Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (10904)	8/3/2005 11:40:59 PM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Frank, >>Moving on to the Nineties and beyond, narrowband made it almost essential that end points maintain their own data stores on hard drives of ever increasing size, or on system drives that were close to the user for direct attachment. Does broadband do anything today to help ameliorate this vulnerability?<< The Microsoft Mesh researchers found people don't want their bits on their neighbors computers. I bought a 1 GB Secure USB drive for $59.99 Sunday officemax.com A friend ordered a 2TB Lacie drive the other day to hold his videos lacie.com Some system drives will remain close to the user, broadband or not. Surrender. petere

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (10904)	8/4/2005 11:20:04 AM
From: fred g	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Frank, the Internet is insecure by design. The PSTN is secure by design. That's really all that matters. Recall that what we call the Internet is an extension of the original ARPAnet design, built for the private use of the government and its contractors. If you misbehaved, you could be penalized or cut off, and there was no anonymity. So through the 1980s, the Internet was pretty nice -- no spam, no break-ins to speak of. The Morris worm was newsworthy, and he got caught. And that worm was somewhat of an accident; Morris probably didn't intend it to be that virulent or get loose as it did. Usenet, which was a separate entity, was a bit of a toilet, but even that was not really anonymous, and not badly spammed until the 1990s. Since it was just a bunch of friends talking to each other, so to speak, insecurity was a feature. And the connectionless nature made it easier to hide, or do hit-and-runs, since it made accounting of connections essentially impossible. Contrast with the PSTN, where every call is logged someplace. And *67 is not much help to a miscreant, since it only prevents the recipient from knowing the caller's ID, not the networks along the way. The PSTN, on the other hand, always had connection accounting. That one feature did wonders for security, as did revenue protection (stopping a blue boxer protected revenues, but also prevented other security breaches). But it also had a more exclusive membership, with a distinction between "carrier" and "subscriber". So there are no big "pink" (spam-friendly, or their equivalent) phone carriers. Data locality and bandwidth are entirely secondary. A new Internet could be designed with security in mind. It would probably not be fully connectionless. But neither does it have to go into Deep Packet Inspection the way the Fat Wasteband (IMS, IPspheres) model does. Those are horrific kludges that claim to offer QoS benefits, but at a huge cost; a more connection-aware (but payload-unaware) network would offer the end user benefits without the unbridled potential for abuse.