[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble

On 08/24/2016 12:21 PM, ox wrote:
> yes at least 2 different resources always has to be involved for it to
> be Internet Abuse 

Thanks for pointing this out, but I don't get it .. why do you want ro
restrict the
definition in this way? There might be the case that next year someone
brings
up a topic of abuse not covered by this restriction and people involved
start
to argue. I prefer to be as general as possible when defining such a word.

...
> if you use the same resource it is not Internet Abuse - as in your own
> example using someone's CPU to mine bitcoin and doing so on the CPU
> directly, is not Internet Abuse (it is very abusive, though!)

Of course it is - I remotely (via the internet) control your server,
doing abusive things. If someone would complain
at abuse@ about such an incident I would expect the source provider to
act accordingly.
The remote control can be a security breach, but that is not the point.


> if you have broken in/compromised security etc - it is Internet abuse,
> in terms of the current definition In the example of directly using my
> email server to send spam it falls within the definition of Internet
> abuse as defined above :) 

I do not see the second resource involved in this case.

So therefore I would like to change the sentence to:

"The infringement of usage rights by the non sanctioned use of resources"

along with your additional definitions.. (This includes >=1 resources..)

(Someone might correct my english)

(instead of:
"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
of another resource"
")



and btw ..  I would also like to see Ronald's valid questions answered.

If there are no actions, sanctions whatsoever following the definition of
abuse and the ongoing discussions here than this Group has officially
turned
into a Debate Club of old nerds (including me:), beeing probably kind of ...
how do I say...inefficient?   (at least as a RIPE working group)


...But.. On the other hand:  https://www.ripe.net/support/abuse :

"The RIPE community has an Anti-Abuse Working Group
<https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse> that discusses topics
relating to
Internet abuse and ways to prevent it. If you are interested in abuse
topics, you may
want to join the Anti-Abuse Working Group Mailing List
<http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg/>."


and:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/anti-abuse :  
(as Brian said in 2013:
"The main text of that page is the WG Charter. It may be useful to be
more explicit on this, but that is the charter. "

"...The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects
of abuse, with the following goals:

  * Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document
    for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409
    <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-409> but covering a
    wider range of possible abusive behaviours.

  * Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within
    the RIPE region such as ISPs, governments and law enforcement
    agencies on strategic and operational matters.

  * Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical
    methods of preventing or reducing network abuse."


That could mean we should just focus on the configuration of
spamassassin and force the use
of dmarc and x-arf and talk about "to block or not to block a failed
DKIM E-Mail" like other
anti-abuse groups do instead of e.g. trying to force RIPE NCC to
terminate LIR contracts
based on abusive behaviour. (no irony)

So instead of searching a definition of abuse (which will be really
helpful I believe) we also
could start to (re-)define the goals of this group. If there would be
consensus that it is not the task
of this group to discuss also anti-abuse behaviour of RIPE/RIPE NCC or
how to treat LIRs, then we
can happily focus on other things. (In that case: sorry Ronald..) But
that would not be my opinion..



>Andre

(searching for cover:)
best greetings,
Gunther

NetCologne Systemadministration

-- 

(The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer.)
NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH
Am Coloneum 9 ; 50829 Köln
Geschäftsführer:   
  Timo von Lepel,
  Mario Wilhelm  
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates:
  Dr. Andreas Cerbe
  HRB 25580, AG Köln