The threat of viruses, spam and spoof etc. is always gross. If the Internet users should not finally turn back?
The damage, the Digital Storal Friede meanwhile are enormous. Companies and private users rushed up with ever new and chunken security systems and always hind a step afterwards. If the defensive is the right strategy or is not it finally time for the opposing? The New Scientist is trying on an atmospheric image.
Viruses, Wurmers and much other vermin can become the common user in his walks through the grid. Especially only the sasser virus wave is flooded, since it is the flood of right-wing extremist spam emails that the e-mail postcores is clogged and probably already successfully prepared with the Sober worm. Security concerns are now also plagued the most mostly internal Internet users. And who once experienced the digital GAU, which sometimes wants to pay virus and worm programmers not only in the imagination with the same munze.
Ruste or ward off?
End Marz has received the discussion about counter-attack techniques new upswing, when the IT security company Symbiot from Austin in Texas introduced the first commercially available software with automated strike back mechanism. For 10.000 US dollars per month, this is due to each company against denial-of-service and hacker attacks and may be able to show the polluter where the hammer is hanging.
Actually, firewalls with strike-back mechanism are no longer a new idea. But still they are extremely controversial. Your opponents argue with the network ethics and summoned bloodbades on the net if the Counterstrike Mental Totaler wins the upper hand. But internet crincentat has long since no marginal phenomena (of copyright infringements, fraud, spam, worm and search engines and Darwinism in Cyberspace: eats the internet his father?To)
Defense is expensive and expensive
With the number of users the abuse has risen. Jeff Schiller reported that invaders have dimmed several with-computer daily. The damage that the crackers do is rising rising. According to the science magazine, the number of registered vulnerates in the US from 2002 to 2003 is 82.094 to 137.529 increased.
Most companies are stapling to better protect themselves. But even if the defense is ideal and fast, hackers and virus programmers are usually one step ahead. It is a stable race that is time-consuming and expensive. People like Tim Mullen by Anchor-is bursts there sometime of the collar. After the Nimda worm had been convincing in the network and on private hard drives, he developed a demo software that he presented in 2002. She puts the virus over strength and sends the polluter a message to the screen. A friendly MUTEX so, which does not cause any further damage – yet Mullen bouts have plugged from all sides. For so harmless Counterstrike is not always, much more aggressive variants are conceivable.
Between "purely defensive" and "really aggressive": Symbiot "Isims"
The new symbiot product ISIMS, on the other hand, is a much more sharp number: as soon as the program notes a computer it is attacked, it analyzes the attack, sets the authors and analyzes the financial damage that can arise. Then it suggests defenses, but the customer decides on their execution. The possibilities are enough of "purely defensive" up to "really aggressive". as "purely defensive" The tagging applies to a code that adheres to the hacker in the system like a name tag and report it as such. As the last aids, ISIMS has a special code with which an attack can be terminated, bosy. How exactly works, the manufacturer is kept rather for itself. And since you are with symbiot woman, as sensitive the matter is hurried to add that this most populous resource is only available for repeated attacks of the same source and even if it was not successful, the problem together with providers and police to solve.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that ISIMS allows its customers to penetrate into other computers and that brings the critics in Rage. "This type of thinking dominates a small number of IT experts, which I call Hitzkopfe, because they only have revenge in their heads", Wetter Eugene Schultz from the Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, who has already advised the congress on IT security. Critics like he keep counterless for irresponsible because they can also meet uninvolved meetings.
"There are no innocent users"
But again a question mark again. Many want to talk about the uninvolved, not to be considered by the innocent user. Who moves on the net, demand them, must know the dangers and be prepared. You will like to look at that at Symbiot:
"An infected device that is no longer under the control of his owner is not innocent uninvolved anymore."
There are many scenarios how users can sacrifice. However, the opponents of Strike-Back programs are not interested in such minds, because they are already in principle. They are against a wet trust and against any kind of self-judiciary in the network. But what alternatives are there? More standards and the monitoring of their compliance? A kind of "Driver’s license" For Internet users? Less accurate software? A hundred percent secure network, so the conclusion of the New Scientist, goods of one in which there are only clearly defined activities, such as loading a website or reading e-mails. However, this is for many of the absolute worst case because this is the nature of the network completely opposite.
Does the discussion come to Spat?
Fair and balanced is the for and contrary to Counterstrikes discussed. No thought of the fact that the train may already have left because the guild of the spammers and virus programmers already professionalized to serve organized criminality and promptly protect cyber epidemics that make the network to the place of worse virtual bloodbades than that of some Imagine imaginable.