celejar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday 27 October 2006 11:18, celejar wrote: > > > On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There is a loophole in the above argument. Some of the ISPs charge by > > > > the > > > > amount of traffic an individual user uses. If a spammer uses a zombie > > > > operation and starts sending spam from these zombie machines, it > > > > increases the net amount of bandwidth the user uses, resulting in higher > > > > internet bills, and hence more income for the ISP. So shutting down the > > > > zombie computers will infact result in reduction of revenues for ISPs. > > > > > > Are you assuming that the zombied machines are also the ISP's customers? > > > > > > Celejar > > > > I am not sure I understood your question completely. Say I buy internet > > service from ISP X which charges $Y per GB of traffic used. Say my machine > > has been hacked and is sending spam. Now I have to pay more money to the ISP > > since I will be using more bandwidth than I otherwise would have. In this > > case, I (the ISP customer) own the 'zombied' machine. Does that answer your > > question? > > > > raju > > I didn't realize that you were referring to the situation where the > zombied machine's (rather than the spammers) ISP charges by bandwidth. > In this case, though, the customers could join as plaintiffs (when > they learn that their ISP bills have been inflated by the zombier > spammer).
Only if they can find the cracker. But they might still realize how important security is, which most Windows users don't have a clue about (AFAIK most zombie machines are running unprotected Windows). Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
