“Student’s Name”
“Institution Affiliation”
Introduction
In the past two decades, the growth of the internet has been paramount, providing one of the most important mediums of communication. Through the internet, users can send, receive, and share information. According to Statista (2016), the internet has 3.174 billion users as of December 31, 2015. Users have increased exponentially since 2010 with internet connection becoming a necessity for businesses and homes. However, growth in the number of users poses numerous challenges to Internet Service Providers (ISPs), who face a large number of traffic traversing their network. Some of the challenges include Denial of Service (DoS) attacks that occur over the internet and initiated by malicious attackers. Distributed DoS (DDoS) pose a grave danger to internet users, internet infrastructure, and organizations. In such attacks, liability can arguably belong to various groups of the internet (Rao & Upadhyaya, 2009). This study will attempt to establish whose liability is it when malicious traffic traverses the internet. Is it the end user, the software manufacturer, the operating system developer, or the internet service provider that is responsible for malicious traffic?
Malicious traffic traversing the internet
Technological advancement tends to make the internet a sophisticated platform of communication. Similarly, advancements are evident in gadgets and technological infrastructure supporting this technology (Rao & Upadhyaya, 2009). The consequence of such development is enhanced connectedness. More and more people are able to access the internet and realize the internet potential. The resultant is a huge number of users causing heavy traffic. Some users are noble while others not genuine. The traffic generated by internet user traverses through the ISP network. In ISP end, it is easy to determine authenticity and the non-genuine traffic. ISP can scrutinize traffic to determine if it is malicious or not. Common means of assessing if traffic is malicious or not, involves use of static-signature scan or anomaly detection techniques. Using these techniques, IP can reveal the malicious traffic that is either denial of service, or propagation of worm traffic. According to Lan, Hussain, and Dutta (n.d.), malicious internet users, can initiate attacks by sending a bulk request to a victim with the intention of exhausting the victims resources such as the server and hardware capability.
The intention of sending such a request may be intentional or non-intentional. This study terms such attack as malicious traffic. The malicious traffic may have great impact on the victim’s machine and internet resources. A malicious traffic has the ability of causing DNS latencies to rise by 230%, while increasing web latencies by about 30% (Rao & Upadhyaya, 2009). In such instances, the attacks render the target system useless. A real life instance is the attack by Russia on Georgian websites. The attack generated traffic utilizing DOS HTTP with the aim of attacking Georgia. Attackers could initiate the attack from anywhere, just through an internet connection. The website by the name “Stop Georgia” sent a flood of bogus requests to the internet server, consequently overwhelming the server capacity, rendering it unusable.
Managing and mitigating effects of malicious traffic is the responsibility of all parties involved with the internet. Fighting the effects of malicious traffic can be likened to a war that requires strategy in order to win (Berger, 2013). Clausewitz (2007) defines war as a chameleon while the concept of war is an extended duel. Nonetheless, the appearance of war always changes depending with the surrounding circumstances. In a similar reasoning, the internet attacks vary depending on circumstances. For instance, the attacker may use a victim’s computer or resources as the origin of an attack. This means compromising a victim’s computer. A packet of attack may also originate from whim of command architecture that is part of a botnet. Furthermore, attacks on network resources can be classified into three types and three phases that resemble Clausewitz’ trinity. These attacks include: (a) reconnaissance attacks that result in unauthorized data collection of vulnerabilities and system resources; (b) access attacks that attempt to gain access to the system, manipulate data, and elevate data privileges; and (c) Denial of Service (DOS) attacks that disable, corrupt, and crush network resources (Rao & Upadhyaya, 2009). The phases of the attack include objective, reconnaissance, and attack. With this floating trinity, the concept of malicious traffic reflects inherent unpredictability and complexity of attacks. Overall, the nature of malicious traffic can be conceptualized using Clausewitz’s Trinitarian approach.
Types of Liabilities
Similar to the war, the field of internet is not exempt from potential liabilities. In war, liability befalls various stakeholders of the war, including the militia, the military, citizens, and the government at large. Within the confines of internet use, liability binds all involved parties that partake in the use of the internet. This means anybody involved be it the software manufacturer, ISP, end user, or operating system developer has the responsibility of ensuring everyone takes responsibility for his/her action. All partakers in the internet ought to play their role in order to ensure there is no blame game among parties. Sun Tzu observes that to win a war then it is imperative to have a strategy that achieves national objectives with less destruction. This view promotes the ideology of engaging in constructive strategy that minimizes destruction from malicious traffic as well achieves the mitigation objectives.
Liability of malicious traffic can be either direct or indirect. In the indirect form, liability is termed downstream. This means that individual responsibility for damages resulting from security compromises in owning a business. Simply put, when a cybercriminal intrudes into a victim’s system and collects or infiltrates information in the system such as confidential information of the business, then, the victim may be held liable for damages resulting from the attack. A case in point is a legal case of AT&T v. Jiffy Lube International of 1993. In the case, Jiffy Lube International was hacked and personal information regarding telephone logs and communications stolen. Hackers used a PC to dial into Jiffy Lube’s PBX system and attack the system, consequently placing a flood of long distance calls that amounted to $56,000 in charges. According to the court ruling, Hackers used Jiffy as the mechanism and vehicle to place the long distance calls.
Where a business system becomes compromised and sensitive information retrieved, the business becomes liable for the attack. This means that the business, which hosts the infrastructure or systems that hold information, is liable to malicious traffic. This is because it is the responsibility of the business to protect that information regardless of the attack. Similar to a war, when a general issues command, he is responsible for execution of the command and the repercussion it has. When the military rejects or disobeys an order, it is responsible. In a similar fashion, those who serve as the custodians or users of the internet are responsible for malicious traffic.
Responsible bodies and recommended policies
Internet Service Providers: refers to organizations that provide internet access, web hosting, internet transit, and Usenet service to internet users. ISPs provide software or contribute to the development of software that facilitates internet access. ISPs are also responsible for hosting a range of websites for businesses. They provide the network infrastructure for which internet communication is relayed. As such, ISPs facilitate internet connection, thus serving as the backbone of the internet. ISPs are therefore responsible for any traffic traversing their network. This is because they ought to protect the internet users from malicious traffic. In addition, they have the capacity to assess and filter malicious traffic traversing through their network. ISPs are a key player in the field of internet security because they are facilitators of the internet. Such reasoning resonates with Clausewitz’s ideology of government as the facilitator of war. The government furnishes its army with war weapons, and means into war. Therefore, the government is responsible to ensuring the war does not harm innocent people and the casualties of that war remain significantly lower. In engaging with protection, the government deploys strategies that enhance the safety and security of its citizens. From this viewpoint, ISPs are the custodian of internet security. They are liable for malicious traffic that traverses their networks.
The best possible means of holding ISPs liable to malicious traffic are through insurance of service provider’s certification. This way, certification of ISPs signals quality and integrity on the part of the ISP, therefore attracting more customers for the provider . Unfortunately, the more the number of users an ISP attracts the more the likelihood of attracting malicious traffic. However, this approach may prompt ISPs to enhance their security measures in order to attract more customers. The problem with this approach is ISP will have to inspect and monitor packets traversing their networks, consequently depriving internet privacy.
Operating system developer
Operating system developer refers to organizations that develop program used on computers for operations. The operating system offers a platform for computer users to install applications and run programs from their end. Some of the commonly used operating systems include “Microsoft Windows XP. Linux, and Obuntu. Programs installed on a computer rely on the operating system in order to function. Programs such as the browser and antivirus application make use of the operating system in their functionality. The O.S. provides some certain level of security against malicious scripts that attempt to run on the computer. In addition, the O.S. has an inbuilt firewall that filters and blocks malicious content that has the potential of harming the O.S. Since computer users store information on the computers, it is possible while accessing the internet through the computer be attacked knowingly or unknowingly. The responsibility of operating system developers is to protect Operating System users from any malicious attacks that harm their systems. A secure Operating System would protect users sufficiently.
Software manufacturer
Software manufacturers have the responsibility of integrating security into software such that malicious traffic does not infiltrate the software. This would protect software users from attacks. For instance, security on a browser that blocks malicious traffic from accessing the software protects the user from adversities caused by the malicious traffic. Software manufacturers are also responsible for developing antivirus programs that can filter internet content, consequently protecting the users from malicious traffic.
End users
This refers to a group of internet users that utilize the internet to communicate, access information, and use internet for personal, group, organizational or commercial reasons. Hackers tend to take advantage of users to access their information consequently compromising on credibility, integrity, and privacy of data. In addition, malicious traffic targets users to crush their systems, steal information, and corrupt data, harming the victims. Nonetheless, end users have the responsibility of installing and using credible software, operating system, and strong passwords that protect them from security threats. Furthermore, user action while online ought to be responsible to ensure they do not access sites that compromise own network of organizational resources.
References
Berger G. (2013). Is Clausewitz or Sun Tzu more relevant to contemporary war. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/04/03/is-clausewitz-or-sun-tzu-more-relevant-to-understanding-contemporary-war-2/
Clausewitz, Carl. 2007. Carl von Clausewitz – On War. Translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Gupta, B. B., Joshi, R. C., & Misra, M. (2012, April 25). Dynamic and Auto Responsive Solution for Distributed Denial-of-Service Attacks Detection in ISP Network.
Kinukawa, S. (2012, June 24). Should ISPs be liable for negative externalities of botnets? Retrieved from Japan Law and Economics Association
Lan, K., Hussain, A., & Dutta, D. (n.d.). Effect of Malicious Traffic on the Network. Retrieved from Information Science Institute: http://www.isi.edu/div7/publication_files/effect_malicious.pdf
Mahmoud, A., Alrefai, A. S., Abu-Amara, M., Sqalli, M., & Azzedin, F. (2012, May 24). Qualitative Analysis of Methods for Circumventing.
Rao, H. R., & Upadhyaya, S. (2009). Handbook In Information Systems. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Rouse, M. (2014, June). operating system (OS). Retrieved from Techtarget.com: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/operating-system-OS
