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

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an abuse
by Frank Gadegast 09 Apr '10

09 Apr '10

James Davis wrote: Hello, >> It is likely, that you get a problem report just a few minutes >> after on of your users started to send spam, because his PC >> is invected. > > This already happens. Our contact details are published in a clear and > unambiguous fashion, in all the places that you'd expect. Automated spam > reporting schemes appear to have no problems contacting us. This is > because as a network operator we have chosen to deal with these issues, > not because we're told to. Sorry but this is not true for all members. Most newer or smaller ISPs are pretty puzzled, when they have their first real outbreak, and even ask us for advise and help to fix their holes and others do not subscribe lists, that could give them up-to-date warnings or get enough reports, if its only a smaller problem. At least, this is our experience here with our own blacklist. >> You can then look up the report (or even automate it), reset >> his radius password and kick him out, waiting for him >> to phone your support :o) > > Not all ISPs can operate like that. Every one of our customers would > rather we offered them help and advice on how to deal with the problem > rather than taking automated action. That is why we have a CSIRT/abuse > team.p Good for you, impossible for big ISPs that have no real contact to their customers. Cutting the line is a hard method, right, but for some ISPs the only methods to get attention immediatelly. But again: its up for the member what to do with the reports ... And Im not saying, that the system would fit everybody needs, but I defny think that it would be better than the current state. >> Lets say, you receive 100 reports in about 10 minutes for one >> IP, where this IP had no report ever ? >> >> What is likely to happen ? >> What would you do ? > > An incident would likely be opened in our ticketing system before that > ten minutes were up, and someone would be on the phone to our customer > shortly afterwards. We deal with every complaint of spam, even if it's > just a single report, although the response is proportionate to the > particular incident. Great, you are part of a very small club ;o) > Like I said, you'd have to think really carefully about how you'd > measure what a "bad provider" was, or you risk not only wasting your > efforts but making a lot of people angry. Sure, so that why limits have to very high and these kind of limits are up for discussion on this list. But making analysis like this public should not be the first step for the system at all, it might be a future option, if things are settled, everybody got used to the new system aso ... > We get questions like this a lot from our customers - asking us how they > rank abuse wise compared to other customers and honestly there isn't an > easy way to measure this. Ok, got it ... > The proposal, whether I agree with it or not, needs a concrete answer > for how you would measure a 'bad provider'. I dont think so, because the first intention of the system is not how to define a "bad provider", it only talkes about how RIPE staff could talk to those providers. If I would implement limits, I would messure rates according to the size of the member allocations first and monitor these rates to see whats currently normal for a member. And if those rates are much higher than compared to others, I would ask the member to try to do something against that or to explain it, then slowly adjusting the allowed rates up or down again. Finally, after a long period, I would tell all members, that its time to drop the rates, if they are rising over their allowed limit or not really dropping over a long period, THEN, and only then I would call them a "bad provider", because they are obviously not capable or willing to do anything ... But thats a big step for the future. The first step should be a backlink system, to ensure that reports are read and categorized (ok, "really bad provider" will propably program something arround that backlink system to bypass it, I heared even about people that are bypassing captcha codes already with OCR-software). >> Well, thats only work at RIPE NCC, its not that complicated to >> automated bounces ... > > Say the abuse contact is abuse(a)foo.com and the billing contact is > john.doe(a)foo.com, if the domain foo.com expires then no amount of e-mail > is going to resolve the issue. Someone has to get on the phone and find Clear, but a member without any working email contact ? Is that really possible ? How can you work with new allocations or changes to old one without any working email contact ? > out what's happened. This happens fairly frequently here with only > around a thousand customers. Cant believe it. Does the RIPEs system do not check automatically if (e.g.) allocations messages bounce ? >> Defny right, but lets start with something ... > > Starting is good when you know what direction you're heading in. It's > the other half of the question that people here are more interested in :) Interesting point ... Kind regards, Frank > > James > > - -- > James Davis +44 1235 822 229 PGP: 0xD1622876 > JANET CSIRT 0870 850 2340 (+44 1235 822 340) > Lumen House, Library Avenue, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0SG > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iD8DBQFLvvqahZi14NFiKHYRAkpHAJ4s3tiryuoTmY3j8Jivot909exfkgCfYLy3 > Wm34pL98ZdkkHClYthklcEg= > =b+z3 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited > by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 > and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, > Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG > > > -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank(a)powerweb.de

1 0

DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an abuse monitor system
by Frank Gadegast 09 Apr '10

09 Apr '10

Dear all, please discuss and comment to following draft proposal ... (and please forgive but correct my english, bad formatting or terms) Kind regards, Frank -------------------------------------------------------------- DRAFT: implementation of an abuse monitor system (draft RIPE proposal) Abstract This document describes the implementation of an abuse monitor system at RIPE NCC. Its intention is to ensure working abuse contacts on the members side and to improve the awareness, responsiveness and work flow for abuse reports for the reporting (and abused) internet users and the RIPE members (owning the misused services). Contents 1. Introduction 2. Goals of an abuse monitor system 3. Requirements 4. Description 5. Advantages 6. Disadvantages 7. Enhancements 8. Outlook 1. Introduction Taking in account the amount of spam and other abuse currently happening every day, there is a need to ensure that ISPs and other organisations are aware of the problem their customers and end users can cause for others. The current procedure of having non-mandatory abuse contacts in whois output is causing several problems for the incident reporting side as well as for the receiver. RIPEs member should be responsible for the abuse their customers cause, like this is enforced by law in many countries already. 2. Goals of an abuse monitor system Currently most abuse contact addresses are hidden in whois output remark fields in several non-standarized ways or do not even exist, because the real abuse-field is non-mandatory. There should be a standarized method how to contact responsible people to send abuse reports too. It should be possible to to send abuse reports to a standarized email address, because whois queries are limited. The system should bypass whois queries, so that reports can be automated. Currently there is no control, if existing abuse contacts are still valid, working or incoming emails are beeing read. The real abuse email address of any RIPE member should be hidden by the abuse monitor system. Finally a monitoring system should be able to messure the amount of incoming reports for any RIPE member. This will enable RIPE NCC to help members to become more aware of security breakouts or help members that are not aware of the problems they cause. RIPE NCC could e.g. arrange for security training cources and invite members with a very high reporting rate according to the amount of allocated IP addresses. 3. Requirements RIPE NCC should enhance the member section with an extra abuse contact field. This field should be filled at startup with the main email address of any member automatically, but should be editable for the members. 4. Description RIPE NCC should implement a mailserver able to receive emails in the form of IP1.IP2.IP3.IP4(a)abuse.ripe.net (example) Incoming emails to these addresses can be treated as incoming abuse reports and will be forwarded to the members internal abuse contact address (non-public), after the mailserver finds the correct member by looking up internal allocation tables. The amount of incoming emails for every member will be logged and should create internal statistics for RIPE NCCs internal usage. Their should be no anti spam systems implemented on this server to ensure that every incoming email gets forwarded. Anti spam systems should be up to the member. Furthermore, RIPE NCC should monitor, if the members abuse contact address generates errors, bounces or other problems like "User unknown" or "Mailbox full". If the members abuse contact address is not valid anymore, it could be reset to the members hidden main email address, and the member could be informed about the problem in other ways (letter, phone call aso). 5. Advantages The system does neither have to define or decide what spam or abuse is, because it only forwards abuse reports to the responsible person. It is likely that any incoming email is a description of a real abusive problem (except incoming spam). The described system would make it very easy for any ISP or private person to report received spam, hacks or other abuses directly to the responsible RIPE member, without having to know its name and without having to know how to use whois. Reporting systems could be easily automated without having to query whois. The ISP or RIPE member can easily change and control his internal abuse contact address without having to update several objects in RIPEs database. RIPE NCC can ensure that all alocations have a working abuse address. This all can ensure that incidents are really reported by the abused users (and not beeing ignored or forgotten because its to much work to report incidents) and that reports will be read by the right and responsible person. This will finally increase the awareness of any RIPE member about the problems his end users or misused servers may cause and will hopefully force any member to implement methods to monitor there own servers and/or dialin users to improve the detection of misused services. This will hopefully reduce the amount of spams and abuse worldwide. Finally this will maybe influence other RIRs to implement similar systems. 6. Disadvantages It is likely that spammer will misuse the new general abuse adresses massively. Anti spam methos needs to be implemented at the members side. 7. Enhancements The system could be enhanced with addtional services easily on RIPE NCCs side, after implementation and a test period of the system. More detailed statistics could help improving the awareness at the members side. Enhancing forwarded abuse report with an feedback link could help to categorize incoming reports. Members could then visit a ticket system to back report incoming reports as "spam", "incident" or "wrong report" (like popular spam blacklist like SpamCop are doing this already), add comments like "missing information", "incident currently under investigation" or "incident solved". This could help members to track reports and incident easily without having to implement a own system (what could be very interesting for smaller ISPs). Finally this would allow the reporting internet user to receive feedback to ensure that his input is valuable, important and taking care off. 8. Outlook Standarization of a general abuse address will be another step to the standarization of an abuse report format, wich are currently in process. This could lead to open source implemantations of spam detection solutions that include standarized reporting features. Standarized reporting could also be included in other monitoring and detection software, like Intrusion Detection Systems or Antispam Solutions. Author: Frank Gadegast Company: PHADE Software - PowerWeb Contact: frank(a)powerweb.de Version: 0.1 Date: 08.04.2010

7 7

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] mandatory information in the IRT object
by Frank Gadegast 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

> > This functionality is already provided by the irt object, maybe it would be more beneficial to change the policy to require that the irt-object contains valid information. But it seems that there is no majority to make abuse fields (whatever abuse fields) mandatory. And there is still no idea how to validate the supplied email addresses. Thats why I thought that my system is better (and easier, because the member has just one email address to setup instead to take care about hundred objects). Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank(a)powerweb.de > > Bradley >

1 0

update on netsecdb project
by Claus Marxmeier 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 When starting with www.netsecdb.de in 2008 i'd never expected the decrease of spams to round about 1% of former amount to remain a stable value. Stats from last weeks, monthes and year now give proof that the setup of a central communitation matrix based on worldwide IPv4-whois databases was a great help in fighting abusive mails and a lot more. Inspite of common hosting environments the number of spams is generally lower that the amount of mails containing wanted messaging. The hourly auto-generated configuration files for MTAs like postfix, exim, qmail and MS Excchange 2007 and later used on external partner servers show same progresses. In addition, files that contain the blocking lists for leading TOP25 spammer-country are distributed for free. Starting from scratch with a localized german based environment, we opened netranges from additional countries based on the incoming spamlevel. Nowadays, networks from DE, CH, AT, BE, NL, FR, GB, LU, LI, IE, IT, CZ, SE, GR, PT, NO, PL, IS, FI, ES, DK, SK, HU, RO, BG, LT, LV, EE, US, CA, IL and defined customer nets don't get blocked but get tickets instead. If a non-customers's netrange abuse-email is invalid/non-functional, range gets blocked. Many providers integrated ticket-systems for abuse-handling and improved their quality management a lot. Only a few remained passive and surprisingly a handful of ISPs still seem to work with quota limited mailboxes to avoid a kind of work-overload. Logfiles show an increasing number of HEADER connects to our smtp-ports just to check the current status of single IP or netrange returned by our servers. Within the last monthes, netsol worked on rwhois integration into ARIN whois outputs which finetuned the process of generating abuse-tickets a lot. Many RIPE members started updating their whois records and abuse-mail contacts. Sometimes this results in an very effective workflow with only a few seconds response time over far distance whereas local providers still cannot be reached cause of invalid or missing contact records. Unfortunately the RIPE team stated by mail, that they have no job-order to take care of the integrity of it's database records i.e. finding ancient content with missing or invalid information gives random results. There seems to be no need for a RIPE member to keep it's records up-2-date ? Any additional information regardings spams, exploit attacks, hacking can be taken from www.netsecdb.de site's sections. I wonder how long hosters are willing to pay the traffic, energy and CPU-time for something nobody needs to have. I wonder how long i takes for the DialUp- and Business Customers to learn, that security is a crucial part of internet activities and that their ISP's deliver very diffent qualities behind their mostly coloured flash-animated websites. Looking forward to see the current unsolved problems beeing transported to public clouds in datacenter and poisoned high bandwith customer connections if everything remains 'same procedure as every year' ... Kind regards, Claus - -- Claus Marxmeier - --- Claus Marxmeier EDV-Service Johann-Kierspel-Straße 5 51491 Overath Germany -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAku6h3oACgkQUIsBFYVeBxC82gCfReNpv+rLKbb2n9vRxwoizCv+ 0UAAn18QA/Y6irneBZyvcty9NGiKDHgq =MuBy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

9 11

DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an abuse monitor system
by Frank Gadegast 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

Dear all, please discuss and comment to following draft proposal ... (and please forgive but correct my english, bad formatting or terms) Kind regards, Frank -------------------------------------------------------------- DRAFT: implementation of an abuse monitor system (draft RIPE proposal) Abstract This document describes the implementation of an abuse monitor system at RIPE NCC. Its intention is to ensure working abuse contacts on the members side and to improve the awareness, responsiveness and work flow for abuse reports for the reporting (and abused) internet users and the RIPE members (owning the misused services). Contents 1. Introduction 2. Goals of an abuse monitor system 3. Requirements 4. Description 5. Advantages 6. Disadvantages 7. Enhancements 8. Outlook 1. Introduction Taking in account the amount of spam and other abuse currently happening every day, there is a need to ensure that ISPs and other organisations are aware of the problem their customers and end users can cause for others. The current procedure of having non-mandatory abuse contacts in whois output is causing several problems for the incident reporting side as well as for the receiver. RIPEs member should be responsible for the abuse their customers cause, like this is enforced by law in many countries already. 2. Goals of an abuse monitor system Currently most abuse contact addresses are hidden in whois output remark fields in several non-standarized ways or do not even exist, because the real abuse-field is non-mandatory. There should be a standarized method how to contact responsible people to send abuse reports too. It should be possible to to send abuse reports to a standarized email address, because whois queries are limited. The system should bypass whois queries, so that reports can be automated. Currently there is no control, if existing abuse contacts are still valid, working or incoming emails are beeing read. The real abuse email address of any RIPE member should be hidden by the abuse monitor system. Finally a monitoring system should be able to messure the amount of incoming reports for any RIPE member. This will enable RIPE NCC to help members to become more aware of security breakouts or help members that are not aware of the problems they cause. RIPE NCC could e.g. arrange for security training cources and invite members with a very high reporting rate according to the amount of allocated IP addresses. 3. Requirements RIPE NCC should enhance the member section with an extra abuse contact field. This field should be filled at startup with the main email address of any member automatically, but should be editable for the members. 4. Description RIPE NCC should implement a mailserver able to receive emails in the form of IP1.IP2.IP3.IP4(a)abuse.ripe.net (example) Incoming emails to these addresses can be treated as incoming abuse reports and will be forwarded to the members internal abuse contact address (non-public), after the mailserver finds the correct member by looking up internal allocation tables. The amount of incoming emails for every member will be logged and should create internal statistics for RIPE NCCs internal usage. Their should be no anti spam systems implemented on this server to ensure that every incoming email gets forwarded. Anti spam systems should be up to the member. Furthermore, RIPE NCC should monitor, if the members abuse contact address generates errors, bounces or other problems like "User unknown" or "Mailbox full". If the members abuse contact address is not valid anymore, it could be reset to the members hidden main email address, and the member could be informed about the problem in other ways (letter, phone call aso). 5. Advantages The system does neither have to define or decide what spam or abuse is, because it only forwards abuse reports to the responsible person. It is likely that any incoming email is a description of a real abusive problem (except incoming spam). The described system would make it very easy for any ISP or private person to report received spam, hacks or other abuses directly to the responsible RIPE member, without having to know its name and without having to know how to use whois. Reporting systems could be easily automated without having to query whois. The ISP or RIPE member can easily change and control his internal abuse contact address without having to update several objects in RIPEs database. RIPE NCC can ensure that all alocations have a working abuse address. This all can ensure that incidents are really reported by the abused users (and not beeing ignored or forgotten because its to much work to report incidents) and that reports will be read by the right and responsible person. This will finally increase the awareness of any RIPE member about the problems his end users or misused servers may cause and will hopefully force any member to implement methods to monitor there own servers and/or dialin users to improve the detection of misused services. This will hopefully reduce the amount of spams and abuse worldwide. Finally this will maybe influence other RIRs to implement similar systems. 6. Disadvantages It is likely that spammer will misuse the new general abuse adresses massively. Anti spam methos needs to be implemented at the members side. 7. Enhancements The system could be enhanced with addtional services easily on RIPE NCCs side, after implementation and a test period of the system. More detailed statistics could help improving the awareness at the members side. Enhancing forwarded abuse report with an feedback link could help to categorize incoming reports. Members could then visit a ticket system to back report incoming reports as "spam", "incident" or "wrong report" (like popular spam blacklist like SpamCop are doing this already), add comments like "missing information", "incident currently under investigation" or "incident solved". This could help members to track reports and incident easily without having to implement a own system (what could be very interesting for smaller ISPs). Finally this would allow the reporting internet user to receive feedback to ensure that his input is valuable, important and taking care off. 8. Outlook Standarization of a general abuse address will be another step to the standarization of an abuse report format, wich are currently in process. This could lead to open source implemantations of spam detection solutions that include standarized reporting features. Standarized reporting could also be included in other monitoring and detection software, like Intrusion Detection Systems or Antispam Solutions. Author: Frank Gadegast Company: PHADE Software - PowerWeb Contact: frank(a)powerweb.de Version: 0.1 Date: 08.04.2010

2 1

RE: [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an abuse monitor system
by Thor Kottelin 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

> -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg- > admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Bradley Freeman > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:45 PM > To: 'Frank Gadegast'; anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net > And if the only benefit is a common abuse alias, hasn't this has > already > been suggested with an abuse@ address in RFC2142 - Mailbox Names > for Common > Services, Roles and Functions which is not RIPE region specific? It is not always obvious which abuse@ domain should be selected for a particular IP address. I like the suggestion of routing reports according to the IP address of the abuse source. -- Thor Kottelin http://www.anta.net/

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an abuse monitor system
by Frank Gadegast 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

Bradley Freeman wrote: > Hello, > Maybe I am missing something but I can't see the benefit in having RIPE Please read section 5. Advantages ... I described a lot of good reasons. I personally think that its really important to automate abuse reports. And this can not be done with the current practice of non standarized abuse contacts hidden somewhere in whois queries. > proxy abuse requests, as a member of a CSIRT I feel this would add a layer > of abstraction between the 2 network operators and definitely wouldn't use > it as a first port of call. Additionally RIPE are not in a position to force > the badly behaving ISPs to cooperate, if you have an uncooperative ISP with Well RIPE NCC can at least force their members to have a working contact address. > problem X do you really believe that RIPE suggesting they go on a training > course is going to help? Sure the RIPE NCC may have some other contact Maybe on some, we are running an internal blacklist that clearly states that most spam is coming from NEW members, if you compare it to the amount of IPs the members have. If you see that there is even a lot of spam coming out of the new IPv6 allocation it is clear, that most new members do not even think about abuse they cause. > details but most ISPs within the RIPE region you can get hold of even if the > abuse mailbox does not work by making a few phone calls etc. > > And if the only benefit is a common abuse alias, hasn't this has already > been suggested with an abuse@ address in RFC2142 - Mailbox Names for Common > Services, Roles and Functions which is not RIPE region specific? Yes, but it is only a recommendation, reality looks different. Most abuse addresses are hidden or not working or do not exist. RIPE can easily monitor a working address with this alias proxy. Thats what its for. I really believe it would work better than now, if the NCC can control and monitor the addresses. This will even work better than trying to make the abuse-field mandatory again. What we need now are comments to make the system working better and taking care about problems I wasnt thinking of in the first place ... Kind regards, Frank > > Bradley > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: anti-abuse-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg- >> admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Frank Gadegast >> Sent: 08 April 2010 14:30 >> To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net >> Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an >> abuse monitor system >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> please discuss and comment to following draft proposal ... >> (and please forgive but correct my english, bad formatting >> or terms) >> >> Kind regards, Frank >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> DRAFT: implementation of an abuse monitor system >> (draft RIPE proposal) >> >> >> >> Abstract >> This document describes the implementation of an abuse monitor system >> at RIPE NCC. Its intention is to ensure working abuse contacts on the >> members side and to improve the awareness, responsiveness and work flow >> for abuse reports for the reporting (and abused) internet users and the >> RIPE members (owning the misused services). >> >> >> Contents >> 1. Introduction >> 2. Goals of an abuse monitor system >> 3. Requirements >> 4. Description >> 5. Advantages >> 6. Disadvantages >> 7. Enhancements >> 8. Outlook >> >> >> 1. Introduction >> Taking in account the amount of spam and other abuse currently >> happening every day, there is a need to ensure that ISPs and >> other organisations are aware of the problem their customers >> and end users can cause for others. >> >> The current procedure of having non-mandatory abuse contacts in >> whois output is causing several problems for the incident reporting >> side as well as for the receiver. >> >> RIPEs member should be responsible for the abuse their >> customers cause, like this is enforced by law in many countries >> already. >> >> >> 2. Goals of an abuse monitor system >> Currently most abuse contact addresses are hidden in whois output >> remark fields in several non-standarized ways or do not even exist, >> because the real abuse-field is non-mandatory. There should be >> a standarized method how to contact responsible people to send >> abuse reports too. >> >> It should be possible to to send abuse reports to a standarized >> email address, because whois queries are limited. The system should >> bypass whois queries, so that reports can be automated. >> >> Currently there is no control, if existing abuse contacts are still >> valid, working or incoming emails are beeing read. >> >> The real abuse email address of any RIPE member should be hidden >> by the abuse monitor system. >> >> Finally a monitoring system should be able to messure the amount >> of incoming reports for any RIPE member. This will enable >> RIPE NCC to help members to become more aware of security breakouts >> or help members that are not aware of the problems they cause. >> >> RIPE NCC could e.g. arrange for security training cources and >> invite members with a very high reporting rate according to >> the amount of allocated IP addresses. >> >> >> 3. Requirements >> RIPE NCC should enhance the member section with an extra abuse contact >> field. This field should be filled at startup with the main email >> address of any member automatically, but should be editable for the >> members. >> >> >> 4. Description >> RIPE NCC should implement a mailserver able to receive emails in the >> form of >> >> IP1.IP2.IP3.IP4(a)abuse.ripe.net (example) >> >> Incoming emails to these addresses can be treated as incoming abuse >> reports and will be forwarded to the members internal abuse contact >> address (non-public), after the mailserver finds the correct member by >> looking up internal allocation tables. >> >> The amount of incoming emails for every member will be logged and >> should >> create internal statistics for RIPE NCCs internal usage. >> >> Their should be no anti spam systems implemented on this server to >> ensure that every incoming email gets forwarded. Anti spam systems >> should be up to the member. >> >> Furthermore, RIPE NCC should monitor, if the members abuse contact >> address generates errors, bounces or other problems like "User unknown" >> or "Mailbox full". If the members abuse contact address is not valid >> anymore, it could be reset to the members hidden main email address, >> and >> the member could be informed about the problem in other ways (letter, >> phone call aso). >> >> >> 5. Advantages >> The system does neither have to define or decide what spam or abuse is, >> because it only forwards abuse reports to the responsible person. >> It is likely that any incoming email is a description of a real >> abusive problem (except incoming spam). >> >> The described system would make it very easy for any ISP or private >> person to report received spam, hacks or other abuses directly to >> the responsible RIPE member, without having to know its name and >> without >> having to know how to use whois. >> Reporting systems could be easily automated without having to query >> whois. >> >> The ISP or RIPE member can easily change and control his internal abuse >> contact address without having to update several objects in RIPEs >> database. >> >> RIPE NCC can ensure that all alocations have a working abuse address. >> >> This all can ensure that incidents are really reported by the abused >> users (and not beeing ignored or forgotten because its to much work to >> report incidents) and that reports will be read by the right and >> responsible person. >> >> This will finally increase the awareness of any RIPE member about the >> problems his end users or misused servers may cause and will hopefully >> force any member to implement methods to monitor there own servers >> and/or dialin users to improve the detection of misused services. >> >> This will hopefully reduce the amount of spams and abuse worldwide. >> >> Finally this will maybe influence other RIRs to implement similar >> systems. >> >> >> 6. Disadvantages >> It is likely that spammer will misuse the new general abuse adresses >> massively. Anti spam methos needs to be implemented at the members >> side. >> >> >> 7. Enhancements >> The system could be enhanced with addtional services easily on RIPE >> NCCs >> side, after implementation and a test period of the system. More >> detailed statistics could help improving the awareness at the members >> side. >> >> Enhancing forwarded abuse report with an feedback link could help to >> categorize incoming reports. Members could then visit a ticket system >> to >> back report incoming reports as "spam", "incident" or "wrong report" >> (like popular spam blacklist like SpamCop are doing this already), add >> comments like "missing information", "incident currently under >> investigation" or "incident solved". This could help members to track >> reports and incident easily without having to implement a own system >> (what could be very interesting for smaller ISPs). Finally this would >> allow the reporting internet user to receive feedback to ensure that >> his >> input is valuable, important and taking care off. >> >> >> 8. Outlook >> Standarization of a general abuse address will be another step to the >> standarization of an abuse report format, wich are currently in >> process. >> This could lead to open source implemantations of spam detection >> solutions that include standarized reporting features. >> Standarized reporting could also be included in other monitoring >> and detection software, like Intrusion Detection Systems or >> Antispam Solutions. >> >> >> >> Author: Frank Gadegast >> Company: PHADE Software - PowerWeb >> Contact: frank(a)powerweb.de >> Version: 0.1 >> Date: 08.04.2010 >> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP Desktop 10.0.0 > Charset: us-ascii > > wsBVAwUBS73dxjR8IIjdC+5SAQJEAQf/cG+OZ3r0JYXxLhTxk2dXumEATmrULXl4 > /ZBCJ5szqvhCArMCg5/dUAhA2Fp2j2jm8knh7+I2IIOX62UThDQiQRjwxvX2QDbB > 8moAsEiGlOWw5SCkydXCu2l/a1O7xSZuU5lmggJa85xaCw/eQEOsHQD5lEi7YEHN > VCTiV0+n4xLFniKLE1PfqS9xo7xqlZ4yq4YqJazCQIBd44siDlGh86Ck8oLjA5FK > IgRyHRwNBPh1Tbg4WdGQUyms/gXeO1cldK4F/FPWPUOobKNR8VZwed++sxgf/ECE > yWng6ckMNkknKZJDp4tXUp5f2D4Vjc4GSL9Aur+woNws+n2YV2xIwQ== > =eI5K > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank(a)powerweb.de

1 0

RIPE 60 - Draft Agenda
by Brian Nisbet 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

As promised, we have a draft agenda for the meeting in Prague. I wish to emphasise the draft nature of this agenda at present, I have no doubt it will change over the next four weeks. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/agendas/anti-abuse.html Anti-Abuse Working Group Agenda - RIPE 60 Location: - Bohemia I Date: Thursday, 6 May 2010, 16:00-17:30 Anti-Abuse Working Group Home Page A. Administrative Matters * Welcome * Select a scribe * Jabber Monitor * Microphone Etiquette * Approve Minutes from RIPE 59 * Finalise agenda B Update * B1. Network Abuse Update - Richard Cox * B2. Recent List Discussion - Abuse contacts, Sanctions, etc. C. Technical Measures * C1. RIPE NCC Tools update. D. Interactions * D1. Working Groups * D2. Law Enforcement Interaction - Wout de Natris, LAP * D3. RIPE NCC Gov/LEA Interactions Update E. Documents * E1. BCP Documentation X. A.O.B. Z. Agenda for RIPE 61; Plenary Presentations

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
by Brian Nisbet 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

Frank, I have assumed, hopefully correctly, that you meant this mail to go to the list again, so I have copied my reply there. "Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast" wrote the following on 06/04/2010 16:03: > > Hello Brian, > >>> How can not anybody have an idea, how to solve the problem ? >> >> Many people have many ideas, not all of them work. There remains no >> silver bullet. And any recommendation made still needs to be adopted. > > I just discribed one arround launch time. > RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networks. You did not describe a silver bullet. The RIPE community has urged their members to stop spam and abuse for years, RIPE-409 says it quite plainly, this has been the repeated advice. There are potential ways of enforcing this, but please do not claim that what has been discussed so far today will suddenly stop network abuse. >>> Usally there are to many ideas resulting in at least something to do. >> >> And many things have been discussed, and often solutions suggested. It > > Not on the list. And the minutes of each meeting are posted to the list. So far no discussion has come out of them. >> is up to people to implement those suggestions or to make proposals to >> the RIPE community and perhaps ask the NCC to undertake a task. In >> addition, as we discussed in Lisbon and as we will be discussing again >> in Prague, the two chairs of the WG have been working with the NCC and >> international law enforcement to look at ways of furthering cooperation > > goverments ? > this will make all worse and slower ... The aim is to get governments and LEAs onside, to examine policies and procedures at RIR level and to avoid the making of necessary legislation and to keep the bottom up consensus approach. However there is no way that governments will not be involved, the idea is to take their input and show them we, as a community, are acting. >> and putting procedures in place that can more directly tackle network >> abuse. However this is, as you must appreciate, not a simple or fast task. >> >>>> we hope, in May, to chair another productive meeting. >>> >>> What will be discussed there ? >>> Agenda ? >> >> We're trying to finalise the agenda at the moment, but the work that is >> taking place with the NCC, the RIPE community and the LEAs will be > > Well, please post it to the list, so that it can be discussed before > its finalized. I will post an agenda, but I'm not sure what discussion there is likely to be as my two calls for agenda items have, so far, met with one single response. Equally, the agenda of any WG is reasonably mutable and on occasion has been finalised an hour or so before the meeting, so there will be plenty of time for discussion. >> playing a major part. I hope to have a first draft by the end of this >> week. Obviously if any proposals are brought to the WG before the >> meeting on Thursday 6th, discussion time for them will be allocated on >> the agenda. > > All this should happen all on the list, not everybody can attend meetings. Apologies, I should have been clearer. As has been stated elsewhere and, I believe, on this list, while policy proposals will, undoubtedly, be discussed at meetings, the primary place to discuss policy is the WG mailing list and there is no intention or plan to purely discuss things at meetings. Brian.

10 17

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
by Frank Gadegast 07 Apr '10

07 Apr '10

> > HI, Frank! Hi, > Feel your frustration. But do a quick google search on FUSSP. April fools day if over ... > Anyway, your solution would impose costs on others (i.e. RIPE, other ISPs), Sure, but they can easily be shared with the same method that RIPE uses for the member fees, big ISPs pay more, small ones less. In fact it will be simple some costs at RIPE. And who cares what a spamming provider will have to invest to get his customers cleaned ? Im somehow getting the idea, that those people on this list that are always AGAINST any idea ARE these providers, that are too lazy to control their spambotted customers. Could that be the final reason why we do not find a solution ? I added some more statistics to our own blacklist. Then I will run the ASes of everyboy on this list Im aware off through this statistics next month and gonna post the results to this list, lets see ... Maybe everybody on this list running a blacklist or statistics about spam he receives should do this too. > and would be easily abused to destroy an ISP you don't like. How that ? By sending fake reports to RIPE clearing address ? I recommended that the ISP has to categorize the report himself like you can do on spamcop too, he can simply select "no spam from us" and thats it. And RIPE can control the behaviour of the ISP easily with some simple statistics ... The system should work fuzzy-like, only the really bad ones get punished and the ones with little problems get away. And RIPE can easily reject reports coming from the same IPs all the time ... or the ISP under a fake attack can talk to RIPE about it, that problem isnt really hard to solve. Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank(a)powerweb.de > > > -- > Esa Laitinen > Tel. +41 76 200 2870 > skype/yahoo: reunaesa > > --000e0cd1145cbf98e60483a02e56 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > HI, Frank! Feel your frustration. But do a quick google search on FUSSP. Anyway, your solution would impose costs on others (i.e. RIPE, other ISPs), and would be easily abused to destroy an ISP you don't like. > -- Esa Laitinen Tel. +41 76 200 2870 skype/yahoo: reunaesa > > --000e0cd1145cbf98e60483a02e56-- >

2 1