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

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [routing-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation) to be discussed on Anti-Abuse Working Group Mailing List
by Daniel Suchy 19 Mar '19

19 Mar '19

Hello, my comments: - section 4.0: Assessers should be under direct community control (voted/approved by community/members), not just defined by NCC. - section 4.0 + 7.0 should define minimal number of assessers - reported incidents (reported by web-form defined at 4.0) should be public, at least some metadata (prefix, offending ASN) to avoid duplicate reports - with indication of assessment stage on that list - Daniel On 3/19/19 1:42 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-03, "BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy > Violation", is now available for discussion. > > This proposed policy is of interest to both the Anti-Abuse and Routing > working groups. The chairs of both these working groups have agreed to > keep the discussion on one single mailing list to avoid duplication, and > for formal consideration of the proposal within the RIPE Policy > Development Process. > > You are therefore requested to share your feedback on this proposal with > the Anti-Abuse mailing list. > > The goal of this proposal is to define that BGP hijacking is not > accepted as normal practice within the RIPE NCC service region. > > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-03 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 April 2019. > > Kind regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Officer > RIPE NCC > >

2 1

RIPE NCC Report: Law Enforcement Agency Requests 2018
by Linda Slaakweg 19 Mar '19

19 Mar '19

Dear colleagues, We have published a transparency report that details the nature of the requests we received from law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in 2018. You can find the report at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-715/ <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-715/> Kind regards, Linda Slaakweg Legal Counsel RIPE NCC

3 2

Webzilla
by Ronald F. Guilmette 18 Mar '19

18 Mar '19

Perhaps some folks here might be interested to read these two report, the first of which is a fresh news report published just a couple of days ago, and the other one is a far more detailed investigative report that was completed some time ago now. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/dossier-gubarev-russian-h… https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5770258-Fti.html Please share these links widely. The detailed technical report makes it quite abundantly clear that Webzilla, and all of its various tentacles... many of which even I didn't know about until seeing this report... most probably qualifies as, and has qualified as a "bullet proof hosting" operation for some considerable time now. As the report notes, the company has received over 400,000 complaints or reports of bad behavior, and it is not clear to me, from reading the report, if anyone at the company even bothered to read any more than a small handful of those. I have two comments about this. First, I am inclined to wonder aloud why anyone is even still peering with any of the several ASNs mentioned in the report. To me, the mere fact that any of these ASNs still have connectivity represents a clear and self-evident failure of "self policing" in and among the networks that comprise the Internet. Second, its has already been a well know fact, both to me and to many others, for some years now, that Webzilla is by no means alone in the category commonly refered to as "bullet proof hosters". This fact itself raises some obvious questions. It is clear and apparent, not only from the report linked to above, but from the continuous and years-long existance of -many- "bullet proof hosters" on the Internet that there is no shortage of a market for the services of such hosting companies. The demand for "bullet proof" services is clearly there, and it is not likely to go away any time soon. In addition to the criminal element, there are also various mischevious governments, or their agents, that will always be more that happy to pay premium prices for no-questions-asked connectivity. So the question naturally arises: Other than de-peering by other networks, are there any other steps that can be taken to disincentivize networks from participating in this "bullet proof" market and/or to incentivize them to give a damn about their received network abuse complaints? I have no answers for this question myself, but I felt that it was about time that someone at least posed the question. The industry generally, and especially in the RIPE region, has a clear and evident problem that traditional "self policing" is not solving. Worse yet, it is not even discussed much, and that is allowing it to fester and worsen, over time. It would be Good if there was some actual leadership on this issue, at least from -some- quarter. So far I have not noticed any such worth commenting about, and even looking out towards the future horizon, I don't see any arriving any time soon. Regards, rfg

2 2

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Webzilla
by Fi Shing 17 Mar '19

17 Mar '19

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Google Privacy Abuse
by Fi Shing 16 Mar '19

16 Mar '19

3 4

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Google Privacy Abuse
by Fi Shing 16 Mar '19

16 Mar '19

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Google Privacy Abuse
by Fi Shing 15 Mar '19

15 Mar '19

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Google Privacy Abuse
by Esa Laitinen 14 Mar '19

14 Mar '19

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 6:05 AM ac <ac(a)main.me> wrote: > HTTPS protocol, by design, is secure and private. > > The average consumer expects this to be true. > > Google had to actually go and change, in an "under cover" way, the > entire way and method that HTTPS works. This "change" is being sold as > a "good thing" to poor people and/or people with low bandwidth and that > Google is doing a "good thing" by making this change. > Dear Andre The URLs you're accessing are also available for - your ISP - your VPN provider (unless you've rolled your own) and some information is also potentially stored by - your DNS provider And Opera browser has been doing similar things when you've enabled the bandwidth savings. or am I missing something? OK. I'm ignoring here that this particular thingi is using MITM methods to do the optimization, which is for me a bit more worrying than google having access to the URLs I browse. They have them mostly anyway. But, it is a choice a user makes, it is not forced upon them. Yours, esa -- Skype: reunaesa Yahoo: reunaesa Mobile: +4178 838 57 77

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Google Privacy Abuse
by Cynthia Revström 14 Mar '19

14 Mar '19

How is this relevant to RIPE? - Cynthia Thu Mar 14 06:05:10 GMT+01:00 2019 ac <ac(a)main.me>: > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 14:28:24 -0700 > "Ronald F. Guilmette" wrote: > > ac you wrote: > > >Now Google has apparently started saving, tracking and keeping all > > >https URL's that its chrome/chrome lite products use. > > And? > > If you don't like it, vote with your feet and use a different browser. > > If you have trouble finding any such, try googleing for "browser > > download". > > Oops! But I guess that would expose you to mind numbing and > > tragically horrible snooping on your private parts. > > Sorry. My bad. > > Regards, > > rfg > > P.S. My apologies to the list for indulging that which should not be > > indulged. > > > > I see that you are ignorant of what this actually means? > > Maybe their are other tech's that are also ignorant of what this really > means? > > HTTPS protocol, by design, is secure and private. > > The average consumer expects this to be true. > > Google had to actually go and change, in an "under cover" way, the > entire way and method that HTTPS works. This "change" is being sold as > a "good thing" to poor people and/or people with low bandwidth and that > Google is doing a "good thing" by making this change. > > I know already: Everything Google is not always what it seems and it is > a slippery slope. Soon Google will also be storing all Chrome https url's > > Now: Here is the REAL bad evil - that is coming to YOU (and Me) in the > future: > > So, Chrome, for its tracking, will be faster. > > User will think - ooh, faster = better. > > In all probability this is just the very first change in how local > software manages HTTPS url's and other browsers may be forced to do > similar EVIL as the user (sheep) experience of Chrome users will be > faster (the local device will now store the actual media and link it > with the stored URL) > > By our silence and by our acceptance of the method and how Google does > what it does we allow this business to dominate and control. > > One could also argue that not only is this abuse, but it is fraud. > > As many things Google is often misrepresented. > > It should be made clear to consumers that they are products. > > Society should step up and Governments should do much much more > > to protect the weak, the stupid and all the sheep. > > The Google users do not expect, understand or agree that all the > https url's they visit will be tracked, used and stored. > > And, this is why this is abuse and/or evil. > > Andre > > > >

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Google Privacy Abuse
by Ronald F. Guilmette 14 Mar '19

14 Mar '19

ac <ac(a)main.me> you wrote: >Now Google has apparently started saving, tracking and keeping all https >URL's that its chrome/chrome lite products use. And? If you don't like it, vote with your feet and use a different browser. If you have trouble finding any such, try googleing for "browser download". Oops! But I guess that would expose you to mind numbing and tragically horrible snooping on your private parts. Sorry. My bad. Regards, rfg P.S. My apologies to the list for indulging that which should not be indulged.

2 2