> How would you force everyone to switch this "on"?
That's a political question. It would depend on the cooperation
of vendors and ISPs. Much as anything else on the Internet does.
> BTW why do you think that everyone everywhere is both so
> smart and cooperative to protect _you_ on _their_
> routers?
If a handful of biggies turn this on you can at least shortcut
the process of tracing the black hats down. You don't need
everyone everywhere.
> I always thought that if the protection
> lawyer is close to the attack target, and even better -- if
> the protection is owned and controlled by the target itself --
> then the chances of protection to work and to be maintained
> properly are better. Otherwise -- whom to blame? ;)
You blame the person who initiated the attack, of course.
Oh, you said "protection lawyer". Was that deliberate? It's
funny as hell.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
