One of the things discussed at the (excellent, thanks everyone) NZNOG 2004 conference was that the Internet sucks, and that a large portion of this suckage is due to ignorant n00bs who do the wrong thing, get 0wned, etc. It was suggested that the "only" fix to this problem was to kill the end to end Internet, making the "Internet" a core exchange network (a la telco style), and allowing users only access to a local proxy at their ISP for a very limited set of services. Aside from my objection that this won't help much except in the short term (plenty of protocols already tunnel around such firewall limitations -- eg, look at everything that's been tunneled through HTTP), this really sucks for the l33t who find it awfully restrictive. An alternative approach to that type of thing is possibly just to heavily firewall -- at the ISP end of the link -- connections to all "potential n00b" users (SMTP to ISP mail server, POP/IMAP/HTTP/HTTPS to whereever and a few other common things) by default. And then provide an "opt out" system that anyone with a clue can use to disable the default firewalling. I would suggest: telnet ihaveaclue.$ISP where you have to enter "My name is $NAME, and I have a clue" (with $NAME expanded, but otherwise literally). Possibly that setting could be sticky; possibly it would need to be done on each reconnection.[0] The remaining aspect is that anyone who claimed to have a clue in this manner and then lets something on their connection get 0wned or otherwise abuses the privilege, (a) loses the ability to unblock themselves, and (b) gets their name published on a list of shame. This could pretty much be implemented today by anyone with a firewall (or customer facing ACLs) which can be set on a per-customer basis. Various RAS boxes have this sort of facility already; at least one ISP I know of firewalls accounts that are over due so they can reach the accounting website and that's about it. The alternative seems to be that the clueful will just tunnel everything through whatever still works. Tunnelling through DNS requests is painful but doable; tunnelling through most other things is almost tolerably efficient by comparision. And I guess bandwidth is cheap enough now that we can cope with a 20-50% overhead due to tunnelling.[1] Ewen [0] Anyone who can't automate doing it on each reconnection doesn't have a clue. [1] Still, it'll make the ATM tax look cheap.
On 2/1/04, ewen(a)naos.co.nz thus spake:
It was suggested that the "only" fix to this problem was to kill the end to end Internet, making the "Internet" a core exchange network (a la telco style), and allowing users only access to a local proxy at their ISP for a very limited set of services.
I suspect a combination of the two approaches makes sense. Assuming the signal-noise ratio becoming so skewed that Dean's Nana goes back to the PSTN, a core-exchange setup would allow the ISP to provide a value- add (and charge extra for it). It allows Nana to have a usable signal- noise ratio, presumably relieves her of worries about windoze virus-du- jour, and it allows the 1337 to have a normal (and assumedly cheaper) connection. In combination with some sort of ban list, n00b5 who opted for the cheap connection and got 0wned would theoretically get pushed into the core bit or disconnected altogether, and those wishing for legos and competent to play with them are still set. Obviously the default would be to put n00b5 into the core-exchange group. I do suspect that once the noise level gets too high the non-1337 will be actively seeking a solution and be more than happy to pay for it-brightmail is an excellent example of an early implementation of this(non-1337 fork over extra cash for an ISP offering a brightmail policed account, 1337 implement spamassassin or some other procmail sanitizer type solution). So I suppose what I'm proposing here differs from your proposition mainly in that I think there could be a place for a core-exchange, in addition to a 1337 opt-out. I don't think that using existing firewalling and such will be sufficient, precisely because of the tunneling holes. If an ACL is the primary method of protection, the spam/malware crowd will just find a way to tunnel their wares. A core-exchange type setup would presumably make it very difficult to get into the exchange without coming from one of the big players (such that I guess you'd have to somehow tunnel into the core, gain authorization, and distribute to the core users-a properly designed core system would make this a tall order). I do see one obvious problem though-deciding what sort of transgressions are sufficient to force n00b5 into core-exchange would be troublesome. Also, one would hope that there would be some way for them to redeem themselves. Some n00b5 get 1337, and being banned for life because they were once 14 and king of the world would suck. Perhaps some sort of PGP-ish web of trust solution could work. Though that raises a lot of administrative problems as well. And maybe this is all just hot air and the 1337 will find their Valinor. Regards, Ed Hintz ed(a)hintz.org
Are you serious or was this just a "piss take"? Cheers Don On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:39:59 +1300, Edmund A. Hintz wrote
On 2/1/04, ewen(a)naos.co.nz thus spake:
It was suggested that the "only" fix to this problem was to kill the end to end Internet, making the "Internet" a core exchange network (a la telco style), and allowing users only access to a local proxy at their ISP for a very limited set of services.
I suspect a combination of the two approaches makes sense. Assuming the signal-noise ratio becoming so skewed that Dean's Nana goes back to the PSTN, a core-exchange setup would allow the ISP to provide a value- add (and charge extra for it). It allows Nana to have a usable signal- noise ratio, presumably relieves her of worries about windoze virus-du- jour, and it allows the 1337 to have a normal (and assumedly cheaper) connection. In combination with some sort of ban list, n00b5 who opted for the cheap connection and got 0wned would theoretically get pushed into the core bit or disconnected altogether, and those wishing for legos and competent to play with them are still set. Obviously the default would be to put n00b5 into the core-exchange group. I do suspect that once the noise level gets too high the non-1337 will be actively seeking a solution and be more than happy to pay for it-brightmail is an excellent example of an early implementation of this(non-1337 fork over extra cash for an ISP offering a brightmail policed account, 1337 implement spamassassin or some other procmail sanitizer type solution).
So I suppose what I'm proposing here differs from your proposition mainly in that I think there could be a place for a core- exchange, in addition to a 1337 opt-out. I don't think that using existing firewalling and such will be sufficient, precisely because of the tunneling holes. If an ACL is the primary method of protection, the spam/malware crowd will just find a way to tunnel their wares. A core-exchange type setup would presumably make it very difficult to get into the exchange without coming from one of the big players (such that I guess you'd have to somehow tunnel into the core, gain authorization, and distribute to the core users-a properly designed core system would make this a tall order).
I do see one obvious problem though-deciding what sort of transgressions are sufficient to force n00b5 into core-exchange would be troublesome. Also, one would hope that there would be some way for them to redeem themselves. Some n00b5 get 1337, and being banned for life because they were once 14 and king of the world would suck. Perhaps some sort of PGP-ish web of trust solution could work. Though that raises a lot of administrative problems as well. And maybe this is all just hot air and the 1337 will find their Valinor.
Regards,
Ed Hintz ed(a)hintz.org
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- Don Gould Ask not what your telephone company should do for you... ...but what you can do for your community!
On 2/1/04, dig(a)bvc.com.au thus spake:
Are you serious or was this just a "piss take"?
I do think Geoff had a very valid point in his "trashing of the commons" talk-once the signal-noise ratio deteriorates to a sufficient level, normal people (the toaster crowd) will walk. I admit I don't much care for the core-exchange idea, but I do see it as somewhat inevitable if things don't change. And I don't see the authors of spam/malware/DOS- software changing their behavior, therefore somethings gotta give. And the folks forking over the cash will be the ones to drive that change- there will be a huge business for those providing them an out-of-box improved signal. All that being said, the core-exchange system really needs some sort of opt-out as well. Mind you, I'm not saying that I think the core-exchange concept is precisely the solution, but OTOH I don't see any others. And again, I don't like it, but as long as there exist persons who will abuse the commons I see it as inevitable. It's already started, I know more than a few folks in the toaster crowd that are using the net less and less because they're finding the noise ratio unacceptable. So, in direct reply to your question, the answer is yes, I'm serious. And it sucks in a rather major fashion to have this viewpoint. Regards, Ed Hintz ed(a)hintz.org
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:33:48 +1300, Edmund A. Hintz wrote
On 2/1/04, dig(a)bvc.com.au thus spake:
Are you serious or was this just a "piss take"?
I do think Geoff had a very valid point in his "trashing of the commons" talk-once the signal-noise ratio deteriorates to a sufficient level, normal people (the toaster crowd) will walk.
Oh, so that's how it all started... I'm sorry I missed the confrence... I would have loved to be there as well but with other things it just wasn't a happening thing this year... :( Sounds like you guys had some great debate happening. Cheers Don
I admit I don't much care for the core-exchange idea, but I do see it as somewhat inevitable if things don't change. And I don't see the authors of spam/malware/DOS- software changing their behavior, therefore somethings gotta give. And the folks forking over the cash will be the ones to drive that change- there will be a huge business for those providing them an out-of-box improved signal. All that being said, the core-exchange system really needs some sort of opt- out as well. Mind you, I'm not saying that I think the core-exchange concept is precisely the solution, but OTOH I don't see any others. And again, I don't like it, but as long as there exist persons who will abuse the commons I see it as inevitable. It's already started, I know more than a few folks in the toaster crowd that are using the net less and less because they're finding the noise ratio unacceptable.
So, in direct reply to your question, the answer is yes, I'm serious. And it sucks in a rather major fashion to have this viewpoint.
Regards,
Ed Hintz ed(a)hintz.org
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- Don Gould Ask not what your telephone company should do for you... ...but what you can do for your community!
Instead of limiting (or what I like to call mothering) users why not educate them? I don't think it would take much to organise a small non-profit org. or suggest some other org. take on the responsibility. I'm not talking about TV Adverts (why waste the money!) but simple banner ad's with simple Tips. It doesn't take much to have a fairly secure machine (even if it is Windows the user is running). I kind of sense a "one track mind" approach to the issue at hand. There are plenty of alternatives, personally I don't think tightning the rope is going to help improve the Internet. Then again - if someone does startup a service similar to what is being discussed, I think 'Boa' is a good name. That's my 2 cents. Cheers, Anaru http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings Send your love online with Yahoo! Greetings - FREE!
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Anaru Hartley wrote:
Instead of limiting (or what I like to call mothering) users why not educate them? I don't think it would take much to organise a small non-profit org. or suggest some other org. take on the responsibility.
I'm not talking about TV Adverts (why waste the money!) but simple banner ad's with simple Tips. It doesn't take much to have a fairly secure machine (even if it is Windows the user is running).
I'm all in favour of a user-education scheme but the point also needs to be made - user needs to want to learn! In my experience theres a few different classes of Internet user: - Those who use it for fun as a means to an end (eg to communicate with friends or find information.) - Those who use it for business as a means to an end (Business websites, email and other similar transactions. Business users who see it as a tool.) - Those who use it for personal reasons but recreationally as well as for other purposes. (eg people who Enjoy using the Internet And Computers, for whatever reason - but its not just a means to an end. Most geeks would probably fit in here. - Those who use it in business and are at the same time fascinated by the potential of the Internet, or perhaps excited enough by what you can get up to that they might begin to fit into the former category soon. Do you suppose that people in category 2 (I would say a vast majority of business users) really care about anything more about their 'end' where the Internet is the means? Eg if they point and click and it works does it matter about the how? Eg if they open an email and it contains their files, do they care that the next one on is going to make their internet run slow? Or that its going to inconvenience others? Why be phased if it has no impact on their first-person experience? In my personal opinion - this whole email reflects nothing else - theres a market for the 'restricted' view of the Internet as long as that restriction doesnt infringe on anyones privacy, and doesnt hinder the end goal. I'm sure theres a group of users out there who'd be happy to learn some new tricks - eg, how to take appropriate care when opening attatchments, keep their AV uptodate, all that sort of thing. Unfortunately the 'problem users' are the ones who quite frankly arent phased - the most effort theyre likely to put in is in signing up for an account where its all done for them (at no extra charge).... Just my thoughts. :) Mark.
I'm all in favour of a user-education scheme but the point also needs to be made - user needs to want to learn!
Take a look at those Fire adverts ("C'mon Guys get Firewise") I think maybe educate was the wrong word to use, but those fire adverts get to you. It all works on the human pysche. That's the type of approach I am talking about, classes would be good, but no one would go to it unless you were a loner-geek who just wanted attention (sorry if I offend).
Why be phased if it has no impact on their first-person experience?
It depends on the type of business, my boss is very phased about security but at the same time could be classed as what you defined above. But when people see news articles about a new virus that "allows hackers" to access their computer; people get paranoid. Maybe this type of thing can be used to create a positive effect. IMHO news articles like that create fear and a big mis-understanding - which in turns - amplifies the stupidity of users, or creates new idiots.
In my personal opinion - this whole email reflects nothing else - theres a market for the 'restricted' view of the Internet
Either way - it will create business for some, and strip others. http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings Send your love online with Yahoo! Greetings - FREE!
On Sun, 2004-02-01 at 15:11, Anaru Hartley wrote:
Instead of limiting (or what I like to call mothering) users why not educate them? I don't think it would take much to organise a small non-profit org. or suggest some other org. take on the responsibility.
I was hoping someone would make this point. Rather than putting people down, they should be educated and supported. Only if they refuse to co-operate should they be considered for sanction. (0)
I'm not talking about TV Adverts (why waste the money!) but simple banner ad's with simple Tips. It doesn't take much to have a fairly secure machine (even if it is Windows the user is running).
They need also to understand why it is important....and that will take time. Many people can't grasp that because they have never learned the other 15 or 20 concepts you need to know first.
I kind of sense a "one track mind" approach to the issue at hand. There are plenty of alternatives, personally I don't think tightning the rope is going to help improve the Internet.
True. All you need is one ISP who offers "real" Internet....and everyone would flock there. I know I would, if that was the choice.
Then again - if someone does startup a service similar to what is being discussed, I think 'Boa' is a good name. That's my 2 cents.
If you promoted this limited service set as protection, it might work from a marketing point of view..... How would you handle roaming users? 0- death - As Ewen suggested.
Hi Ewen, I like you have been thinking about Geoff's provocative presentation, and also Dean's incisive ;-) , witty analysis of why the Internet sucks. Standing back a bit isn't what has been discussed simply an angle on wholesale connectivity (lego set) and retail service (toaster). Also - like you suggest - it's fairly straight forward to offer both at the same time - all we need to do is work out a "protocol" for determining whether those requesting lego connectivity when connected will not break it for the rest of us. Is being in the NZNOG 'community' exactly a way of working that out? To me what is interesting however, is working out an architecture to deliver n00b Internet. Perhaps a return to the mainframe/thin client? ;-) - but then there's all these complicated trust issues. Dammit. jamie On Sun, 2004-02-01 at 11:17, Ewen McNeill wrote:
One of the things discussed at the (excellent, thanks everyone) NZNOG 2004 conference was that the Internet sucks, and that a large portion of this suckage is due to ignorant n00bs who do the wrong thing, get 0wned, etc.
It was suggested that the "only" fix to this problem was to kill the end to end Internet, making the "Internet" a core exchange network (a la telco style), and allowing users only access to a local proxy at their ISP for a very limited set of services.
Aside from my objection that this won't help much except in the short term (plenty of protocols already tunnel around such firewall limitations -- eg, look at everything that's been tunneled through HTTP), this really sucks for the l33t who find it awfully restrictive.
An alternative approach to that type of thing is possibly just to heavily firewall -- at the ISP end of the link -- connections to all "potential n00b" users (SMTP to ISP mail server, POP/IMAP/HTTP/HTTPS to whereever and a few other common things) by default.
And then provide an "opt out" system that anyone with a clue can use to disable the default firewalling. I would suggest:
telnet ihaveaclue.$ISP
where you have to enter "My name is $NAME, and I have a clue" (with $NAME expanded, but otherwise literally). Possibly that setting could be sticky; possibly it would need to be done on each reconnection.[0]
The remaining aspect is that anyone who claimed to have a clue in this manner and then lets something on their connection get 0wned or otherwise abuses the privilege, (a) loses the ability to unblock themselves, and (b) gets their name published on a list of shame.
This could pretty much be implemented today by anyone with a firewall (or customer facing ACLs) which can be set on a per-customer basis. Various RAS boxes have this sort of facility already; at least one ISP I know of firewalls accounts that are over due so they can reach the accounting website and that's about it.
The alternative seems to be that the clueful will just tunnel everything through whatever still works. Tunnelling through DNS requests is painful but doable; tunnelling through most other things is almost tolerably efficient by comparision. And I guess bandwidth is cheap enough now that we can cope with a 20-50% overhead due to tunnelling.[1]
Ewen
[0] Anyone who can't automate doing it on each reconnection doesn't have a clue.
[1] Still, it'll make the ATM tax look cheap. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
There's something wrong about neutering the 'Net for newbies instead of going after those who spoil it for them. Given how spammers, phishers, crackers, VXers et al have so far managed to work around every countermeasure devised against them, I have reason to believe even NewbieNet would only be a temporary fix. -- Juha
Dear Ewen, What an interesting rant! I agree that the net has become frustrating for power users and hear your cry loud and clear. My recommendation for you is a holiday away from the net. If all power users were to take a 3 month holiday, the whole net would stop working. Some times the best way to fix something is to allow it to break to the point where it just doesn't work at all. I'm sure all readers can work out what happens next :) Cheers Don On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:17:17 +1300, Ewen McNeill wrote
One of the things discussed at the (excellent, thanks everyone) NZNOG 2004 conference was that the Internet sucks, and that a large portion of this suckage is due to ignorant n00bs who do the wrong thing, get 0wned, etc.
It was suggested that the "only" fix to this problem was to kill the end to end Internet, making the "Internet" a core exchange network (a la telco style), and allowing users only access to a local proxy at their ISP for a very limited set of services.
Aside from my objection that this won't help much except in the short term (plenty of protocols already tunnel around such firewall limitations -- eg, look at everything that's been tunneled through HTTP), this really sucks for the l33t who find it awfully restrictive.
An alternative approach to that type of thing is possibly just to heavily firewall -- at the ISP end of the link -- connections to all "potential n00b" users (SMTP to ISP mail server, POP/IMAP/HTTP/HTTPS to whereever and a few other common things) by default.
And then provide an "opt out" system that anyone with a clue can use to disable the default firewalling. I would suggest:
telnet ihaveaclue.$ISP
where you have to enter "My name is $NAME, and I have a clue" (with $NAME expanded, but otherwise literally). Possibly that setting could be sticky; possibly it would need to be done on each reconnection.[0]
The remaining aspect is that anyone who claimed to have a clue in this manner and then lets something on their connection get 0wned or otherwise abuses the privilege, (a) loses the ability to unblock themselves, and (b) gets their name published on a list of shame.
This could pretty much be implemented today by anyone with a firewall (or customer facing ACLs) which can be set on a per-customer basis. Various RAS boxes have this sort of facility already; at least one ISP I know of firewalls accounts that are over due so they can reach the accounting website and that's about it.
The alternative seems to be that the clueful will just tunnel everything through whatever still works. Tunnelling through DNS requests is painful but doable; tunnelling through most other things is almost tolerably efficient by comparision. And I guess bandwidth is cheap enough now that we can cope with a 20-50% overhead due to tunnelling.[1]
Ewen
[0] Anyone who can't automate doing it on each reconnection doesn't have a clue.
[1] Still, it'll make the ATM tax look cheap. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- Don Gould Ask not what your telephone company should do for you... ...but what you can do for your community!
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 11:17 +1300, Ewen McNeill wrote:
This could pretty much be implemented today by anyone with a firewall (or customer facing ACLs) which can be set on a per-customer basis.
And has, after all, its really about taking the corporate Internet user model and offering it to ISP customers. In the past the ISP customer has had greater freedom than the corporate cubicle (non-IT) user because they are perceived to be paying for the service. Now we have the irony of paying (probably extra) to have those old consumer ISP freedoms limited even more... But that its ironic doesn't make it stupid. The general idea you appear to me to be espousing is a Ham radio model, the careless and clueless get recievers that at worst do limited harm and those who pass the licence can get direct to the ether... My hope is that both problems, interference caused by poorly configured terminals in an unlicensed "spectrum," will be solved by smarter terminals than in centrist licensing and control. There are other networks if people find the Internet unrewarding, perhaps that diversity is a good idea too.
Ewen
Hamish. PS. On the "core exchange" concept that has been mentioned, I was reminded by someone at a large telco recently that "core" no longer refers to a central single location, unless you want it to. I think he meant almost any service (various "n00b Internet" options for example) can be delivered from the "edge" (using some of that tunnelling technology...) -- We succeed in enterprises which demand the positive qualities we possess, but we excel in those which can also make use of our defects. -- Alexis de Tocqueville
On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 00:17, Ewen McNeill wrote:
An alternative approach to that type of thing is possibly just to heavily firewall -- at the ISP end of the link -- connections to all "potential n00b" users (SMTP to ISP mail server, POP/IMAP/HTTP/HTTPS to whereever and a few other common things) by default.
In a sense this is what we do at the university. All addresses are heavily firewalled by default but departmental IT support staff can set up (with a few restrictions) pretty what ever they want (or will be when I implement the next set of changes when I get back from leave -- for some reason nobody liked the idea of me doing just before I disappeared for a month). The current system is based on a large (and confusing :( ) set of access classes because that was the way our old firewall worked. We now are using OBSD's pf and I have written a nice web/mysql interface as part of our network management system that will allow much more flexibility. This system works well. I do occasional sanity checks and every now and again I will question why something is set up the way it is (usually there is a good explanation, but sometime people have misunderstood requirements or have simply open things right up to get something going and either forgot or not bothered to tighten things up again). We also do extensive monitoring of both in bound and out bound traffic and (although we don't do it) you could automatically quarantine users that appear to be infected or 0wned. A quarantined user could still get to their email which would tell them what was happening and to the support web site that would give them guidance in what to do, but would isolate them from the 'Net at large. In case anyone is interested what we actually do when we find that machines have problems is contact the departmental or faculty IT support staff who deal with it. In the case where there is evidence of active 'cracker' activity we isolate the machine at the firewall, but this is a manual process. I believe that network administrators (both corporate and ISP) need to be proactive in looking for trouble and to have effective means of dealing with machines that are causing it. It has been quite a while since I looked but it it very clear from the monitoring that I do which NZ ISPs are proactive in this area and which are not. At the moment I suspect this simply reflects the how the respective ISPs deal with abuse notices. -- Russell Fulton /~\ The ASCII Network Security Officer \ / Ribbon Campaign The University of Auckland X Against HTML New Zealand / \ Email!
Russell Fulton
I believe that network administrators (both corporate and ISP) need to be proactive in looking for trouble and to have effective means of dealing with machines that are causing it.
At this site, snort/ACID is proving amazingly handy, especially when portscan.log is monitored as well, and for example we look at boxes which are racking up a lot of outbound firewall denies on 25/tcp and ports 135-139 etc. But then our network model is particularly snort-friendly. cheers, Jamie -- James Riden / j.riden(a)massey.ac.nz / Systems Security Engineer Information Technology Services, Massey University, NZ. GPG public key available at: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~jriden/
The problem with something like snort is when someone tries a code snippet like sneeze (http://www.securiteam.com/tools/5DP0T0AB5G.html) you will soon find that snort / acid has its draw back (even with many many filters it can be a hard thing to track legit traffic from sneeze traffic). Unless of couse snort has had upgrades to fix agaisn't sneeze like traffic =] This is of course, true for any sort of IDS. Cheers, M -----Original Message----- From: James Riden [mailto:j.riden(a)massey.ac.nz] At this site, snort/ACID is proving amazingly handy, especially when portscan.log is monitored as well, and for example we look at boxes which are racking up a lot of outbound firewall denies on 25/tcp and ports 135-139 etc. But then our network model is particularly snort-friendly. cheers, Jamie -- James Riden / j.riden(a)massey.ac.nz / Systems Security Engineer Information Technology Services, Massey University, NZ. GPG public key available at: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~jriden/
Mark Piper
The problem with something like snort is when someone tries a code snippet like sneeze (http://www.securiteam.com/tools/5DP0T0AB5G.html) you will soon find that snort / acid has its draw back (even with many many filters it can be a hard thing to track legit traffic from sneeze traffic).
Yes, a determined attacker can find ways to break things. But it does track casual attempts and worm traffic pretty well; and that's been most of our problems up 'til now. (touch wood :) Jamie -- James Riden / j.riden(a)massey.ac.nz / Systems Security Engineer Information Technology Services, Massey University, NZ. GPG public key available at: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~jriden/
participants (12)
-
Anaru Hartley -
Don Gould - BVC -
Edmund A. Hintz -
Ewen McNeill -
Hamish MacEwan -
James Riden -
Jamie Baddeley -
Juha Saarinen -
Mark Foster -
Mark Piper -
Russell Fulton -
Steve Withers