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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:25:03 +0200
Janos Zsako <zsako at iszt.hu> wrote:
> Dear Gunther,
> >> 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,
> I think the key word here is _remotely_.
> I think what Andre was saying above is that if you log in _locally_
> (e.g. on the console) and use the CPU to mine bitcoins, it is not
> Internet abuse (in fact the machine may not even be connected to the
> Internet).
> I hope I did not get it wrong myself.

Hi Janos :)

100% correct :)

Also, we should maybe change the definition header to add the word
"Internet Abuse" to the actual definition?

As it can obviously be confusing to just read 'abuse'... because just
normal old abuse if I am using your cpu to mine bitcoin, could be abuse... just not network or Internet Abuse...


============
Internet Abuse 
============

Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy
undertaking as the topic is very technical.  The Internet consists of
resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to
also understanding the use and interaction between these resources.

Examples of Internet resources include also processes,
protocols,credentials as well as other types of resources. More
practical examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or
even Email addresses. 

This technical definition of abuse does not include identifying the
authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define any
rights to resources but simply to define what technically constitutes
Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources.

=======================
Definition of Internet Abuse 
=======================

"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
of another resource"

----------------------------------------------
Terminology used in the definition
-----------------------------------------------

(1) Resource
Any Internet Resource

(2) Use and Usage
Any direct or indirect action involving a resource

(3) Rights
The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by he authoritative
holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement to use 
such an allocated or assigned resource

(4) Sanctioned
An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative holder
of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission is granted
by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or
action.   

(5) Infringe
An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or
encroaches upon the fair use of a resource


Andre


On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:38:20 +0200
ox <andre at ox.co.za> wrote:

> 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"
> > ")
> >