Hi Guys You could add an optional attribute "security-mailbox:" alongside the "abuse-mailbox:". If present it could be returned in a query with the abuse-mailbox address by default, or with a specific query. Or reference it separately with a "sec-c:" attribute. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 12:01, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 11:45:05AM +0200, Max Grobecker wrote:
TL;DR: Should there be an optional contact for sending security information to (i.e. about vulnerable services), which can be different from the abuse contact?
I see the problem, and maybe we need to re-think the definition of admin-c:, tech-c: and abuse-c:
Reporters seem to only understand two possible approaches - use abuse-c:, or send to everything whois returns that has an "@" in it. The latter is something I consider borderline abusive, the former is not that helpful for security incident reporting (which might warrant a similarily fast reaction, but from a different team).
So, no clear answer, just seconding that we might need to do a bit of work here.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 --
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg