- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Whois Release 1.93
by Edward Shryane 04 Mar '19

04 Mar '19

Dear Working Group, RIPE Database release 1.93 has been deployed to the Release Candidate environment. If no issues are found, we plan to deploy to production on Monday, 25th February. Release 1.93 includes the following main changes: * Improved email address validation. * Do not allow expired public keys to authenticate updates, and expire signed messages after 1 hour. * Validate bogon space in route(6) creation. * Warn the user if the resource abuse-c is identical to the organisation's abuse-c. * Allow use of elliptic curve algorithm in key-cert objects (updated cryptography library). * Fixed NRTM client parsing end of stream comment in keepalive mode. * Filter out comment in autocomplete API (used by the DB web application) * Only validate reserved words in primary key on create, so existing objects can be updated. * Database schema changes for 2017-02 Abuse-c Validation implementation. The complete list of changes in this release can be found in GitHub: https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/blob/master/changes.txt The release notes will also be published shortly: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/release-notes More information on the Release Candidate environment can be found on our website: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/release-notes/rc-release-candid… Please let us know if you find any issues with this release in the RC environment. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 2

Whois Release 1.92.6.2
by Edward Shryane 01 Mar '19

01 Mar '19

Dear Working Group, RIPE Database release 1.92.6.2 was deployed to production yesterday evening, with a single change from the previous 1.92.6 release. Following the Database downtime on 22 February, this change restores the Full Text Search functionality. More information on the downtime can be found on our website: https://www.ripe.net/support/service-announcements/ripe-database-full-text-… We apologise for any inconvenience caused by this incident. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 0

No more personal objects in the RIPE Database?
by Hans Petter Holen 23 Feb '19

23 Feb '19

Following Denis’s presentation at the last database working group meeting and Elvis’s messages to the RIPE NCC members list I think it is time to have a new discussion on the need for personal objects in the RIPE Database. https://ripe77.ripe.net/presentations/63-PERSONobjects.pdf https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2298/ https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2019-February/00329… This is not questioning previous legal assessments of GDPR compliance, but taking a step back and looking at how would we do this if we were to design the RIPE Database with today's privacy requirements in mind. The ccTLD for .NO, Norid made an update to their service last year to completely remove person objects from their database. https://www.norid.no/uploads/2017/12/Datamodell-revidert-en-v2.pdf In terms of the RIPE Database, that would mean that resources would refer to organisational objects and roles, not to personal objects. Perhaps Denis and/or Elvis would propose a policy change in this respect? Hans Petter

3 3

Re: [db-wg] Idea: magic mntner for all LIR contacts
by Tore Anderson 19 Feb '19

19 Feb '19

* Aleksi Suhonen > On 03/12/2018 10:35, Tore Anderson via db-wg wrote: >> So I was thinking: is this mandatory and error-prone duplication of work >> really necessary? Wouldn't it be possible to instead have some kind of >> magic mntner object that is is kept automatically up to date with «auth: >> SSO»-attributes for all the LIR user accounts? > > I second this idea. Perhaps this should be a different object type tho, to make it clear that editing the magic maintainer by hand will have undesired results. It should be interchangeable with normal maintainers of course, a bit like person objects and role objects are. Or maybe just expand the existing SSO attribute to accept a RegID. For example: mntner: FOOBAR-MNT auth: SSO no.foobar Which would allow maintenance by all registered user accounts in LIR no.foobar (except for accounts with the «billing» privilege level). > Do you want someone to co-author a PDP on this? I was hoping that a PDP wouldn't be necessary, to be honest. That is, if the NCC thought it was a good idea they could just go ahead and implement it. (If I recall correctly, the «auth: SSO» functionality was added without there being a community policy demanding it.) That said, if you want to write a proposal to this effect I'd be happy to put my name on it. Tore

9 44

Proposal for restricting authentication concerning use of revoked and expired GPG ID's in key-cert objects
by Christoffer Hansen (Lists) 11 Feb '19

11 Feb '19

Dear DB WG, It came to my attention the RIPE NCC Database does not do validation of signed updates. (Other than checking the key is allowed to sign updates for object(s) in question) I got the understanding from writing to DB-WG-Chairs this was a decision made years back. I think is less than optimal from a security perspective an signed update (with GPG and/or X509 certs) is not validated against (1) when the update was signed (E.g. signing was done 10 minutes ago) and (2) that the expiration date for the keys are not validated. Usually I will expect if I revoke a GPG-key|X509-cert. It cannot be used any more. But the RIPE NCC Database does still allow this currently. This is relevant in the case I ever lose a private GPG-key|X509-cert to less than friendly 3rd-parties. And the lost private GPG-key|X509-cert is the one used for signing updates to the database. What I have in mind. Is the RIPE NCC Database begins verifying validity (not revoked and/or expired) of GPG-key|X509-cert used to sign updates with. Christoffer

7 10

Certain sponsored? ASNs without sponsoring-org
by Cynthia Revström 08 Jan '19

08 Jan '19

So I have now run across several ASNs in which the org is of type "OTHER" yet there is no sponsoring-org, could this please be clarified? Example ASNs: AS200358, AS204842 If it is like I think it is, it must be that they have lost their sponsors but if that is the case, I would like to see a remark that is an "RIPE NCC managed value" saying something like "This ASN does not have any sponsor since YYYY-MM-DD". I am not entirely sure on this but something to clarify what is going on. Kind regards, Cynthia Revström

5 9

usage of LIR-PARTITIONED status
by Marco Schmidt 20 Dec '18

20 Dec '18

Hello Alex, Allow me to provide some additional clarification. As Gert has already correctly explained, the status LIR-PARTITIONED is used to partition allocations. For inetnum objects with the status ALLOCATED PA, you can create more specific objects with the status LIR-PARTITIONED PA. The same applies for PI. However there are no inetnums with the status ALLOCATED PI in the RIPE Database, and such ranges are no longer provided by the RIPE NCC. Recently, consensus was reached on a policy change to remove the status ALLOCATED PI and LIR-PARTITIONED PI from the RIPE IPv4 Policy document. https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-03 Following this policy change, we will also remove this status from the RIPE Database code and documentation shortly. I hope this clarifies things. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

usage of LIR-PARTITIONED status
by Alexander Stranzky 19 Dec '18

19 Dec '18

Hello, recently I stumbled upon some less-used status of the INETNUM object, namely LIR-PARTITIONED PA & LIR-PARTITIONED PI. Since there is no difference in the docs (https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-data…), can anyone tell me when to use PA and when PI? Cheers, Alex -- velia.net Internetdienste GmbH * Hessen-Homburg-Platz 1 * 63452 Hanau Geschäftsführer: Franz G. Köhler, Arek Akilli * AG Hanau * HRB 7588 Tel: +49 6181 1898119 * http://www.velia.net

2 1

Idea: magic mntner for all LIR contacts
by Tore Anderson 03 Dec '18

03 Dec '18

Hi, I'm starting to lose count of how many times I've made changes to the User Accounts list on the LIR Portal, but forgot to update our mntner object to add/remove the corresponding «auth: SSO foo@bar»-attributes. So I was thinking: is this mandatory and error-prone duplication of work really necessary? Wouldn't it be possible to instead have some kind of magic mntner object that is is kept automatically up to date with «auth: SSO»-attributes for all the LIR user accounts? Tore

1 0

Re: [db-wg] IRR and Hurricane Electric and RIPE
by Peter Courtney 13 Nov '18

13 Nov '18

thank you for the advice, much appreciated but all sorted now by Net Solutions Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0