- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October
by Tim Bruijnzeels 27 Sep '17

27 Sep '17

Dear working group, RIPE Database Release 1.90 was deployed to the Release Candidate Environment, last week on 22 September 2017. If no issues are raised, we plan to deploy this version to production on Monday 16 October 2017 Release 1.90 introduces the following main features in support of NWI-7 (abuse-c implementation): = Allow adding an "abuse-c:" attribute to INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM objects = Disallow adding "abuse-c:" to object types other than ROLE, INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM Release 1.90 contains a number of small improvements: = Make org-name validation case-sensitive (no longer consider case changes a no-op) = Support to remove generated AUT-NUM "remarks:" regarding legacy status The complete list of other minor issues solved by this release can be found here: https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/blob/master/changes.txt Please let us know if you see any issues with this release in the RC environment. Kind regards Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technical Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [db-wg] violation of DB T&C by DB-WG co-chair, is it acceptable?
by Nick Hilliard 27 Sep '17

27 Sep '17

Clement Cavadore via db-wg wrote: > While there are many examples where spammers uses RIPE DB, more > specifically when it comes to "IPv4 reselling market", I think that it > is unacceptable to tolerate such a behavior from a chair (and/or from > anyone from his company). A (co-)chair should fight against such > practices, especially from his or her co-workers. It would be good if David took the opportunity to explain what he did and how / whether it's compatible with being co-chair of DBWG. Separately, if people have received spam from Larus, they should complain to the RIPE NCC. Nick

2 2

Re: [db-wg] violation of DB T&C by DB-WG co-chair, is it acceptable?
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 14 Sep '17

14 Sep '17

Hi Nick Let's not single anyone out here, perhaps people should report spam to the RIPE NCC from 'any' broker offering deals on address space. Cheers Denis Co-chair DB-WG -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 14/9/17, Nick Hilliard via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: Separately, if people have received spam from Larus, they should complain to the RIPE NCC. Nick -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

1 0

Re: [db-wg] violation of DB T&C by DB-WG co-chair, is it acceptable?
by Henriette Van Ingen 14 Sep '17

14 Sep '17

Dear Elvis, You asked us the following question: “can you please present a report showing how many LIRs have reported RIPE DB T&C violations? How many were resolved and what was the outcome? - Specifically, how many times has the RIPE NCC taken any action other than a warning message.” Since September 2016, the RIPE NCC has received ten reports regarding the abuse of contact data in the RIPE Database, thereby violating the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. - We sent warning emails to the parties that were reported. - We sent two of these parties a second warning. - One party continued to violate the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. We ultimately terminated the Broker Agreement between this party and the RIPE NCC on the grounds of multiple violations of the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. Regards, Henriette van Ingen Assistant Manager Customer Services RIPE NCC > On 12 Sep 2017, at 09:42, Elvis Daniel Velea via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis(a)velea.eu> > Subject: violation of DB T&C by DB-WG co-chair, is it acceptable? > Date: 12 September 2017 at 00:33:12 GMT+2 > To: db-wg(a)ripe.net > Reply-To: elvis(a)velea.eu > > > Dear RIPE NCC, > > can you please present a report showing how many LIRs have reported RIPE DB T&C violations? How many were resolved and what was the outcome? > > - Specifically, how many times has the RIPE NCC taken any action other than a warning message. > Dear DB-WG, should we accept that one of the chairs of this WG is purposely violating the T&Cs of the RIPE DB? > > Please see below one of the e-mails received from David, the RIPE DB-WG co-chair, by a RIPE NCC member named <company>. > (I'd like to mention that <company> has never had a business relationship with Larus Cloud Service Limited, has never subscribed to any mailing list and has never requested the message below - which I find to be spam as it was never solicited). > > regards, > > elvis > From: Larus Team <vendors(a)laruscloudservice.net> <mailto:vendors@laruscloudservice.net> > Subject: Unused IPv4 space of <company> > Dear Colleagues, > > We are contacting you regarding potential unused IPv4 address currently registered to your organisation <company>. > > Organisations like yours have in the past received address IPv4 space, it sometimes remains unused after changes to networks. Based on the available information it appears that your organisation is currently holding IPv4 space that appears unused or underutilised. > > We would like to offer you the possibility to capitalise on these addresses, we can assist you in either finding organisation to permanently transfer (sell) towards, or assist you in finding and forging long term relationships with some of our clients by leasing the unused space to them, generating a long-term income. We are a company based in Hong Kong, our CEO Heng Lu, has over ten years’ experience in managing Internet resources across the globe. Our IP manager David Hilario previously worked for the RIPE NCC one of the five RIR and as such has an intricate knowledge of the policies in the RIR policies especially when it comes to transfers and leasing the address space. > > We have clients lined up waiting for permanent transfers or long-term lease, so we can fulfil any of your requirements. > > We offer clients with available IP space a 3 months exclusivity contract. based on your requirements, we will match our waiting list clients with your criteria so that your IP space can be capitalise as soon as possible at the best possible rate. Please note that if you are leasing out your address space, we will offer it on a minimum of yearly basis with advance payment from our clients. > > Please find attached to this email our NDA to be filled in from your side and returned to us before we can proceed any further in our cooperation in regard to these transfers or long-term lease. We can lease and sell IP space to and from ARIN (North America) APNIC (Asia Pacific) and RIPE NCC (Europe, Middle East and parts of Central Asia). > > Kind Regards, > David Hilario > > IP Manager > Larus Cloud Service Limited > > p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784 > f: +852 29888068 > a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR > w: laruscloudservice.net > e: d.hilario(a)outsideheaven.com <mailto:d.hilario@outsideheaven.com> > > Larus Team > www.laruscloudservice.net <http://sctrack.mail.laruscloudservice.net/track/click/eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjogNDE4M…> >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] violation of DB T&C by DB-WG co-chair, is it acceptable?
by Clement Cavadore 14 Sep '17

14 Sep '17

Dear all, On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 04:08 +0200, Elvis Daniel Velea via db-wg wrote: > The questions stand. > I am curious to see what the rest of the wg members think. While there are many examples where spammers uses RIPE DB, more specifically when it comes to "IPv4 reselling market", I think that it is unacceptable to tolerate such a behavior from a chair (and/or from anyone from his company). A (co-)chair should fight against such practices, especially from his or her co-workers. DB is not meant for a marketing and advertising usage. And if any company is caught the hand in the honey pot, it should be publicly shamed/unsubscribed/banned from reading DB contact infos/whatever. -- Clément Cavadore

1 0

re:[db-wg] violation of DB T&C by DB-WG co-chair, is it acceptable?
by Anne-vivien Paris 14 Sep '17

14 Sep '17

Hi Elvis, Regarding your claim that our company misuses operation emails, we would like to address the issue in the following as it deeply affects our company's image as well as customer's credibility for us: 1. Although David sent the email, he is not the one who decides the recipient list. This is decided by the marketing team. 2. As a company which fully upholds fairness and respects customers ‘privacy, Larus NEVER uses any operation emails or technical emails for commercial use. The emails we used for commercial purpose are only those that are open to public. Please let us know if there is any misunderstanding. 3. We also respect our customer's privacy by implementing a un-subscription policy. Customers can unsubscribe anytime at their liberty. Larus never sends spam emails to our customers nor misuse any operation emails. Every employee of Larus follows strictly this policy. We do not tolerate any improper behaviour within the company as well as any false claims. Please do not hesitate to contact us in private if you find an operation email is used for commercial purpose.

3 2

re:[db-wg] violation of DB T&C by DB-WG co-chair, is it acceptable?
by Anne-vivien Paris 13 Sep '17

13 Sep '17

Hi Elvis, Regarding your claim that our company misuses operation emails, we would like to address the issue in the following as it deeply affects our company's image as well as customer's credibility for us: 1. Although David sent the email, he is not the one who decides the recipient list. This is decided by the marketing team. 2. As a company which fully upholds fairness and respects customers ‘privacy, Larus NEVER uses any operation emails or technical emails for commercial use. The emails we used for commercial purpose are only those that are open to public. Please let us know if there is any misunderstanding. 3. We also respect our customer's privacy by implementing a un-subscription policy. Customers can unsubscribe anytime at their liberty. Larus never sends spam emails to our customers nor misuse any operation emails. Every employee of Larus follows strictly this policy. We do not tolerate any improper behaviour within the company as well as any false claims. Please do not hesitate to contact us in private if you find an operation email is used for commercial purpose.

1 0

Draft Agenda RIPE75 - Database Working Group
by William Sylvester 11 Sep '17

11 Sep '17

Dear all, Below is the draft outline for the Database Working Group agenda for RIPE75. If you have any questions or comments please let the chairs know. Best regards, William, David, Denis DB-WG Chairs A. Introduction - 5 min * Welcome * Scribe * Jabber * Agenda B. Operational Update RIPE Database - 40 mins Tim Bruijnzeels, RIPE NCC C. Update on DB-WG mailing list challenges - 5 mins D. NWI - Open Proposals - 10 mins E. Identifier Technology Health Indicators (ITHI) - 20 mins Alain Durand, ICANN Z) AOB (open discussion)

1 0

Re: [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2017-02 Validates Database Attributes
by Horváth Ágoston János 11 Sep '17

11 Sep '17

Hi all, Agreed that a yearly email ping-pong is not really a good verification of abuse contact address. It's trivial to let RIPE NCC mails through and throw away the rest. But, one might ask, what's the point of a database if the data is not reliable? What's the point of all that contact info if we can't trust it? Why would we want to store (and serve) data that is not correct? Data validation is standard industry practice, pretty much everywhere. You can't even buy a bar of chocolate without validating your email address. One might ask, why would RIPE NCC not follow even the most basic industry practices while validating data of this importance? Cheers, Agoston On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <dbwg(a)c4inet.net> > To: db-wg(a)ripe.net > Cc: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net > Bcc: > Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:54:04 +0100 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2017-02 Validates Database Attributes > All, > > I will discuss this here as I do not accept the Anti-Abuse WG as > a forum for this proposal. For one thing, this proposal affects > every ripedb user - in fact, as this entails changes to how the > NCC provides services, the services-wg would be an even better > venue. For another, given the "population" and culture of > "debate" on the AAWG, any "consensus" reached there would be so > worthless as to be farcical. (If anyone wants amplification on > this, https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/ > provides ample evidence. > > To the meat of the proposal: > > Firstly, this proposal conflicts somewhat with NWI-7 in this very > WG. (Another reason why it should have gone here in the first > place) With the upcoming possibility of delegating abuse-c: to > (customers') resource objects, who bears any consequences of > these customers not replying to this proposed email? >> >> Rationale >> a. Arguments supporting the proposal > > >> Accurate and validated information in the RIPE Database is >> essential to establish a trusted and transparent environment in >> which all network operators can operate safely. > > > abuse-c: is a contact object, just as admin-c: or tech-c: and > (correct me if I'm wrong) audited at the same time as the rest of > the contact information. What makes it so unique that this > verification is not enough? > >> Accurate and >> validated information helps Internet troubleshooting at all >> levels, but it also helps to attribute malicious online >> activities that undermine this trusted environment. > > > See above. > >> The lack of reliable accurate and validated information in the >> database negatively impacts legitimate uses of the RIPE Database, >> including: > > > An *email adress* that doesn't reply once a year does NOT equate > to a "lack of reliable accurate and validated information". I > find this statement somewhat insulting to the NCC team who do > make the effort to keep the ripedb data accurate and do audit > resource holders. > There is an issue with the reliability of out-of-region and > legacy resource data but as the NCC has no "enforcement" powers > over these resource holders, in these cases this proposal > snatches at thin air. >> >> Assuring the security and reliability of the network by >> identifying points of contact for IP addresses for network >> operators, ISPs, and certified computer incident response teams; > > > "org:", "admin-c:", "tech-c:", "mnt-by:" and, yes, "abuse-c:" exist. > >> Ensuring that IP address holders are accountable, so individuals, >> consumers and the public are empowered to resolve abusive >> practices that impact safety and security; >> Assisting businesses, consumer groups, healthcare organisations >> and other organisations that are combating fraud (some of which >> have mandates to electronically save records) to comply with >> relevant legal and public safety safeguards; > > > The contact object that does (or *should*) stand for the person(s) who > can speak for a LIR, legally, is "admin-c:". "abuse-c:" is some role > account in a NOC or even a ticket system unlikely to have any > decision-making power. An attempt to make these roles (perhaps > even personally) responsible for the behaviour of a LIR and its > customers is counter-productive. I for one would flatly refuse to > do any abuse report handling under these circumstances. > >> Complying with national, civil and criminal due process laws in >> support of investigations and providing justice for victims. > > > Would the proposers please amplify exactly which law or due > process is violated by the NCC not sending an email once a year > to an abuse-c:? Myself, and I'm sure the NCC legal team, would be > interested to know. > > On a technical note, email is neither a secure nor a reliable > transport for such verification. In the day of blocklists and > large email providers imposing arbitrary restrictions on email > senders it is not guaranteed that a verification email reaches > the intended address or that a reply reaches the sender. The NCC > ARC procedure, however employs both email and personal contact > via telephone to verify the accuracy of the ripedb information. > > In toto, this proposal would impose unneccessary work on LIRs and > the NCC, using unsuitable means to rectify a non-existing issue, and I therefore oppose it. > >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2017-02 Validates Database Attributes
by Sascha Luck [ml] 10 Sep '17

10 Sep '17

All, I will discuss this here as I do not accept the Anti-Abuse WG as a forum for this proposal. For one thing, this proposal affects every ripedb user - in fact, as this entails changes to how the NCC provides services, the services-wg would be an even better venue. For another, given the "population" and culture of "debate" on the AAWG, any "consensus" reached there would be so worthless as to be farcical. (If anyone wants amplification on this, https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/ provides ample evidence. To the meat of the proposal: Firstly, this proposal conflicts somewhat with NWI-7 in this very WG. (Another reason why it should have gone here in the first place) With the upcoming possibility of delegating abuse-c: to (customers') resource objects, who bears any consequences of these customers not replying to this proposed email? >Rationale >a. Arguments supporting the proposal >Accurate and validated information in the RIPE Database is >essential to establish a trusted and transparent environment in >which all network operators can operate safely. abuse-c: is a contact object, just as admin-c: or tech-c: and (correct me if I'm wrong) audited at the same time as the rest of the contact information. What makes it so unique that this verification is not enough? >Accurate and >validated information helps Internet troubleshooting at all >levels, >but it also helps to attribute malicious online >activities that undermine this trusted environment. See above. >The lack of reliable accurate and validated information in the >database negatively impacts legitimate uses of the RIPE Database, >including: An *email adress* that doesn't reply once a year does NOT equate to a "lack of reliable accurate and validated information". I find this statement somewhat insulting to the NCC team who do make the effort to keep the ripedb data accurate and do audit resource holders. There is an issue with the reliability of out-of-region and legacy resource data but as the NCC has no "enforcement" powers over these resource holders, in these cases this proposal snatches at thin air. >Assuring the security and reliability of the network by >identifying points of contact for IP addresses for network >operators, ISPs, and certified computer incident response teams; "org:", "admin-c:", "tech-c:", "mnt-by:" and, yes, "abuse-c:" exist. >Ensuring that IP address holders are accountable, so individuals, >consumers and the public are empowered to resolve abusive >practices that impact safety and security; >Assisting businesses, consumer groups, healthcare organisations >and other organisations that are combating fraud (some of which >have mandates to electronically save records) to comply with >relevant legal and public safety safeguards; The contact object that does (or *should*) stand for the person(s) who can speak for a LIR, legally, is "admin-c:". "abuse-c:" is some role account in a NOC or even a ticket system unlikely to have any decision-making power. An attempt to make these roles (perhaps even personally) responsible for the behaviour of a LIR and its customers is counter-productive. I for one would flatly refuse to do any abuse report handling under these circumstances. >Complying with national, civil and criminal due process laws in >support of investigations and providing justice for victims. Would the proposers please amplify exactly which law or due process is violated by the NCC not sending an email once a year to an abuse-c:? Myself, and I'm sure the NCC legal team, would be interested to know. On a technical note, email is neither a secure nor a reliable transport for such verification. In the day of blocklists and large email providers imposing arbitrary restrictions on email senders it is not guaranteed that a verification email reaches the intended address or that a reply reaches the sender. The NCC ARC procedure, however employs both email and personal contact via telephone to verify the accuracy of the ripedb information. In toto, this proposal would impose unneccessary work on LIRs and the NCC, using unsuitable means to rectify a non-existing issue, and I therefore oppose it.

4 3