[anti-abuse-wg] Webzilla

Perhaps some folks here might be interested to read these two report,
the first of which is a fresh news report published just a couple of
days ago, and the other one is a far more detailed investigative report
that was completed some time ago now.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/dossier-gubarev-russian-hackers-dnc

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5770258-Fti.html

Please share these links widely.

The detailed technical report makes it quite abundantly clear that
Webzilla, and all of its various tentacles... many of which even I didn't
know about until seeing this report... most probably qualifies as, and
has qualified as a "bullet proof hosting" operation for some considerable
time now.  As the report notes, the company has received over 400,000
complaints or reports of bad behavior, and it is not clear to me, from
reading the report, if anyone at the company even bothered to read any
more than a small handful of those.

I have two comments about this.

First, I am inclined to wonder aloud why anyone is even still peering
with any of the several ASNs mentioned in the report.  To me, the mere
fact that any of these ASNs still have connectivity represents a clear
and self-evident failure of "self policing" in and among the networks
that comprise the Internet.

Second, its has already been a well know fact, both to me and to many
others, for some years now, that Webzilla is by no means alone in the
category commonly refered to as "bullet proof hosters".  This fact
itself raises some obvious questions.

It is clear and apparent, not only from the report linked to above, but
from the continuous and years-long existance of -many- "bullet proof
hosters" on the Internet that there is no shortage of a market for the
services of such hosting companies.  The demand for "bullet proof"
services is clearly there, and it is not likely to go away any time
soon.  In addition to the criminal element, there are also various
mischevious governments, or their agents, that will always be more
that happy to pay premium prices for no-questions-asked connectivity.

So the question naturally arises:  Other than de-peering by other networks,
are there any other steps that can be taken to disincentivize networks
from participating in this "bullet proof" market and/or to incentivize
them to give a damn about their received network abuse complaints?

I have no answers for this question myself, but I felt that it was about
time that someone at least posed the question.

The industry generally, and especially in the RIPE region, has a clear
and evident problem that traditional "self policing" is not solving.
Worse yet, it is not even discussed much, and that is allowing it to
fester and worsen, over time.

It would be Good if there was some actual leadership on this issue, at
least from -some- quarter.  So far I have not noticed any such worth
commenting about, and even looking out towards the future horizon, I
don't see any arriving any time soon.


Regards,
rfg