[anti-abuse-wg] DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity

On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 22:37:36 +1300
Mark Foster <blakjak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Replying against my better judgement, as Andre appears to be Trolling
> for all he's worth.
> But on the off chance...
> 

It seems, every time in post-truth, when positions are indefensible,
the name calling starts?

Calling me messianic, a troll, idiot or an assehole or whatever?

Instead of simply dealing with the facts, the actual issues.

And, then always adding... well, I will reply and do the world a
favour just in case this person is not a troll, etc.

> > > You seem to be assigning intent to a tool. A hammer in the hands
> > > of an artist can produce a beautiful form of art while the same
> > > hammer can be used to hurt someone. It's not the hammer's fault.
> > > Besides, RPZ is not a requirement to implement the "walled
> > > gardens" you're describing. The same thing can be achieved by
> > > other, simpler means.
> > by the same argument then it would be perfectly fine for society to
> > promote the distribution of DDOS tools, zero day hacking tools and,
> > well methods to defraud Internet users, define best practise for
> > Phishing, etc.
> Acknowledging that tools exist is not the same as condoning their
> malicious, or inappropriate, use.
> 
exactly.

But, you neglected to add - That is is not socially acceptable to
define protocols for defrauding people, to tell lies, commit deception,
etc.

> >
> > and no, of course you do not need RPZ to create "walled gardens"
> > but discussing it "as normal practice" and "the way DNS works" and
> > "okay" is what serves to legitimize RPZ as "perfectly fine"
> > Whereas in truth, it is EVIL.
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone's saying that it's accepted practice in the
> sense that everyone does - or should - do it.

My objections are entirely based on the publication and discussion and
future RFC that will serve to legitimize RPZ.

Heck, if you are honest, and from the responses in this thread, it is
already "best practise" and quite acceptable to use/apply RPZ - as
apparently "many" are doing this and has been doing it for years.

If there is no education, discussion or even understanding of that this
is becoming "standard operating procedure" 

As is evident from the past 7? years

Then, RPZ will be an RFC in the next short while. 

> > Trillions and trillions of domain names can resolve to a single ip
> > number.
> > Please give me one (as in singular) just ONE example of a domain
> > that has trillions of IP numbers?
> >
> Removing the hyperbole, there is one very obvious and well established
> reason for a 1:many relationship of IP's to DNS names: Virtual service
> hosting.

If there are domains on a virtual host that are abusive the operator of
that IP number has to either suspend that domain or remove it.

The operator is liable for whatever his or her server does.

> Given that the DNS serves to allow a human-readable name (or names) to
> point to a resource (by IP), the inverse relationship doesn't seem to
> serve many purposes (though there is a 1:many scenario, round-robin
> load balancing, that comes to mind.  But again, i've removed your
> hyperbole which may make these examples irrelevant.
> 

All this is very exciting and a great discussion for a different
thread, if everyone is in agreement that RPZ is Evil

Right now though, this tangent serves to detract from the main topic:

That RPZ is DNS abuse, in itself, it is an abuse to Internet Society
and it serves to promote Crime.

> 
> > Water does not flow uphill.
> > DNS firewalls are stupid.
> 
> You are expressing an opinion which is of course, your right.  But if
> you think that somehow you are going to change the minds of some of
> the _very_ learned minds who participate in this group, you have
> another thing coming, i'm afraid.
> 

Do not be fearful, I am not concerned so much with the  "_very_ learned
minds" in this group, they already understood what I am saying, in the
first post.

But, as we have seen, it is popularism and the _not_so_great minds that
supports the post-truth premises. It is also of course  a lack of
objectivity and a lack of understanding that domain names are actual
property - as in domain names belong to someone or some organization
and are not just simple "resources"

> > > I'm at least hesitant to describe any of those as lies. It's just
> > > a protocol exchange -- my machine asked for a name-to-IP map and
> > > received a suitable response, even one that actually fitted better
> > > with my current situation.
> >
> > You are wrong.
> >
> > When your user asks you for Google.com and you lie, this is a lie.
> >
> > It is not just a lie, it is fraud.
> >
> > If you then still take that a step further and tell different lies
> > to different users (depends who is asking)
> >
> > And, RPZ stil ltakes that a step further, you deceive and hide your
> > lies from your users
> >
> > AND RPZ makes the management of this easy and defines methods how
> > this is done - It is simply a hacking tool that promotes deception,
> > secrets, fraud and other criminal activity.
> >
> 
> This is all OTT and if it's the basis of your anger and frustration,
> you're going to do yourself some harm.
> It's not fraudulent.  There's no intend to gain a pecuniary
> advantage. It's a safety measure[1], one fully disclosed to the user
> and one that can be bypassed.
> Again you make excessive use of hyperbole here so I won't further
> justify your comments with a response.
> 

Not so much as RPZ is abuse in itself. Or are you saying that RPZ is
not a hacking/hacker/non ethical tool?

> >
> > > Granted, this is not the only use case. I dislike walled gardens,
> > > which is why I take measures to avoid them -- yet I won't attack
> > > the underlying technology because as I said, has far more
> > > positive uses.
> > There are many things about RPZ which is wrong - so many that it is
> > EVIL!
> > And I am happy to discuss all the EVIL bits, which starts at the
> > very foundation of RPZ
> > and goes all the way up to the roof...

> >
> You've made your feelings about RPZ known, but mailing lists are
> interactive and bidirectional. You don't appear willing to at least
> respect the right of others in this group to express their
> disagreements with your opinion by engaging with them rationally, and
> instead appear to be trying to shout everyone down.  I don't think
> you're doing yourself any favours.
> 
> I suggest other contributors to this thread weigh carefully their
> further contributions as from where I sit, this isn't going anywhere.
> Andre has marginalised himself and revealed a relatively extreme
> position that he will not compromise on, despite plenty of well
> reasoned responses.
> 

yes, because I have not said anything about this train smash many years
ago as I thought that it will be okay, "someone" would do something

Well, even in DNS OPS list, I was the only one that stated direct,
strong and uncompromising opposition to RPZ.

"Someone" did not do anything, now we are sitting with an informational
draft that promotes methods of lies, deception and is patently not
ethical.

I do not care, whether people agree with me, or disagree with me or if
I am popular (give warm fuzzy feelings) or if anyone hates my guts. I
am going to speak out, as in the next years, if RPZ does become an RFC,
then that will also be just fine - as I did my very best to "promote"
my own "truth" in this time when "truth" is negotiable and "facts" are
simply inconvenient things the Big 5 Multinationals spin any way they
like.

Andre