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

Hello Gunther,

Okay, I have read through your reply and it seems you do not understand
that a single resource is not a network.

Internet Abuse - Needs two resources - otherwise it is not a network
and by default - not Internet Abuse.

If you are on my server:
unauthorized - is abuse
authorized - is not abuse

If you use my server to do something to another resource... 

Get it yet?

Hope this helps you 

Kind Regards

Andre

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:17:01 +0200
Gunther Nitzsche <gnitzsche at netcologne.de> wrote:

> 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
>