Re: [db-wg] mntner with misleading primary key
Apologies, I was actually counting the objects twice (once the mntner attribute and once the mnt-by attribute). Here are the objects in question: AS327833 AS58224 AS42910 AS37527 AS8362 AS202723 as2856 AS12400 AS427313 AS397268 AS12655 AS30956 AS49717 Given the small number of objects, I don't think implementing a filter would have any significant impact (negative or positive) and may not be worth the effort. Matthias Merkel Vice President Staclar, Inc. [https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/53/tools/email-signature-generator/icons/phon...] +1-302-291-1141 | +49 15678 585608 [https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/53/tools/email-signature-generator/icons/emai...] matthias.merkel@staclar.com<mailto:matthias.merkel@staclar.com> [https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/53/tools/email-signature-generator/icons/link...] staclar.com<https://staclar.com/> [https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/53/tools/email-signature-generator/icons/addr...] Munich, Germany [https://staclar.com/images/logo.png] [linkedin]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthias-merkel/> ________________________________ From: db-wg on behalf of Gert Doering via db-wg Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 8:52 PM To: Cynthia Revström Cc: DB-WG Subject: Re: [db-wg] mntner with misleading primary key Hi, On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 07:36:53PM +0200, Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote:
I am not sure how feasible the mandatory "-mnt" would be at this point tbh. I can easily think of at least 2 maintainers that are actually used that I see quite often that wouldn't fit that pattern.
It would annoy me a bit, because all our stuff is under SPACENET-N and SPACENET-P ("networks and person objects"). And all tools. Of course it is doable, but... why? Convince me :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 01/07/2020 19:56, Matthias Merkel via db-wg wrote:
Given the small number of objects, I don't think implementing a filter would have any significant impact (negative or positive) and may not be worth the effort.
Perhaps as a result of my conceiving of it, there is a conceivable social engineering angle here, which could be put to use to create problems in the GRT. I would expect the minimum effort to protect against this - preventing any *new* mntners masquerading as aut-nums - as being a worthwhile investment of effort. As per Job's comment at ~18:41Z, this could be handled with a creation filter, of which there is precedent. It would certainly be worth putting a stop to the capability /before/ someone finds a way to exploit it, and we're all left looking at our feet. :) -- Tom
participants (2)
-
Matthias Merkel
-
Tom Hill