May 2000 - db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

<auto-dbm@ripe.net> is slow this afternoon.
by RIPE Database Administration 17 May '18

17 May '18

Dear Colleagues, Because of a very high level of use this afternoon, the response time of <auto-dbm(a)ripe.net> is longer than normal. I have made contact with those who are responsible and I expect the situation to improve as the machine works through the queue. Please be patient. Obviously we at the RIPE NCC Database Group are continuously working to make the performance of the database as good as possible. However, we cannot make improvements in zero time. We thank you for your co-operation up to now and we ask for your continued co-operation so that everyone receives the best possible service. If you have anymore questions, please contact <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Ambrose Magee ____________________________ RIPE Database Administration.

2 2

Top 100 Maintainers List 20000524
by RIPE Database Administration 24 May '00

24 May '00

1 0

Delay in processing updates
by RIPE Database Administration 24 May '00

24 May '00

Dear Colleagues, We have currenly a larger update queue than usual. We expect that updates in the queue will be processed in 4-5 hours. If you have not yet received an acknowledgement to your updates, there is no need to send them again. All updates received by auto-dbm(a)ripe.net have been queued. We are sorry about the inconvenience. If you have any questions, please contact <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Engin Gunduz ____________________________ RIPE Database Administration.

1 0

RIPE Database working normally again.
by RIPE Database Administration 18 May '00

18 May '00

Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your patience. The RIPE Database is working normally again. Updates are being processed and queries are being answered by the primary server. If you have any questions, please contact <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net>. Daniele Arena ------------- RIPE NCC

1 0

raw minutes for RIPE35 DB-WG
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 18 May '00

18 May '00

Dear DB-WG, attached pleae find a copy of the raw notes as taken by the Scribe. Many thanks to Engin for compiling the notes and sending them shortly after the meeting. The fact that they are still in raw format is exclusively my fault. As I've received offers for help this situation should improve... A more comprehensive version could be posted to the web-site. Please refer to the draft agenda and to tomorrow's wg meeting for more details. Thank you. Wilfried. ______________________________________________________________________ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:11:38 +0100 (CET) From: Engin Gunduz <engin(a)ripe.net> To: woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at Subject: Draft minutes of RIPE35 DB WG Hi Wilfried, I'm attaching the draft minutes for RIPE35 DB WG. I couldn't pick up the names of a couple of participants, unfortunately. Also, since they are not on the web site, the URLs of presentations are not complete yet. Regards, -engin Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC DB Group -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- RIPE 35 Database Working Group Thursday, Feb 24th Agenda: Slot#1 ,9:00 A. Administrative Stuff (Wilfried Woeber, Chair) B. RIPE DB, operational update (NCC: AMRM, 20 mins) C. A short review on the maintainer mechanism - are there any security concerns? D. A "smarter" whois client E. (tentatively) Is there an interest to register CERT/IRT-related info? Slot#1, 11:00 F. Status of reimplementation project (NCC, JLSD 20mins) G. Transition to RIPE DB v3.0 and transition TF (JLSD & WW, 15 mins) H. Do we need/want a DB review/re-structuring TF - future topics of interest - I/O with other WGs - Logistics Y. Input from other WGs Z. AOB ------------------- Chair: Wilfried Woeber Scribe: Engin Gunduz Participants: 65 A. Administrative Stuff The proposed agenda agreed with an addition of item "D". Scribe appointed, Engin Gunduz. B. RIPE DB, operational update (NCC: AMRM) (presentation is available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-35/presentations/...... ) AMRM provided an update on: - Performance - Software status - Reimplementation - Other RIPE DB services - ripe-dbm mailbox - Operational issues C. A short review on the maintainer mechanism WW: 1. There was a useful presentation by Olaf (Kolkman) about PGP. DB is an example for PGP being used with weaker authorisation methods. Has anybody used PGP? (4 people raised their hands). 2. CENTR activity. We've been talking about removing domain objects from whois db. Do you have any timing for this? AMRM: This is a political question, please ask this to Joao. D. A "smarter" whois client WW: Technical framework: NCC has offered mechanism to referral mechanism. This is working nicely. The central whois server has to act as a proxy. But, whois client needs to know whois.ripe.net. Now, we can have a client who tries to find a TXT field from DNS, so that it would know which whois server to query. We may ask NCC to implement this. What do you think? Should NCC spend resources for this? We will chase this issue. Peter Koch: There was some intelligence in one of the old RIPE whois clients which enabled it to query whois-<tld>.ripe.net. AMRM: We don't know about this. E. Is there an interest to register CERT/IRT-related info? WW: Background: It's becoming more frequent that people are abusing network resources. Now, how would you find out whom to contact in such cases? Proposal: We can have a mechanism to point the user to a proper point. Would anybody be volunteer for a blueprint? AMRM: In roles, we have "trouble" attribute. This is for such cases. But I think you mean a more sophisticated thing. Former chair of FIRST: You must be in FIRST organisation. (Break) Slot #2: (11:00) F. Status of reimplementation project (NCC, JLSD) (presentation is available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-35/presentations/...... ) Questions: Jake Khoun: There are three-five groups trying to implement RPSL. Isn't it possible to create a subgroup to coordinate activities? JLSD: We tried to bind people together. WW: This is a good input. We can found (a top level, not local) an open forum. RIPE NCC employees can follow ARIN & APNIC mailing lists. WW: More than 50% of the objects in the RIPE whois DB are not exactly related to RIPE, being an IP registry. JLSD: It will be hard to find a solution to this. Domains are growing extremely fast. We are trying to find a solution. We have talked to DENIC & Norwegian domain registry, they are going to move their objects. They expect to get their domain objects in approximately 3 weeks, and person objects in 2-3 months. We are happy to help them. So, I just ask for coordination here. If you want to delete your domain objects, please let us know. We have referral mechanism, we can use it. Jake Khoun: I had a proposal: The behaviour of whois server could be to search all sources, instead of only RIPE source, and, to stop at the first match. David Kessens: I think the main reason for current default behaviour was to save computer resources. But I don't think that this is the case anymore. We must be able to change the default behaviour. But I don't like the idea of stopping at the first match. G. Transition to RIPE DB v3.0 and transition TF (JLSD & WW) WW: Who is in general think that they will be hit by new interfaces? (Three persons raised their hands, Jake Khoun, Nigel Titley, and one more person). WW: So, could we count on you to form a Transition Task Force? JLSD: We can use db-beta list for this. WW: We will get back to you about this before May. JLSD: Agreed. WW: Another point: There was a bug report on security of RIPE DB software. JLSD: The mntner "feature" was already there. Finally the community say that it is a bug. But at this point of time, there is no point in fixing this in the old DB. A participant: Is it difficult to fix this? JLSD: The question is, should we divert the resourses to it or not. Jake Khoun: The actual fix would be to put proper mntners to objects. WW: There was a report on some unauhorised changes to objects. So, nobody must have unprotected objects in the DB. Now, should we tell the users that they must use at least CRYPT-PW, but not MAIL-FROM? Dmitry Morozovsky: RIPN does not put unprotected objects in their DB. Can RIPE do that with the reimplementation? WW: We must have the social engineering first, I think, e.g., putting a text in ACK messages which says that the MAIL-FROM authorisation is not good enough. AMRM: Some users just don't read ACK or notification messages. Jake Khoun: There should be enough emphasis on using CRYPT-PW & PGP instead of MAIL-FROM. Action Point: on NCC to draft a proposal. H. Do we need/want a DB review/re-structuring TF WW: I'm looking for someone to help me documenting our achievements. I don't have time to do proper documentation. Please any volunteer find me in breaks. WW: What should be the future of the DB WG? I'd like to get some input on what should we have as a charter? What are we supposed to do. Please think about your personal priorities, and provide input. Apologies for no minutes. Y. Input from other WGs No input. Z. AOB There wasn't any other business. Chair thanks to participants and closes RIPE35 DB WG meeting. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

4 3

draft agenda for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 36, Budapeat
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 17 May '00

17 May '00

Proposed Agenda for the Database Working Group Meeting RIPE-36, May 2000, Budapest, HU 1. Draft Thursday, May 18, 2000 at 10:30 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A. Administrative stuff (Wilfried Woeber, chair) . scribe . list of participants . agenda bashing . raw scribe notes distributed . help offered by - Nigel Titley, - Ulf Kieber chair asks for approval Actions: . to install the RE-Impl.-TF . "move weak authentication to historical" (ed. comm.) B. RIPE DB, operational update (RIPE NCC) C. DB Software Re-Implementation (RIPE NCC) D. Report on Certification Authority activities (APNIC) E. Activity Plan for next year! . . Y. Input from other WGs - Routing: native multicast routing (Jan Novak)? Z. AOB: Common XML Registration Template (Joel Rowbottom) mail-to: proposal with token and confirmation (Michael C. Battilana) A brief update on CERT/IRT-related issues (WW144/Jaques Schuurman) a more clever whois and using DNS for "remote control" (WW144) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WW, 17-MAY-2000 20:34:22

1 0

RE: Thoughts about authentication schemes
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 17 May '00

17 May '00

Dear Michael, Thank you very much for the suggestion and the write-up on what the use of the proposed mechanisms c/would be. First of all, cc:ing the WG list is to distribute your comments, as they are very appropriate and useful for the on-going discussions on improving security in the registry operations. Secondly I'd like to (briefly) address a couple of comments: The WG has already been chartered to work on a more up-to-date document as to which security mechanisms should be recommended. The common understanding is that anything weaker than digital signatures should be strongly dicouraged, exactly for the reasons you were giving. Still has to find it's way into a document. All the other mechanism should be phased out in due time - at least for any objectof "value". The other aspect, as to *which* particular mechanism or product should be used, is up for discussion and for consensus amongst the users of the RIPE DataBase. Initially, the recommendation from the TaskFore on DB Security was to go for PGP as the *first* mechanism to implement. At the same time we understood that PGP w/sh/could not be the *only* mechanism in the long run. Meanwhile the DB software re-implementation is close to being completed, GNU Privacy Guard has become available, and I'm sure things like S/MIME should be looked at. Actually, this might be a reason to revive the TF-SEC later this year? Please continue to participate in this discussion, and whenever you can, to pop in during one of the DB working group meetings. Regards, Wilfried. ______________________________________________________________________ From: mcb(a)cloanto.com To: "'Wilfried Woeber'" <Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at> Subject: Thoughts about authentication schemes Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:41:44 -0700 Hello, I just had an exchange of ideas with Marek Bukowy of RIPE Database Administration, and he suggested that I submit this to your attention before the RIPE 36 meeting. Basically, I was setting up CLOANTO-MNT, and looking at the authentication options I somehow wondered why there isn't something like a "MAIL-TO". As the recent case of fraud suffered by Network Solutions shows, MAIL-FROM can too easily be circumvented. This week even our company in Italy had to file criminal charges against an entity who forged email headers, using one of our domain names. This was a case of "spamming", but it could just as easily have been an episode of MAIL-FROM fraud. So I looked at CRYPT-PW, and searching for a tool to generate the encrypted password I quickly found out that an 8-character password, as is used by RIPE, can be un-encrypted in a matter of days, if not hours. Now, as documents like ripe-157 express (e.g. "It is very difficult to keep the information confidential and thus the RIPE NCC cannot take this responsibility."), RIPE is concerned about both security and responsibilities, and here we have a case where it is known that two authentication schemes are not secure, and thus somebody might even object that, given today's standards and knowledge, maybe their status of being qualified to serve as "authentication" could be challenged. True, there now is PGP, which IMHO is technically uncompromising for this purpose. In theory it has legal limitations in a few countries, but not any I am aware of in the RIPE area. PGP however can be pretty... complex to set up compared to an email-only authentication scheme. Not that I see PGP as being unreasonably complex, but apparently, if people still prefer MAIL-FROM or CRYPT-PW, they must have their practical reasons for doing so. PGP also expresses a "political" choice in a field where other "official" standards would tend towards S/MIME, X.509, etc. For this reason I would like to go back, with my consideration, to a possibly new, simple, yet more secure authentication method (compared to MAIL-FROM) which does not use any encryption, and which can therefore be quickly used with any email client. As such, maybe it could be one choice more to offer, and in the long term it could maybe become part of a more robust set of minimum standards. The way I thought of "MAIL-TO" is basically like MAIL-FROM, but the server (e.g. you), after receiving a request from one of the authorized "MAIL-TO" addresses, would send back to the same address a "magic number" (or alphanumeric data) to the sender, who would have to reply (quoting this data anywhere in the email body, even possibly with "> " etc. at the beginning of each line), and only after the reply the request would be accepted. This data would have both a unique part (no risk of duplicates) and a pseudo-random one (no practical way to guess it). In this way, "MAIL-TO" would formally verify that the sender has access to the given email address, in such a way as has been adopted in everyday practice for years by companies such as VeriSign and Thawte for the distribution of email and web certificates. It is true that a possible "MAIL-TO" scheme would be open to sniffing, but MAIL-FROM and CRYPT-PW also are, and the data which is transmitted is not sensitive by definition, as RIPE itself says it prefers not to take responsibility for securing sensitive data, and the data usually ends up in a whois database anyway. Also, "MAIL-TO" would indeed require one more step than "MAIL-FROM". This is in my opinion the small price to pay if one prefers not to use full encryption or digital signing. Yes, I think it would be only one more step, because in my experience, where MAIL-FROM is implemented, two or three steps (not one) are already required, because the second part of the system involves that a preset address receives a notification of the change request. This is not subject to confirmation (as would be in "MAIL-TO"), but it is nevertheless a second step, and it requires attention and readiness for a possible third step ("CANCEL" action) in case an abuse is detected. So on one hand we have one step more (or zero steps more in case of abuse), but on the other hand we get peace of mind. The reply mechanism could even be implemented in an automatic way on the side of the data submitter. Well, this now got a bit more lengthy than I intended it to be, sorry about that! It's just that I felt the need for such an option, and I would not like to see what happened to Network Solutions also happen to you, or to one of the national NICs who adopt your guidelines, especially knowing that forging email headers happens everyday, and that it has already happened in a major case involving a major registration authority. Thanks for caring, and I wish you a nice time in Budapest! Regards, Michael C. Battilana --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Problems RIPE Whois Service.
by RIPE Database Administration 17 May '00

17 May '00

Dear Colleagues, (Apologies if you receive this message more than once). Earlier this evening, the main RIPE Database server crashed. Your updates are not being processed at this time, but they are being queued; there is no need to send them again. Queries are being processed by a backup server; thus, the response time may be longer than usual. We are aware of the inconvience that this causes you and we are working to restore the service as quickly as possible. We shall keep you informed. If you have any questions, please contact <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Ambrose Magee ------------- RIPE NCC

1 0

ANNOUNCEMENT: Beta 0.1 of asused-public released
by John Crain 15 May '00

15 May '00

Dear Colleagues, We, the RIPE NCC, are pleased to announced the release of the beta version of asused-public. This is a tool to summarise address space that is registered in the RIPE database. For a given list of allocations the software prints various information concerning the allocations and the assignments they contain. the software "asused-public" is based on one the NCC's internal tools. It has been revised for public release in a form that does not make use of any customer confidential information. The software which uses several perl modules, these are included, is stored in the following file: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/tools/asused-public.0.1.tar.gz We are keen to receive your feedback on the beta release. Please address your comments and/or suggestions to our Software Manager, Maldwyn Morris <Maldwyn.Morris(a)ripe.net> Yours, John LeRoy Crain Head of Internal Services RIPE NCC

2 1

domreg tools
by Randy Bush 15 May '00

15 May '00

does anyone have forms and scripts to automate domain registration? what i mean by that is o a form for the registrant to fill out and email (and/or web page) i have appended what i currently use o a script to - extract person, and domain info and create ripe format objects - create nic handles if needed - extract server info and create dns database entry texts o etc. i have the form (appended) and some elisp and scripting to make a dns file entry. but now i want to go the whois path. all help appreciated. randy --- PLEASE DO NOT ALTER THIS APPLICATION IN ANY WAY. Send your GN registration to randy(a)psg.com. See attached detailed instructions. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c u t h e r e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0. KE DOMAIN TEMPLATE....: 1.30 99.12.05 1. REGISTRATION TYPE * (N)ew (M)odify (D)elete..: 2. * FULLY-QUALIFIED DOMAIN NAME: 3. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION 3a.* Organization Name.....: 3b.* Address Line 1........: 3b.* Address Line 2........: 3c.* City..................: 3d.* Postal Code...........: 3e.* Country...............: 4. * DESCRIPTION OF ORG/DOMAIN: 5. Date Operational......: 6. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT OF ORG/DOMAIN 6a. NIChandle (if known)..: 6b.* Whole Name............: 6c. Organization Name.....: 6d.* Address Line 1........: 6d. Address Line 2........: 6e.* City..................: 6f.* Postal Code...........: 6g.* Country...............: 6h.* Voice Phone...........: 6i.* Electronic Mailbox....: 7. TECHNICAL AND ZONE CONTACT 7a. NIChandle (if known)..: 7b.* Whole Name............: 7c. Organization Name.....: 7d.* Address Line 1........: 7d. Address Line 2........: 7e.* City..................: 7f.* Postal Code...........: 7g.* Country...............: 7h.* Voice Phone...........: 7i.* Electronic Mailbox....: 7j.* Registration Mailbox..: 7k. Fax Number............: FILL OUT QUESTION 8 AND 9 FOR DELEGATIONS ONLY (i.e those organizations running nameservers for a branch of the KE Domain namespace, 8. PRIMARY SERVER: HOSTNAME, NETADDRESS 8j.* Hostname..............: 8k.* IP Address............: 9. SECONDARY SERVER: HOSTNAME, NETADDRESS 9a.* Hostname..............: 9b.* IP Address............: FILL OUT QUESTION 10 FOR DIRECT REGISTRATIONS IP HOSTS (if you answered 8 & 9, do not answer 10, 11, and 12) 10. RESOURCE RECORDS (RRs) FOR IP INTERNET HOSTS 10a.* IP ADDRESS (required).: 10b. HARDWARE .............: 10c. OPERATING SYS ........: 10d.* MX ...................: It is your responsibility to see that an IN-ADDR pointer record is entered in the DNS database. Contact the administrator of the IP network your host is on to have this done. FILL OUT QUESTIONS 11 AND 12 FOR NON-IP HOSTS (such as UUCP) 11. FORWARDING HOST INFORMATION 11a.* Forwarding Host.......: 11b.* Contact Name (req)....: 11c.* Contact Email (req)...: 12. RESOURCE RECORDS (RRs) FOR NON-IP HOSTS (UUCP) 12a. DOMAIN NAME ..........: 12b. HARDWARE .............: 12c. OPERATING SYS ........: 12d.* MX (required).........: < and all sorts of instructions > --- and my elisp/perl hacks produce, for example ; T F Nyammo ; Kenya School of Professional Studies ; P.O.Box 60550 ; Nairobi ; 60550 ; Kenya ; 750255-58 ; ftnyammo(a)swiftkenya.com ; FD1304 ; DNS-admin FutureQuest ; FutureQuest ; PO Box 420820 ; Kissimmee, FL ; 34742-0820 ; United States ; dns-admin(a)FutureQuest.net ; ksps.ac.ke. NS ns1.FutureQuest.net. NS ns1.granitecanyon.com. ;----------------------------------------------------------------------- dig +norec ksps.ac.ke. @ns1.FutureQuest.net. ns dig +norec ksps.ac.ke. @ns1.granitecanyon.com. ns the two dig commands are so i can cut and past to check for properly configured servers. -30-

2 1