Security threats Toolkit

Story: With ISPs like these, who needs enemies?

• 
• 

Dear Andrew,

You present an interesting article. I have worked in the Internet industry for over ten years and have had cause to work with, and for a variety of ISPs in that time. I am confused by the stance that you have taken.

The vast majority of ISP customers are not targets for DDOS attacks. Those that are target are readily identifiable (high profile, sensitive) and tend to be larger customers with more money than most - Gambling sites often fall into that category. It is in these larger sites commercial interest to try and get ISPs to deliver protection "for free" - it improves their return to their shareholders.

If ISPs took on the burden of protection against DDOS for all customers (which is expensive overkill as most are not targets), then the general cost of connectivity will increase - basically increasing the costs for all ISP customers for resolving a problem that only a fraction of the wealthier customers have.

Surely it's better at the moment to implement point defences for those one or two customers who have the money (the cost of these systems is not extortionate compared to the potential loss of revenue) - and the incentive to protect their systems, rather than charging a DDOS tax on general connectivity for smaller, less wealthy customers who will never be a target of a DDOS attack?

Your article seems to heavily side with betting sites without seeing them as a business concern looking to spend less money. Perhaps it's easy to paint ISPs as uncaring, unfeeling corporates, but then interviewing just BT and C&W is hardly a comprehensive or representative view of the UK ISP market.

Of course, the argument might be considerably different for anti-virus and malware protection which is of much more general concern to all connected companies. I think your article would have more mileage if it looked at how common these attack modes are for all customers and how ISPs deal with them, not just the high profile elite faced with an unusual attack mechanism.

I feel like you are advocating a general increase in the cost of car insurance to pay for the potential loss of flash alloys. Not everyone has them and I don't see a problem with charging those customers who chose to have alloys a premium for a bit of extra protection.

Best

Max

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread