Re: Packet blocking between ftoomsh and outside UTS.

Dennis Clark ((no email))
Wed, 17 May 1995 17:11:22 +1000 (EST)

In previous mail, Kirk Nesbitt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 May 1995, Ian Woolf wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 May 1995, Dennis Clark wrote:
> >
> > > As some of you may have already discovered, with the exception of mail
> > > all IP packets (both incoming and outgoing) between ftoomsh and sites
> > > outside the University are being blocked. This has been done by ITD on
> > > the request of the ProgSoc Executive. Currently the duration of this
> > > blocking is indefinite.
> >
> > I'm no longer a UTS student, do I get banned from telnetting into
> > ftoomsh, and ftping files to and from? Will my Web page still be
> > accessible from outside UTS? Why not just blackban the abusers permanently?
> > This blanket approach is too indiscriminate.
> >
> I agree with Ian. This approach totally sucks. It punishes the people
> who are using ftoomsh correctly i.e according to the acceptable usage
> policy. When ftoomsh is no longer connected to the net it will be a sad

Have you read the current Acceptable Usage Policy? If you haven't
noticed it is quite loosely worded and highly subject to interpretation.
For example the AUP item most relevant to these activities of concern
says "Be considerate to other users of the system: do not harrass or
impede other users". It doesn't say *ANYTHING* about harassing users of
_OTHER_ systems. In fact the only clear no-no I've found in the whole
policy is the act of illicitly obtaining root access on ftoomsh.

> day, and lets face it it is going to happen if something drastic isn't
> done now. The users in question need to be blackbanned, never allowed on to
> ftoomsh again *EVER* no second chances or piss weak slaps on the wrist,
> just get off of our machine and never let me see you around here again

We have gotten at least one reply from a user found engaging in these
activities saying "I didn't know we weren't allowed to do this kind of
thing - if I did I wouldn't have done it". As much as I hate to admit
it, they have a point. It is extremely difficult to crucify people for
doing something when you haven't made it PERFECTLY clear they weren't
allowed to do it in the first place, and we haven't.

> sort of thing. I also think that we should ban the use of IRC, because it
> seems to easily abused, and is pointless, Telnet, FTP and HTTP are much
> more important and could actually be used in the real world for benefit
> i.e. to get a job.

What makes you think telnet, FTP and HTTP is any less prone to abuse
than IRC? In fact I would argue the contrary. Telnet allows
non-members to obtain access to ftoomsh accounts. FTP and HTTP allows
users to store and distribute pirated software. IRC is being singled
out because its abuse is much more visible to other users (particularly
outside the University) than other services.

The reason why we we're blocking everything is because Phil and I have
realised that things are out of control on ftoomsh. To me this is a
more serious problem than the actual incidents themselves, as without
the proper controls we can only expect more of the same. Blocking
packets will allow us to regain some control until we can put in place
the right policies and procedures.

--
Dennis Clark                             President, Programmers' Society
dbugger@nospam.ftoomsh.socs.uts.edu.au         University of Technology, Sydney
                "Clear code is a product of clear thought."