying structure, but the other
problems are really OS problems, and Windows bears the brunt of
responsiblity for this. Major structural changes to how the internet
works would be unwise, and probably open up more control by either the
government or Microsoft. Neither are desireable or beneficial for the
end user. So who really benefits from this FUD about the internet being
broken? Not too difficult to figure out...
675, 667, 16051, Bellinghamster, 12/19/2005 4:52:05 PM, Spam
proliferation, Despite my ISPs efforts to filter emailed spam, my
inbasket is typically less than one-quarter legitimate message traffic.
But purging spam isnt my greatest inefficiency. The time I spend
maintaining firewall, virus and malware software is the truly
significant inefficiency.
678, 675, 16051, Matej, 12/19/2005 9:11:11 PM, New protocols -- we
dont use current ones!, Hi,
when this article was mentioned on "The World" (WGBH) they
mentioned that NSF is planning to release $300M for
"development of new protocols which would make Internet safe"
(and another $300M later for implementation). Why in the world we need
another protocols when we are not using the current ones? My Linux here
has support for IPv6, S/MIME, etc. etc. but no-one in the world uses
them, because the problem with unsafe Internet is not in the
technology, but in the organization and social problems (like how to
make everybody identifiable over Internet, when US public doesnt want
to be identified in the first place)?
Matej
682, 678, 16051, Mike, 12/20/2005 1:30:05 AM, Great sales pitch,
Isnt one of the best ways to get someone to spend money to instill
fear? Some people would argue thats how congress is duped into
appropriating funds - How close is Cambridge to DC? :-)
If they want to spend $200M, send it my way and Ill demonstrate a cool
solution to make it easier to deploy new web-based services, to any
device, saving major corporations Billions in the process. Cheers!
684, 0, 16051, Si, 12/20/2005 4:31:01 AM, hogwash, Im a day late
on this and notice that artMonster has hit it perfectly. Big brother
wants control. I would hate to think what the internet would be like if
they redesigned it along the lines suggested.
687, 684, 16051, Fergus Doyle, 12/20/2005 5:39:59 AM, Hogwash, I
agree with the other two guys here the problems are down to MS software
- specifically that MS cannot/will not keep up with changing
circumstance, by releasing SW. I have no spyware on my (Windows) system
and no viruses. eg use Firefox not Internet Explorer use Thunderbird
not Outlook Express and most of your problems with Windows are solved.
Use Linux and you dont even have to worry this much.
688, 682, 16051, Owen N. Martinez, 12/20/2005 5:47:24 AM, The
Internet is in need of repair, Like any system, the I. needs to be
tuned-up or repaired as things get out of control. Who is qualified to
determine what to do, and who should control the system? Preferably the
same entity or two very close ones, that have the confidence of the
majority the users. The US government need not apply.
689, 687, 16051, E Feustel, 12/20/2005 6:30:49 AM, Its the
infrastructure that needs changing, Its the routers and the protocols
that need changing to permit secure higher speed operation including
authentication of the traffic on the net -- no more fake IP addresses
and if the packet says that X sent it, then X did actually send it. No
more DNS hacking -- if you ask for Xs address, you get Xs address, not
Ys. And you get it with the minimum computation in a reliable manner
even with pieces of the net going down.
690, 0, 16051, p, 12/20/2005 8:31:26 AM, future of the internet,
The network (as opposed to the endpoints) doesnt need major new
security features.
I admit largeer TCP ISNs would be good, and SMTP should have a way to
reject mail per-user after the mail server has read all of it.
Apart from that what you need is security in execution environmensts
(where some of those EEs are OSs and some are browsers etc.).
This is one of several similar approaches - its no longer adequate to
let a program do anything it chooses. The programs cant be rusted while
handling suspect data. This is a different threat model from most
computer security work historically.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=U&start=5&q=http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/subos.pdf&e=42
Extensions to existing OS s/w are effective at providing this kind of
security.
http://whitepapers.zdnet.co.uk/0,39025945,60150583p-39000584q,00.htm
693, 690, 16051, Dr Hacker, 12/20/2005 10:35:07 AM, Hogwash
Support, artMonster is right on. The royalists from MaBell refuse to
give up their 100+ year monopoly. I say give it up and become Americans
instead of British-like thugs. We dont want another 1776, but it looks
like we may need one!
833, 689, 16051, mrxsmb, 12/28/2005 4:30:12 AM, Hogwash indeed.,
Although hopefully grown ups dont need more alert than
"powerpoint presentation" and "$400 million dollars reseach
funding" in close proximity to know that.
The issues highlighted with MS [the debilitating Operating System, not
the debilitating Physical Affliction] and its usability over
functionality approach are all valid, but other OSs and applications
have their own issues.
Of course business could actually pony up the money to build their own
networks and not use the internet, but then how would that save them
money? I believe some already do, as do Governments and sensibly so.
One bank in Australia has actually got with the program and realised
they should issue their on-line banking customers with a swipe and pin
security system the same as on an ATM, at each and every house. How
much of the "problems" discussed would be solved by this simple
change in attitude?
834, 0, 16051, Sundararajan Srinivasan, 12/28/2005 5:47:34 AM,
Designers did it, Some of the internet bugs we have now has nothing to
do with the OS. It was the way in which it was designed. For instance,
SMTP does not provide authentication by default. I can pose myself as
[email protected] with an SMTP server, w/o any problem. This is
because the SMTP does not mind the "from" address. The solution
can be the usage of digital signature.
Internet and all the related protocols could have been designed more
secure. But it would not have got the same popularity, as it is now.
That is why, we are now paying security experts to build layers of
security.
881, 834, 16051, rmarino, 12/30/2005 9:53:56 PM, The Internet is
not about MS Windows, Swithching operating systems will not prevent
spammers from clogging up the network nor will it prevent hackers from
taking advantage of architectural problems.
1163, 689, 16051, CEC, 1/7/2006 10:43:44 AM, The end device should
provide the security, The more complexity/code you add to the routers
and other infrastructure, the more you will hamper its primary
function: communication.
The only thing to be gained by making the infrastructure more complex
is a slower internet and more vulnerabilities in routers and other
infrastructure devices.
The end point should be designed for the level of security it requires.
I have no problem with network prevention of obvious malicious traffic
(ie. worms), but I dont want the government owning this surveillance. I
certainly dont want the internet to change only for the benefit of
commercial interests and governments wishing to stamp out political
dissent - that is belittling to the purpose of the internet.
1188, 834, 16051, The P-man, 1/8/2006 8:36:57 PM, Spoofing is good
example of the problem, A big cost to business that is most difficult
to prevent yourself (unlike security) is your address being spoofed to
send spam. This is nothing to do with Windows and there is little you
can do about it. Spoofing has its legitimate uses but could do with
tightening up. The problem is the way it is presented. If all email
clients made it clear that a from address and a return address are
different you wouldnt have a term like spoofing and thered be way less
confusion. Its a difficult balance to keep things simple as well but a
lot of it can be made less harmful through education and being more
open.
1243, 667, 16051, Rider, 1/11/2006, Slipery Slope, This new
internet will probably be used to decrease the amount of freedom on the
internet and give more control to our government.
1255, 0, 16051, Nart, 1/11/2006, It ain't broke. These guys are
just bored..., The internet today is the same thing it was decades ago.
An open platform for doing what we want to do with it. Problems only
arise when you do not use it safely. Just like walking down a dark
alley, you will eventually get into trouble. There is plenty of light
on the internet, but plenty of dark spaces too. Use good judgement,
keep you head about you, and surf/use correctly and legally and you
won't see 90% of the problems that are around. Individual problems can
be resolved by the use, like SPF for e-mail (why hasn't that taken off
yet?) and stop using peer-to-peer for things you should not be doing.
The i-net is just fine as it is. Any control would mean the end of the
world as we know it, and that would not be good.
1256, 0, 16051, webfrog, 1/11/2006, It does need to be fixed, I am
amazed at the narrow mindedness of the posts here. In my opinion the
Internet is in a sense broken and it does need to be revamped.
It
was never built with security in mind because it was initally a private
network between a select set of sites. It was designed to facilitate
the easy movement of information between dis-similar systems, oh and by
the way the government was already involved in the initial version
which later expanded into the internet. It was called ARPANET and was
devised by the U.S. DOD in the 60's
1299, 0, 16051, David Schurman in Berlin, 1/13/2006, no one will
trust a NEW US sponsored internet, ...given the current imperial US
regime's prediliction for spying, and general level of dishonesty, NO
ONE will move to a "new internet" sponsored or created in / by the US.
It will be like Microsoft products, full of as many holes as a Swiss
Cheeze...and all the trapdoors leading to NSA, etc.!
And the
arrogance that "perhaps some other labs than in US might take part"...
WAKE UP... you don't grasp the damage done to the US reputation by GWB
and Co.
1316, 0, 16051, Rahul, 1/15/2006, Internet unmasked,
The article comes none too soon.
However, what about the users who cannot get off it? Suffer till help is on the way? What is the estimated damage?