August 2016 - anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] (no subject)
by Ronald F. Guilmette 14 Aug '16

14 Aug '16

andre(a)ox.co.za wrote: >We should all be able to agree on the basics... Andre, You obviously don't have the historical context, and thus, because of that, you don't get the joke. But rather than watching you flail around needlessly and pointlessly for the next couple of weeks, I'll take pity on you, give you the historical context, and then you'll get the joke _and_ understand what you are up against. I already proposed what you are proposing, well more than a year ago now, right here on this list, i.e. coming up with a common accepted definition of the word "abuse". (It seemed then... as it does now... the very height of absurdity to even have a mailing list, let alone a whole working group, dedicated to discussing and formulating policy with respect to "abuse" as long as nobody can even agree what that is, but I digress.) Anyway, my poposal to develop a definition of the word "abuse"... one that could be used by this Working Group, and others... was met with reactions which ranged from people basically telling me to f... I'm sorry... to "sod" off, all the way through to abject stunned silence. Not a single soul on this list at the time said anything that could even remotely be construed as an endorsemdent of the proposal. (I couldn't even get Suresh, whose views and mine are often in alignment, to even second the motion.) (I had intended at that time to just resign from this list in utter disgust, but somehow never was able to bring myself to do so.) Anyway, the point is that it is highly likely that nothing at all has changed in the intervening time since then, and thus, your idea to develop a definition of "abuse" has about as much chance of going anywhere as mine did. In short, you have about as much chance for success here as the proverbial snowball in hell. What you don't understand is that there are people on this list... perhaps even a majority... who have been reading too much Ayn Rand. They adamantly hold the same view of the Internet that Alan Greenspan, head of the U.S. Federal Reserve prior to the 2008 Economic Crisis, held about regulating banks, pre-2008, i.e. that the ideal policy was that everybody should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want, whenever they want, period. Note that even when he was called on the carpet and grilled about the final result of his spectacularly idiotic policies by congressional inquiries in the wake of the 2008 economic meltdown, the best that Greenspan could do was to offer up the lame excuse that he had believed that the banks would never be so foolish as to take actions which might crash the entire system, and that he believed they would avoid doing so, simply because it was in their own best interests to avoid such an outcome. Bottom line: He was wrong. Greed and short-term thinking often make falible human beings act against their own long term interests. Even if nothing else proved that, 2008 certainly did. I don't mean to discourage you from persuing the creation of a definition of "abuse". In fact I wish you all the best of luck with that. I'm only posting now to give you some idea of the fact that we've seen this movie before, and that at this point in time there's no reason to believe that it will end any differently than it did last time. But for whatever it's worth, I second your motion to develop a common definition of the word "abuse". All those in favor, please say "aye". (and cue the crickets) Regards, rfg

2 1

Russian carding... no, Islandic carding... no Belizian carding!
by Ronald F. Guilmette 14 Aug '16

14 Aug '16

https://www.verified.is/ (Gee! Big surprise! Russian language only.) -> .IS = Iceland -> 82.221.130.101 That site is obviously all written in Russian, but it is resident on a little /26 IP address block that's pretending to be owned by a Belizian company. (See below.) But of course, it's actually physically sitting in a data center somewhere in Iceland, and on an Icelandic AS. I am seeing this kind of thing almost every day now... bullshit domains sitting on bullshit networks, almost always in RIPE IP space, but all claiming to be in either Belize or UAE. I've given up any hope that posting any of this kind of information here will have any impact on anything, ever. A part of me wants to scream "Which part of this repeating pattern do you folks not understand?" but I know that doing so here is pointless. So I'm really only posting this here so that later on, nobdy can say to me "Gee Ron, why didn't you ever say anything to anybody about that?" I did say something. In fact I said plenty... about both Belize and UAE. It's not my fault if everybody with power and influence within RIPE continued to ignore the now all-too-obvious patterns because the self- evident truths about what's been going on doesn't suit their own financial interests. Regards, rfg P.S. At least the .IS domain administrators are looking at possibly suspending the doamin name on the grounds that the registration info "isn't accurate". I commend them for that. That's one hell of a lot more than the network operator (AS50613, Advania) is willing to do. Advania didn't even have the courtesy to answer my email, even if only to tell me to go pound sand. ========================================================================= inetnum: 82.221.130.64 - 82.221.130.127 netname: ORANGEWEB descr: OrangeWebsite.com - Network org: ORG-IL351-RIPE country: IS admin-c: OTD3-RIPE tech-c: OTD3-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA mnt-by: MNT-ADVANIA created: 2016-01-27T15:08:11Z last-modified: 2016-01-27T15:08:11Z source: RIPE organisation: ORG-IL351-RIPE org-name: Icenetworks Ltd. org-type: OTHER address: 60 Market Square address: Belize City, Belize <== I hope they speak Russian down there! e-mail: sales(a)orangewebsite.com abuse-c: OTD3-RIPE mnt-ref: MNT-ADVANIA mnt-by: MNT-ADVANIA created: 2014-11-05T10:30:10Z last-modified: 2014-11-05T10:46:28Z source: RIPE role: OrangeWebsite.com Technical Department address: OrangeWebsite.com address: Klapparstigur 7 address: 101 Reykjavik address: Iceland abuse-mailbox: abuse(a)orangewebsite.com e-mail: support(a)orangewebsite.com admin-c: AK12182-RIPE tech-c: AK12182-RIPE mnt-by: MNT-ADVANIA nic-hdl: OTD3-RIPE created: 2013-12-16T09:41:11Z last-modified: 2013-12-16T09:41:11Z source: RIPE % Information related to '82.221.128.0/19AS50613' route: 82.221.128.0/19 descr: Advania / Thor Data Center origin: AS50613 mnt-by: THOR-MNT mnt-lower: THOR-MNT created: 2013-07-30T12:15:23Z last-modified: 2013-07-30T12:15:23Z source: RIPE

9 22

RIPE Charter
by Ronald F. Guilmette 12 Aug '16

12 Aug '16

I apologize to everyone for the fact that I haven't been able to get time today to weigh in on all of the back and forth that's been generated by my post about verified.is. Everyone who knows me knows that I have strong feelings about pretty much everything that has been said, and that I'me never shy about expressing those opinions, but it has been a long, hard, and exhausting day. I have been trying to work on several things simultaneously. It is now past 3 AM here where I am, and I'm off to bed at last. I hope to reply here to some of the things that have been said tomorrow. But before I turn in, I feel compelled to seek a bit more infomation about the fundamental RIPE Charter. I thank Brian for directing me at the following document, which seems to be a kind of overall Charter of RIPE: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-001 That is indeed enlightening, and quite helpful, but I feel the need to press further and ask if there is also and additionally some other Charter document elsewhere. I've read on the Ripe.Net site that RIPE is formally constituted as a formal "association" under Dutch law. Where I come from, we call these kinds of things "non-profit corporations" and each one must file a document called "Articles of Incorporation" with the state in which they are formed. These Articles of Incorporation must clearly specify the purposes for which the entity is formed. Does there exist a similar sort of formal document which has been filed by RIPE, on its own behalf, with Dutch authorities? If so, I would like to be able to peruse that also as I prepare myself for drafting a propposal... hopefully one which will not conflict in any way with either the letter or the spirit of *any* of RIPEs fundamental founding documents, as ammended. Lastly, I must ask the question: What is RIPE NCC, exactly? Is it a formal organ which is itself chartered strictly and only under the auspices and authority of RIPE itself? Or is it, in any sense, an autonomous entity which is in some ways (or perhaps in all ways) NOT bound to obey and/or show total fealty to the Charter of RIPE itself, e.g. as embodied in ripe-001 and/or any such other documents which together consitute RIPE's formal Charter? I beg everyone's patience with me for asking these questions here. I do understand that many, most or all subscribers here may deride me for asking about things that are arguably "off topic". But to be frank, I don't think they are off topic at all. The work of this WG, such as it is, must live within the confines of the Charter of RIPE itself. Certainly for me, and I suspect also for other members of this WG, a proper review of, and respect for the fundamental tenents of RIPE itself must guide the work ahead, whatever it may be. Regards, rfg

7 12

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] (no subject)
by Ronald F. Guilmette 12 Aug '16

12 Aug '16

andre(a)ox.co.za wrote: >But: The very definition of abuse - has it changed? If yes, >what exactly constitutes abuse in 2016? - We may actually have to >redefine the definition of abuse? Oh now THIS ought to be fun to watch. Let me just get my popcorn... Regards, rfg

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] (no subject)
by Ronald F. Guilmette 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

andre(a)ox.co.za wrote: >similarly - not giving criminals a "heads up" or null routing their >traffic and/or obstructing the functionality of law enforcement, laws >of countries and the rule of law - is not "free speech" For the record, I've _never_ obstructed law enforcement, except in one case where it appeared that there was a non-zero possibility that they might decide to prosecute _me_ for running a honeypot... an act which at least one very senior FBI official publically speculated might possibly be a violation of either the Telecommunications Privacy Act and/or the Stored Communications Privacy Act. With that one exception, law enforcement has pretty consistantly just ignored me, and these days I simply return the favor in kind. Regards, rfg

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] (no subject)
by Ronald F. Guilmette 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

andre(a)ox.co.za wrote: >On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 05:15:50 -0700 >"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg(a)tristatelogic.com> wrote: >> The above is delusional on so many levels I'm not sure even where to >> begin. >> >Your ad hominem statement makes whatever you say less trustworthy... Sorry. My bad. I sincerly apologise, to Andre, and to all members here, and I hereby retract my comment, quoted above. As I do so, in my own defense I ask the members to consider that while my phraseology was bad, I personally don't consider the word "delisional" to have quite the same level of negative connotation that others attach to it. As human beings, we all have delusions. I myself have, for at least two decades now, harbored the self-delusion that I may someday become a Great Man. That delusion is comforting, but probably not very realistic, at least not at this late date, and given my fundamentally poor temperment. Regards, rfg

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: dnsbl - trust and other factors
by Ronald F. Guilmette 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

andre(a)ox.co.za you wrote: >Society does not want to stop spam - if they did - there will be no >spam in 2016. - comments? The words "society" and "stop" as used in the above sentence are both highly ambiguous. 99.9% of all end uers of the Internet *do* want spam stopped. 99.9% of all network operators *do* take steps to block spam from entering their networks. Almost nobody... including even Spamhaus and the other blacklists... routinely take actions which might have some hope of effectively stopping spam at its source. And I don't blame them or anybody else for that. As I've learned, first-hand, over the past 20 years, it is an extremely difficult task for a variety of reasons, almost all of them political or religious rather than technical. Regards, rfg

1 0

(no subject)
by Ronald F. Guilmette 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Russian carding... no, Islandic carding... no Belizian carding! Fcc: outbox -------- andre(a)ox.co.za wrote: >1. When we find crime, child porn, credit card scams, etc on networks, >we should immediately report it to the Police in the jurisdiction where >the data is. The above is delusional on so many levels I'm not sure even where to begin. In the first place, who exactly is this royal "we"? In the second place, what exactly is the "jurisdiction where the data is" for 82.221.130.101? Is that Belize? Is that Iceland? Is that Russia? Do you know? Does RIPE NCC know? If you are claiming that you know, then please do enlighten us... or at least me... as to exactly HOW you know the actual jurisdiction is in this case. Thirdly, weren't you the same fellow who was just arguing a few messages back that "crime" only exists in relation to a specific jurisdiction anyway? maybe the *real* jurisdiction of 82.221.130.101 is the Principality of Sealand, where there are no laws prohibiting the buying and selling of other people's credit card numbers. So what "should" we do then? Finally, did you miss it when I posted, just not very long ago, the following link to a BBC story that describes in some detail that police are overwehelmed and that they can't even keep up with this the great and growing masses of cybercrime anymore? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36731694 >We must not, discuss this on a public list before the Police has at >the very least, had the opportunity to first ensure that they have >secured the data/servers/evidence that may be required to prosecute. Gee! And here I was starting to think that you were in favor of free speech on the Internet! I guess not. Sorry. My mistake. (You apparently want to tell me what I "must not" say. That's not my definition of free speech.) Also, I refer you again to this: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36731694 and I remind you again that you are living in a fantasy world. Speaking from direct personal experience, it doesn't matter how many months of lead time you give law enforcement. They simply DO NOT put down their doughnuts and rush out to image servers until *after* reports of serious cybercrimes appear in the media. These days, the only times when they are actually pro-active and actually ahead of the curve is in terrorism-related cases. >2. If, after a reasonable amount of time, we receive no feedback (as in >back off, we are investigating this - or we are busy prosecuting or >whatever) then we should do what? See above. For a long while I did exactly what you think should be done. I tried to always inform law enforcement early and often, about all of the really bad crap I found. And I gave them a fair opportunity to tell me to keep quiet, because they had an ongoing investigation. So far, no matter what I've reported to them, and no matter how bad it was, they haven't even given me a courtesy call back. In short, they are worse than useless. They are a waste of my time. They don't care what I do or say or find, and I no longer care what they do or say or think or find. On those rare occasions when they actually do bust some cybercriminal, I applaud them, but usually the arrest only comes years after the criminals have already been well-known to be doing their crimes. (And as I learned recently, in Russia, at least, when a criminal of any kind gets busted, the authorities don't even release their names. So as a non-LE person, you can't even be sure that the Russians aren't just making the whole thing up for publicity reasons, you know, to make Putin look good, like the _alleged_ arrest of "fifty" cybercriminals that is _alleged_ to have taken place in Russia earlier this year. What a nice round number to release to the media!) >...but you cannot simply find a random domain, note content on it that seems >as if there may possibly be criminal activity and/or abuse. I can't? Oh. Sorry. Too late! I already did. Sorry. I didn't know that rule until now. :-) >I cannot publish anything about this website or this content on there >as their is simply no due process, no proof of actual illegal activity, >no actual trial, guilt, verdict, etc. That's quite alright, YOU don't have to. I already did. See, *I* don't have the power of a state. I can't send people to jail. I can only bad-mouth them in public and hope that other people realize what criminals they are, and then stop trading packets with them. Because the penalities that I personally can impose are so limited and weak, I don't have to make a case against any party "beyond a reasonable doubt". If I make a case aganst a party where the "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. 51%) says that they are guilty, then people who read what I write, and agree with my analysis may stop accepting packets from the crooks I identify. That is a reasonable outcome. >We should start filtering/editing/censoring content deciding to >'null-route' entire IP ranges because of our content decisions? I do it every day, at least for my own server. It's called "spam filtering". (I don't like spam.) >seriously? Oh yes, seriously. >We can also maybe build a huge wall around our networks? Maybe we >should not route any traffic that we have not properly inspected? Works for me! Sounds like a perfect description of my firewall. Regards, rfg

3 3

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 58, Issue 10
by Marilson 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 12:25:26 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > You *do* know that lack of proper quoting is considered abusive behaviour? Hi Gert, I love you too! My dear, I am architect and urban planner and you are a TI professional. I can't believe you'd like to discuss behavior. I would make you feel ashamed. Marilson

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Russian carding... no, Islandic carding... no Belizian carding!
by Ronald F. Guilmette 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

andre(a)ox.co.za wrote: >how do you know that {VERIFIED.IS} is not some law enforcement effort at >entrapment of criminals? Along similar lines, I feel compelled to point out that we also cannot be entirely certain that VERIFIED.IS is not in fact being operated by super-intelligent aliens from some higher dimension. It is really hard to prove a negative. >Soon you will be censoring people you do not agree with... I, for one, am willing to let anybody say anything they want, any time, within reason. I do object however to sanding idly by and allowing crooks to defraud RIPE of its limited resources. And so should all other RIPE members. That is not free speech. It is just crime. (There _is_ a difference between those two things, even if some would prefer not to apprehend it.) Regards, rfg

1 0