@EXT: FW: Last Call - 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status
Dear All, I would have some comments about the previous points that mentions Europol Thanks for your cooperation spirit Regards Emmanuel Kessler -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Kai 'wusel' Siering via address-policy-wg Sent: vendredi 5 avril 2024 21:41 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Last Call - 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status Moin, am 05.04.24 um 16:51 schrieb denis walker:
I used to wonder why no one would even talk about bringing the RIPE Database into the modern world. Because this is address-policy (»The Address Policy Working Group develops policies relating to the management and registration of Internet number resources.«), not database (»The Database Working Group deals […]«).
Europol has expressed serious concerns about these changes. Europol has the means to challenge the maintainer of the address space for more information on individual usage; there is no real thread to Europol's operation by the change, it might just become less convenient to get the wanted information.
--> Sorry, but reading this, I observe that you may indeed have only a fuzzy/limited idea of what Europol does, and the impact on LE operations.. As knowing the scope of Europol and digital investigation (we work here), we repeat that the matter is not only being less convenient. The matter is the loss of opportunities of identification that will vanish for investigators...
If someone had informed them earlier of the changes being considered that may affect them, Well, this is happening all in the open. IF Europol is depending so greatly on the RIPE DB, they SHOULD be following the PDP already for years and years and voiced their concerns more timely.
--> the matter is not just Europol, but the impact on investigations of LE services....Europol has been regularly well active in various working groups of RIPE... Please consider that capacities of investigators are impacted by a large number of negotiation processes : at E-governance level (ICANN, RIPE,..), UN treaties, Council of Europe conventions, numerous EU legislations (Nis2, E-evidence package, DSA,...), national levels ones... (and I may forget some..?!).... linked with judicial cooperation frameworks, companies regulations, cybersecurity actors, technological standards in permanent evolution, .... The number of working groups, regulations, proposals, legal acts, is the most consequent...it is a "jungle" of processes that have to be covered,...you can believe me... in spite of the efforts of our committed people, we are unfortunately not omniscient an always present everywhere....(nobody is...!). As in all organisations, capacities are not infinite and we have sometimes to prioritize those we have, under emergencies and the various agendas.. ...but whatever the raised questions, THE relevant question is overall that a joint work in open spirit is THE best way...beyond considering the only question of a seat gap at a moment... --> The matter should remain in the end, which impact (positive/negative...) ? when all know new popping processes from the beginning, it allows to formalize swiftly a full knowledge about impact, and prevent 2 undesirable ends that are : wasting time on a proposal that should be given up/ or persisting on the difficult adoption of a measure that will bring damage on victims protection... we can do great job to secure digital space, (just see Lockbit and the latest operations against ransomwares : https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom?q=cyber ) including protecting private sector and companies that are essential for business and the economic health of our countries, but if we lose the access to data, it means less operational achievements/ and criminals being more in capacity to target companies and peoples, who still "pay the bill" of crimes...
proceed with all haste to No haste visible at all; this is about 2023-04 — we already are in 2024-04.
Regards, -kai -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
Dear Emmanuel,
As knowing the scope of Europol and digital investigation (we work here), we repeat that the matter is not only being less convenient. The matter is the loss of opportunities of identification that will vanish for investigators...
You are talking of scale. Just out of curiosity. How many addresses do you think does this pertain to at the moment? Meaning: How many PA addresses do you think have WHOIS set representing the End-User at the moment which might no longer be registered to the EU, i.e., how much data would you lose? With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tobias@fiebig.nl
Dear Emmanuel,
As knowing the scope of Europol and digital investigation (we work here), we repeat that the matter is not only being less convenient. The matter is the loss of opportunities of identification that will vanish for investigators...
You are talking of scale. Just out of curiosity. How many addresses do you think does this pertain to at the moment? Meaning: How many PA addresses do you think have WHOIS set representing the End-User at the moment which might no longer be registered to the EU, i.e., how much data would you lose? With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tobias@fiebig.nl
Hi Emmanuel,
The matter is the loss of opportunities of identification that will vanish for investigators...
This is a subject that has been covered extensively during the previous two phases of the policy development process and is as such is already addressed, but we will summarise the main points below for your convenience. During the previous discussion of 2023-04 it has been made adamantly clear by the RIPE NCC that any information inserted into the RIPE database that identifies the End User is inserted voluntarily by the LIR. There exists no policy requirement that compels LIRs to publish the identities of their End Users, this is simply an option that some LIRs avail themselves of. It is important to realize that the policy proposed by 2023-04 does not in any way whatsoever restrict or prohibit LIRs from voluntarily publishing the identities of their End Users in the RIPE database. LIRs that have a policy to do so today, will be able to continue to do so in the future in the exact same way after 2023-04 is implemented. Indeed, these LIRs are free to ignore 2023-04 completely – 2023-04 does not deprecate or remove the ASSIGNED PA inetnum status, it may still be used as before. It follows logically that 2023-04 does not cause any loss of End User identification. Investigators may continue to look up IP addresses in the RIPE database, but whether or not it will yield the End User's identity (as opposed to «a PA Assignment with something like "CUSTOMER-1234" and an email address pointing to the LIR», as the working group chairs put it) will depend entirely on the issuing LIR's policies and procedures, just as it does under today. For a demonstration of this taking place in practice, take a look at the IPv6 part of the RIPE database. The AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status has been available for inet6num objects since forever, but this has not prevented LIRs from to registering their End User assignments using the ASSIGNED status instead, often including the End User's identity, contact information, and other optional details. There is no reason to expect that this will be any different in IPv4 following the implementation of 2023-04, as we see it. Best regards, Jeroen & Tore
Op 7 apr 2024, om 17:45 heeft Kessler, Emmanuel <Emmanuel.Kessler@europol.europa.eu> het volgende geschreven:
Dear All, I would have some comments about the previous points that mentions Europol Thanks for your cooperation spirit Regards Emmanuel Kessler
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Kai 'wusel' Siering via address-policy-wg Sent: vendredi 5 avril 2024 21:41 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Last Call - 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status
Moin,
am 05.04.24 um 16:51 schrieb denis walker:
I used to wonder why no one would even talk about bringing the RIPE Database into the modern world. Because this is address-policy (»The Address Policy Working Group develops policies relating to the management and registration of Internet number resources.«), not database (»The Database Working Group deals […]«).
Europol has expressed serious concerns about these changes. Europol has the means to challenge the maintainer of the address space for more information on individual usage; there is no real thread to Europol's operation by the change, it might just become less convenient to get the wanted information.
--> Sorry, but reading this, I observe that you may indeed have only a fuzzy/limited idea of what Europol does, and the impact on LE operations.. As knowing the scope of Europol and digital investigation (we work here), we repeat that the matter is not only being less convenient. The matter is the loss of opportunities of identification that will vanish for investigators...
If someone had informed them earlier of the changes being considered that may affect them, Well, this is happening all in the open. IF Europol is depending so greatly on the RIPE DB, they SHOULD be following the PDP already for years and years and voiced their concerns more timely.
--> the matter is not just Europol, but the impact on investigations of LE services....Europol has been regularly well active in various working groups of RIPE... Please consider that capacities of investigators are impacted by a large number of negotiation processes : at E-governance level (ICANN, RIPE,..), UN treaties, Council of Europe conventions, numerous EU legislations (Nis2, E-evidence package, DSA,...), national levels ones... (and I may forget some..?!).... linked with judicial cooperation frameworks, companies regulations, cybersecurity actors, technological standards in permanent evolution, .... The number of working groups, regulations, proposals, legal acts, is the most consequent...it is a "jungle" of processes that have to be covered,...you can believe me... in spite of the efforts of our committed people, we are unfortunately not omniscient an always present everywhere....(nobody is...!). As in all organisations, capacities are not infinite and we have sometimes to prioritize those we have, under emergencies and the various agendas..
...but whatever the raised questions, THE relevant question is overall that a joint work in open spirit is THE best way...beyond considering the only question of a seat gap at a moment... --> The matter should remain in the end, which impact (positive/negative...) ? when all know new popping processes from the beginning, it allows to formalize swiftly a full knowledge about impact, and prevent 2 undesirable ends that are : wasting time on a proposal that should be given up/ or persisting on the difficult adoption of a measure that will bring damage on victims protection...
we can do great job to secure digital space, (just see Lockbit and the latest operations against ransomwares : https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom?q=cyber ) including protecting private sector and companies that are essential for business and the economic health of our countries, but if we lose the access to data, it means less operational achievements/ and criminals being more in capacity to target companies and peoples, who still "pay the bill" of crimes...
proceed with all haste to No haste visible at all; this is about 2023-04 — we already are in 2024-04.
Regards, -kai
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg --
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
participants (4)
-
Jeroen Lauwers -
Kessler, Emmanuel -
Tobias Fiebig -
Tobias Fiebig