Blue Security Gives up the Fight 672
bblboy54 writes "According to The Washington Post, Blue Security has closed its doors, which can be confirmed by the Blue Security application failing to work today and their domain no longer resolving. Blue Security's CEO is quoted in the article: "It's clear to us that [quitting] would be the only thing to prevent a full-scale cyber-war that we just don't have the authority to start," Reshef said. "Our users never signed up for this kind of thing." You have to wonder where it goes from here. It seems an effective method has been found but more than a small private company could handle. Will someone else adapt this concept, or does the internet world give up?"
Re:Third Choice? (Score:2, Funny)
Ugh. (Score:2, Funny)
http://www.stormloader.com/garyes/its/#top [stormloader.com]
It's not that hard.
Re:Third Choice? (Score:5, Funny)
authority? (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, not having the authority to do it didn't stop them before...
Re:Third Choice? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, yeah...but how much money did you make?
Re:P2P perhaps? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Take a page from SETI (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, it's that annoying.
Maybe Sealand wants to start a Special Forces unit or something.
Re:Too bad. (Score:5, Funny)
Water and foam both put out fire by lowering the temperature and depriving the combustible material of oxygen. This requires enough foam or water to completely saturate the area already burning, with a bit extra on the edges to prevent fresh fuel from igniting. That works well on a small scale (a single house), but very poorly on widespread forest or brush fires.
"Fighting fire with fire" means a controlled burn going inward toward the source of the fire. Done correctly, by the time the controlled burn meets the core of the fire, it has left in its wake a wide swath of already-consumed and partially-cooled fuel. Thus, the fire can't contine spreading outward along that same path. Completely surround the fire with such already-burned zones, and the fire can't do anything but burn itself out in-place.
Rather than needing to saturate the existing fire and its edges, this only requires defending a single line against spreading in the wrong direction - And preparation for that can start before igniting the controlled burn (such as by pre-saturating the area and/or clear-cutting a narrow strip bordering the target burn).
Extending the metaphor to to anti-spam techniques, think of the above description as DOS'ing the core of the fire. If we saturate the spammers' network connections, they have no more bandwidth to consume in spreading their crapfloods outward to the world. Continue until bandwidth costs "consume" the bank-accounts of the spammers (or more realistically, they cut their losses and run), and the spammer goes under (at least temporarily).
Now personally, I'd rather mix metaphors and literally fight spam with fire - Track these less-than-worthless bastards down and surround their offices or houses with a ring of fire moving in toward the core. Then roast marshmallows over their charred corpses as we sing "We Shall Overcome".
But, the law frowns on that, so I'll have to settle for simply helping to put them out of business.
Re:Take a page from SETI (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We are ALL "owned" (Score:5, Funny)
Only if your INBOX is a vagina.
Re:When the going gets tough... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This works . 100% effective in killing off spam (Score:4, Funny)
Re:When the going gets tough... (Score:3, Funny)