[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information

Web forms are possibly easier to secure and possibly more reliable way to ensure reports are delivered?

Maybe there is a case to have a abuse-webform: type object in the IRT? (perhaps a question for db-wg!)


Kind regards
Jamie Stallwood

--
Jamie Stallwood
Security Specialist
Imerja Limited
Tel: 07795 840385
jamie.stallwood at imerja.com



-----Original Message-----
From: anti-abuse-wg-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Tobias Knecht
Sent: Mon 5/3/2010 11:12
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information
 
Hello together,

> I like to recommend the following extension to Tobias' proposal:
> 
> I should be noted that access to personal objects via
> whois is currently limited, what blocks automated abuse
> report generation.
> 
> It is likely that these limits also apply for IRT objects.

RIPE Database Query Reference Manual [1] says in chapter "2.12 Access
Control for Queries" the following:

"The control mechanism is based on the amount of contact information
(contained in person and role objects) that is returned because of
queries made for an IP address."

Is the IRT Object a person or role Object?
Is it handled the same way?
Are there any restrictions?


The other opportunity would be to use the new and really great
AbuseFinder API [2] as soon as it is ready to use in production.


> I recommend to publish a list of all IRT-objects on RIPEs
> ftpserver for mirroring, maybe restricted to RIPE
> members only or to explicitly drop all limits for
> IRT queries (if somebody is concerned about email harvesting
> it should be clear that harvesting will happen anyway via
> whois, API or webservice, whatever limits are used).

Restricted Access to a file is not the solution. What about non RIPE
members like ISPs from the APNIC or ARIN  region?

Unlimited access to IRT Objects could make sense, but I would like to
restrict it a bit more and let's say stop restrictions while using the
"-b" flag. That would make 100% sense. That way it would be possible to
query the addresses for automatic abuse handling (abuse-mailbox
attribute), but secure the e-mail attribute for personal contact.

> It should also be noted in the proposal that IRT-objects
> have to bereturned also via the whois "-b" option.

Over all I think this is something that should  be thought about, but
nevertheless it is not the main intention of this proposal to change
query policies. It's about making the IRT Object mandatory.

It's the decision of the community, if this proposal, shall be extended.


Thanks,

Tobias



[1] http://www.ripe.net/db/support/query-reference-manual.pdf
[2] http://labs.ripe.net/content/abuse-finder




-- 

Imerja Limited
Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com

Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG

Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119
VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22
ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527

This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or 
organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and 
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you
should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it,
since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
received this transmission in error please notify the sender 
immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail 
messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses
which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has
been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any
liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You
are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any
attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely
those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited 
unless otherwise stated.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20100503/c56f0f26/attachment.html>