abusive changes of person handles (protect your maintainer!)
Hi, peruse the latest case of abusive changes of person handles: person: Thomas Heubach address: FICK-AG - Pornoproductions address: Nymphomanen Str. 37 address: D-80335 Muenchen address: Germany phone: +49 190 666666 nic-hdl: TH849 remarks: Wer Frauen liebt und Fotzen leckt, remarks: der mag auch HARIBOKONFEKT. Ich liebe remarks: Frauen und lecke Fotzen, doch Haribo remarks: find ich zum kotzen. mnt-by: DTAG-NIC changed: dbaier@www-service.de 19991109 source: RIPE person: Andreas Schoberth address: FICK-AG address: D-81925 Muenchen address: Germany phone: +49 190 332 332 nic-hdl: AS48-RIPE remarks: Wenn Dir ein Maedchen remarks: - pudelnackt - remarks: von hinten an die Nudel packt, remarks: wenn Dir also gutes widerfaehrt, remarks: dann ist das einen Asbach-Uralt wert. mnt-by: FR-NIC-MNT changed: chef@nic.de 19991109 source: RIPE (those two probably being affected due to being the contacts for viag.de) Judging from an earlier case, the handles weren't password protected, some "nice and intelligent person" changed the contents and then slapped a protected maintainer on it. I'm pretty sure the above is not unique; the case I know of also slandered the subject of the handle and got a XLINK-MNT put on (which it still keeps, together with a remark that Xlink doesn't appreciate abuse of our maintainer). Apart from the obvious (auth MAIL FROM and NONE ought to be considered deprecated, and every maintainer should have its password(s)), can we please find the perpetrators and scare them a bit? ;-) Oh, and also DTAG-NIC and FR-NIC-MNT will probably want to change the mnt-by: to ECRC-MNT. kind regards, Petra Zeidler -- i.A. Petra Zeidler, Neukundenanschluss Xlink Internet Service GmbH [X] zeidler@xlink.net [X] Tel: 0721/9652-220 [X] Fax: 0721/9652-209 [X] Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michael Rotert. Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161. [X] Auftraege erledigen wir zu unseren Allgemeinen Geschaeftsbedingungen.
Hi, maintainer abuse as described in Petra Zeidler's mail is something that is becoming increasingly frequent. There are two issues here: - The use of very weak protection methods (NONE and MAIL-FROM) (see *). Some people like these because all they are looking for is a notification mechanism, not a protection mechanism. The use of weak protection methods makes it easy for someone, intentionally or by accident, to override the maintainer protection. - The initial attachment of a maintainer to an object without one. In the current database, dating from more quiet days in the internet, anyone can attach any maintainer to an object that does not have a mnt-by field because that maintainer's authentication is not checked when the object does not have a mnt-by attribute. In the new database, currently in development, we are already thinking about doing the corresponding check before adding the maintainer (requiring proper authentication to add it, hopefully from the maintainer's owner). Would the community see this change in behaviour as a good thing? Best regards, Joao * Some people think otherwise. (eg see http://www.providerfrage.de/mnt.htm) ===================================================== | Joao Luis Silva Damas http://www.ripe.net | | RIPE DB Group Manager email: joao@ripe.net | | RIPE NCC | | Amsterdam | =====================================================
participants (2)
-
Joao Luis Silva Damas -
Petra Zeidler