This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 Review Phase (Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 Review Phase (Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 Review Phase (Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alexander Talos-Zens
at at univie.ac.at
Mon Sep 9 15:56:25 CEST 2019
Hej, this is my first post in this list - my perspective is taht of a security guy with little knowledge about BGP or the inner workings of RIPE, but very interested in everything that helps definding against the bad guys. Den 2019-09-05 kl. 15:23, skrev Marco Schmidt: > The goal of this proposal is to define that BGP hijacking is not > accepted as normal practice within the RIPE NCC service region. Firstly, thanks everyone involved for the effort in setting up this policy proposal. I like many points, e.g. that it makes clear that accidental events shall not be reprimanded. Others might deserve being rephrased, e.g. CSIRTS being entitled to file reports. On the other hand, I had a hard time trying to determine the positive impact of the proposed policy. On the formal side, to define that hijacking is a violation of policy without specifying which policy is violated gives me a mental blue screen. As far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong, there is no policy in RIPE that proscribes hijacking, and neither would 2019-03 do that. This makes sense to me, as (again, correct me if I'm wrong) RIPE isn't involved in routing operations - but that's where hijacking attacks take place. Should RIPE kick out the evil LIRs? Maybe, but the proposed policy doesn't do that. The opposite holds true: "RIPE-716) may apply." and "This policy does not endorse the initiation of an LIR closure procedure on the basis of a single policy violation." No mention what happens after multiple (how many? depending on LIR size? ...) violations. I failed to find any way how implementing this proposal would improve security. I've also tried to save the proposal's impetus by coming up with realistic and effective suggestions - but failed as well. For now, my conclusion is that this isn't the way to go. Cheers, Alexander -- Alexander Talos-Zens IT-Security - ACOnet-CERT Zentraler Informatikdienst http://zid.univie.ac.at Universität Wien Universitätsstraße 7 1010 Wien T +43-1-4277-14351 at at univie.ac.at GPG-Key-Id: 0x757A494B
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 Review Phase (Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 Review Phase (Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]