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

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
by ox 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

I think this now works... any comments? ============ Internet Abuse ============ Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical. The Internet consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to also understanding the use and interaction between these resources. Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols, credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even Email addresses. This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include identifying the authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define any rights to resources but simply to define what technically constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources. ====================== Definition of Internet abuse ====================== "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" -------------------------------------------------------- Terminology used in the above definition -------------------------------------------------------- (1) Resource Any Internet Resource (2) Use and Usage Any direct or indirect action involving a resource (3) Rights The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the authoritative holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement or reasonable expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned resource (4) Infringe An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or encroaches upon the fair use of a resource (5) Sanctioned Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or administrative holder of rights to a resource On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:05:59 +0200 ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:13:28 +0200 > Andre Coetzee <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > > The definition of Internet Abuse seems to be done, can everyone > > please have a look and see if there are any final issues? > > > After another off list comment, the description of 'sanctioned' may > require a change. > (Big thank you to everyone that has helped me, on and off list) > > > There is still a problem with 'sanctioned' (as originally identified > by Gert Doering - as complicated :) ) > > I do not have any solution or suggestion myself, yet, and will need to > think about the problem more... > > as, what happens when the registrant of an entire TLD authorises the > use of that TLD to send spam.... > > ++++++++++++++ > "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage > rights of another resource" > > (4) Sanctioned > An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative > holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission > is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, > event or action. > +++++++++++++++ > > Andre >

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

On 29/08/16, 9:52 AM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > We are discussing Internet Abuse - and, to be clear – I > still have no idea what you are talking about. Your diatribe > makes no sense and I am giving up trying to figure out what > it means as it is simply too much effort. So far this subthread has been a case of the blind leading the blind, but Marilson is indeed correct here. Your definition of abuse (for all that it can be defined in the overly narrow sense you are trying to bog the discussion down into) will not stand. If you have any colleagues that actually do abuse policy enforcement and network security, feel free to talk to them. --srs

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
by ox 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:13:28 +0200 Andre Coetzee <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > The definition of Internet Abuse seems to be done, can everyone > please have a look and see if there are any final issues? > After another off list comment, the description of 'sanctioned' may require a change. (Big thank you to everyone that has helped me, on and off list) There is still a problem with 'sanctioned' (as originally identified by Gert Doering - as complicated :) ) I do not have any solution or suggestion myself, yet, and will need to think about the problem more... as, what happens when the registrant of an entire TLD authorises the use of that TLD to send spam.... ++++++++++++++ "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" (4) Sanctioned An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or action. +++++++++++++++ Andre

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
by Marilson 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

> On Aug 28, 2016 Andre Ox wrote: > When you say: My Computer was stolen > It means that - Someone physically took your computer away from you Now I understand your obsession to define abuse. Abuse has several definitions as well as the word steal that you defined as being the physical act of taking something that does not belong to you. Shakespeare must be moving in his tomb. Once you think use my computer for illicit purposes and without my consent is not theft, I prepared for you some of the many possible ways to use the word theft. See below, learn and try not to disturb the sleep of Shakespeare. > Your take away should be to learn better English :) > And, this is exactly why we need a good definition of abuse. It is all about words. We need??? Certainly YOU need! After your definition of steal... Why I should be to learn better English?!? For what? What will I do with it? It is strange to hear that from people who not succeed in define abuse and theft. And abuse and theft is a specialty of IT in the email marketing sector. I suggest you read more. Start by great thinkers. And without prejudice start by Nietzsche in On the Genealogy of Morality. > And, Marilson, telling me that I am an example of a single abuse > resource, when all I am doing is simply trying to understand what the > heck you are talking about (as you are using the wrong English words) > is not cool. I did not once call you any names or say anything > personally rude about you, I know exactly how fast things can be in a > third or fourth or even fifth+ language :( Your comments are full of arrogance and veiled insults. And you are being a hypocrite in saying that is not rude. End an offense with a smiley does not improve your attitude. And you need to understand that does not own the truth and must learn to live with contradictory. :) STEAL As verb (used with object): to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle. Baseball - (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball. Games - to gain (a point, advantage, etc.) by strategy, chance, or luck. to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show. As verb (used without object): to move, go, or come secretly, quietly, or unobserved: She stole out of the house at midnight. to pass, happen, etc., imperceptibly, gently, or gradually: The years steal by. As noun: Informal - an act of stealing. Informal - the thing stolen. Informal - something acquired at a cost far below its real value; bargain: This dress is a steal at $40. As Idioms: steal someone's thunder, to appropriate or use another's idea, plan,words, etc. Examples from the Web for steal: to steal music without paying a dime for it. to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own. "We steal our own happiness for no apparent reason," says Danziger. “Sometimes they are said to steal only the heart—like Lancashire witches.” John Gibson Lockhart. to steal a glance at to steal a march upon someone to steal a marriage to steal away to steal out to steal upon someone to steal someone’s heart to steal someone’s thunder to steal the show I STOLE this... sorry Andre, I PICKED UP this using Internet. I will tell you when it is forbidden to use the word stole: Great nations never stole, simply took in order to make themselves great. (Solon) Marilson _____________________________________________ Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:06:20 -0300 From: "Marilson" <marilson.mapa(a)gmail.com> To: "ox" <andre(a)ox.co.za> Cc: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble Message-ID: <FEF0ACC9459247D986724B37A65789E4@xPC> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Please, Andre. I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to be so so vulgar that I can understand your extraordinary knowledge about abuse on the Internet. Do not worry, your technical colleagues will understand you. Sorry my low intellectual capacity, but you used the following expressions to explain what is not Internet Abuse: > No, it is not an abuse group for people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes. Now, it is clear that you could also have said: the cat crushed by that car is not of account of this abuse group. I'm sorry but I thought you was talking about internet. When I wrote: > If someone had their home PC infected or abused, it's because someone used the means and tools provided by RIRs, Registrars and ISPs. You reply: > Just stealing a pc - Is called theft... > I hope this helps you understand? > If not, maybe you can provide a lot more specifics of how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse? > Thank you so much! Disregarding the excess of arrogance in your words I explained how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse: > If a computer was infected for sending spam or malicious files, it was stolen. After all we are talking about Internet, right? And you wrote in your second reply: > If someone steals your PC or breaks into your home to steal your pc It is NOT Internet Abuse... (emphasis added) Wow! Now we are talking about breaking and entering to steal objects, that is, we are talking about the cat crushed by that car is not of account of that abuse group. Compare with the original sentence: ?No, it is not an abuse group for people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes.? You were talking about potatoes and I was talking about orange. The difference is that my orange was synonymous of Internet and their potato was ... potatoes. Just to be technically clear :) Pall, you are a real world example of a single resource abuse. But your definition still holds up... Good lucky Marilson

2 1

Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
by Andre Coetzee 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

The definition of Internet Abuse seems to be done, can everyone please have a look and see if there are any final issues? ============ Internet Abuse ============ Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical. The Internet consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to also understanding the use and interaction between these resources. Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols, credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even Email addresses. This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include identifying the authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define any rights to resources but simply to define what technically constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources. ====================== Definition of Internet abuse ====================== "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" -------------------------------------------------------- Terminology used in the above definition -------------------------------------------------------- (1) Resource Any Internet Resource (2) Use and Usage Any direct or indirect action involving a resource (3) Rights The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the authoritative holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement or reasonable expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned resource (4) Sanctioned An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or action. (5) Infringe An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or encroaches upon the fair use of a resource

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
by Marilson 28 Aug '16

28 Aug '16

Please, Andre. I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to be so so vulgar that I can understand your extraordinary knowledge about abuse on the Internet. Do not worry, your technical colleagues will understand you. Sorry my low intellectual capacity, but you used the following expressions to explain what is not Internet Abuse: > No, it is not an abuse group for people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes. Now, it is clear that you could also have said: the cat crushed by that car is not of account of this abuse group. I'm sorry but I thought you was talking about internet. When I wrote: > If someone had their home PC infected or abused, it's because someone used the means and tools provided by RIRs, Registrars and ISPs. You reply: > Just stealing a pc - Is called theft... > I hope this helps you understand? > If not, maybe you can provide a lot more specifics of how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse? > Thank you so much! Disregarding the excess of arrogance in your words I explained how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse: > If a computer was infected for sending spam or malicious files, it was stolen. After all we are talking about Internet, right? And you wrote in your second reply: > If someone steals your PC or breaks into your home to steal your pc It is NOT Internet Abuse... (emphasis added) Wow! Now we are talking about breaking and entering to steal objects, that is, we are talking about the cat crushed by that car is not of account of that abuse group. Compare with the original sentence: “No, it is not an abuse group for people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes.” You were talking about potatoes and I was talking about orange. The difference is that my orange was synonymous of Internet and their potato was ... potatoes. Just to be technically clear :) Pall, you are a real world example of a single resource abuse. But your definition still holds up... Good lucky Marilson From: ox Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 11:42 AM To: Marilson Cc: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:16:09 +0200 > "Marilson" <marilson.mapa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > If a computer was infected for sending spam or malicious files, it > > was stolen. After all we are talking about Internet, right? Are you > > talking about what? Home invasion? Theft of objects? > Just read what you, yourself are typing above: > "If a computer was infected" - this means that: > Someone or something did something > Someone or Something (or a program or whatever) DID infect > So, the definition of Internet Abuse, As I have stated it - Works > perfectly fine. > Maybe If you read the definition again, it can help you? > > "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage > rights of another resource" > > This means: Someone (or something) USED you resource (Your PC) > to send spam or do something or use it for... > Just in case someone technical now wants to tell me that a "pc" is not an Internet Resource, PLEASE note: I am simply making it VERY simple so that Marilson can understand it also... In the example - the internet resource would of course NOT be Marilson's PC - BUT his PC's resource (IP number, etc) or the resource that Marilson's PC uses, on the Internet, - to abuse ANOTHER resource... Just to be technically clear :) And then, there is still no real world example of a single resource abuse. So, I guess that means that the definition still holds up... Andre > See? > > - If someone steals your PC or breaks into your home to steal your pc > It is NOT Internet Abuse... > > If they break in and USE your PC to send spam - Then of course it is > Internet Abuse - and the definition holds up. > > BUT > > You are changing the point... You were siding with Gunther, and what > Gunther said was: > > a Single resource can do Internet Abuse... > > You are involving multiple resources and then claiming that it > addresses the first problem... > > Not cool, so either you are arguing for the simple sake of arguing or > you do not understand the problem. > > Which is it? > > Andre >

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
by Marilson 27 Aug '16

27 Aug '16

On Aug 27, 2016 09:42 AM Andre wrote: > Just stealing a pc - Is called theft... > I hope this helps you understand? > If not, maybe you can provide a lot more specifics of how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse? Of course I do. In my explanatory statement I explained how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse. I wrote: >> If someone had their home PC infected or abused, it's because someone... If a computer was infected for sending spam or malicious files, it was stolen. After all we are talking about Internet, right? Are you talking about what? Home invasion? Theft of objects? I hope this help you understand. And Gunther was also right when he cited the problem of non-native language. If you want punch knife tip, be my guest. Marilson From: ox Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 9:42 AM To: Marilson Cc: gnitzsche(a)netcologne.de ; anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 09:20:21 -0300 "Marilson" <marilson.mapa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andre, > I have a real world example of Internet abuse: > When people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes. > Not Internet Abuse. Someone still has to "use" that PC and do something with it - to something else... Just stealing a pc - Is called theft... I hope this helps you understand? If not, maybe you can provide a lot more specifics of how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse? Thank you so much! Andre

2 2

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Brian Krebs posts stophaus chat logs of Spamhaus ddos coordination
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 27 Aug '16

27 Aug '16

You might find "I know it when I see it" as reasonable a definition as this group is ever going to arrive at --srs > On 27-Aug-2016, at 6:17 PM, ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 18:04:53 +0530 > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> The one takeaway i get from this seems to be that the bad guys are >> perfectly aware of just where they can find loose or poorly >> implemented security and abuse policies - who is incompetent, who is >> malicious, who to abuse, who not to abuse >> >> And action if any gets taken only after significant pressure is >> applied. >> > true... as per the convo - easy to find a .ru upstream, etc. > > But, it is becoming more obvious that before we can deal with anything > properly anyway, we need to be able to properly define what it is. > > How can anyone expect anyone to implement proper abuse policies if > open society cannot even agree, openly, about what internet abuse even is? > > Andre >

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Brian Krebs posts stophaus chat logs of Spamhaus ddos coordination
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 27 Aug '16

27 Aug '16

The one takeaway i get from this seems to be that the bad guys are perfectly aware of just where they can find loose or poorly implemented security and abuse policies - who is incompetent, who is malicious, who to abuse, who not to abuse And action if any gets taken only after significant pressure is applied. --srs > On 27-Aug-2016, at 2:39 PM, ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 14:05:38 +0530 > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Curious - what factors would these be that you identified? >> > But, at least two or more of the five factors are so very clear? > > imho the most obvious is: > Effectively managing abuse depends on the interaction and relationship > between two main and different techs of the Internet > > Those engineers that route and those that are system engineers > > The second most obvious thing, in my opinion, may be that if you ask > ten of either of these what constitutes Internet abuse, you will > receive at least two and as much as five (or more), different answers. > > and then there are so many other factors, what do you think the factors > are? > > > Andre > >> >>> On 27-Aug-2016, at 2:00 PM, ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 13:41:28 +0530 >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Worth a read >>>> http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/08/inside-the-attack-that-almost-broke-the-… >>>> >>> Yes, the actual logs that Brian Krebs publishes, of the >>> conversations, underlines and serves as clear proof of those >>> factors which serves to obtuse anti abuse efforts. >>> >>> Until this is resolved, Internet abuse will continue to be >>> difficult to manage. This makes it difficult for anyone one the >>> Internet, including the Cyber Criminals themselves, to deal with >>> Internet abuse effectively anyway. >>> >>> 2c >>> >>> Andre >>> >>> > >

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
by Marilson 27 Aug '16

27 Aug '16

Hi Andre, I wrote that the group was one step closer to doing what Friedrich Nietzsche did in the century XIX discussing On the Genealogy of Morality... my mistake. With my professional and cultural background, I tend to believe that in communities like this, the objectives may be altruistic. But reading this discussion get the impression of not declarable goals. Excuse me if I'm wrong. On 25 Aug 2016 05:40 PM, Gunther wrote to Andre: > My intent is to have a most broad definition of abuse as possible. > You seem to intentionally want to restrict this definition. I just don't know why. I do not know why too. >> It is the RIPE Anti Abuse WG --- We discuss network abuse.... (Andre) > Well, I do not see very much discussing here - just a very "blocking" attitude. (Gunther) I agree with “just a very blocking attitude”. On 25 Aug 2016 06:14 PM, Andre wrote: > So, if you could please just provide a real world example of Internet abuse where there is a single resource, that would be very helpful. I have a real world example of Internet abuse: When people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes. Exactly the example you used to explain what is not internet abuse. If someone had their home PC infected or abused, it's because someone used the means and tools provided by RIRs, Registrars and ISPs. And the ISP, owner of this domain, has to take the measures stated in the contract and AUP. And for both, identifying who committed the offense must be available on the Whois for the owner of the invaded PC. Otherwise it will not be abuse, will be crime - conspiracy. So, Andre, do not complicate. It's all so obvious... All abuse committed via the Internet is Internet abuse and abuse occurs when you do not respect the rights of someone, company or institution. And no matter in what hole of the world is the victim. Thank you Marilson

2 1