[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

I like this approach, should be like what Elad Wrote:

 

To my opinion, Ripe should create its own anti-abuse system, each LIR will
have login access to it (LIR will be able to choose to receive notifications
through sms / email) and to mark each abuse complaint as resolved or not
(that system can also have an API so LIR's will be able to pull their abuse
complaints), the main issue is that complaints to that system will not be
able to be done automatically or by email - only manually by form filling
with captcha. (after the LIR will mark an abuse complain as resolved - the
complainer will receive an email address also to confirm with him if issue
is resolved or not, non-detailed statistics will be able to be displayed to
the whole community - to see the percentage of how many manual complaints
weren't handled by each LIR)”

 

No Spam, accountable, possible to integrate with LIR system, possible to
have public rate about “abuse dealing”

 

 

 

 

 

De: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> Em Nome De Elad Cohen
Enviada: 29 de abril de 2020 11:15
Para: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net; Serge Droz <serge.droz at first.org>
Assunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")

 

What is this ?

 

"However, the community should report any situation to the RIPE NCC, which
can provide (anonymous) periodical statistics to the community, which can
take further decisions about that."

 

Ripe members are informers?

 

"divide and conquer" strategy ?

 

Abuse email addresses (just like any other email address) are being spammed,
not only by non-relevant spammers but also by automatic useless services
that are installed at servers that don't take themselves any measure of
proper configuration to avoid the automatic useless services.

 

To my opinion, Ripe should create its own anti-abuse system, each LIR will
have login access to it (LIR will be able to choose to receive notifications
through sms / email) and to mark each abuse complaint as resolved or not
(that system can also have an API so LIR's will be able to pull their abuse
complaints), the main issue is that complaints to that system will not be
able to be done automatically or by email - only manually by form filling
with captcha. (after the LIR will mark an abuse complain as resolved - the
complainer will receive an email address also to confirm with him if issue
is resolved or not, non-detailed statistics will be able to be displayed to
the whole community - to see the percentage of how many manual complaints
weren't handled by each LIR)

 

---

 

Besides the above, I also believe that we as a community should not accept
complainers which are not taking the most basic configuration actions to
protect their systems, and would consider these complaints as spam. In order
for abuse complaints not to be abused.

 

Respectfully,

Elad

 

 

  _____  

From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:22 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox") 

 

Hi All

I think this is a good policy.

We can always find use cases where it fails, but it will help in some
cases.

And if some one is not able to answer an e-mail every six month, there
are probably underlying issues. Also the argument, that the bad guys
flood the mailbox is not really acceptable. It just means you can't
filter spam.

The proposal does not check how the reports are used. But it helps us to
enumerate organizations, that don't act, coming up with various excuses,
along the lines the best problems are some one else's problems, so let's
make it some on else's problem.

The fact is: Most mature organizations are perfectly capable of handling
such mail boxes, even if they have a high load.

Coming from the incident response side, I'm tiered of people constantly
telling me, that issues are not their problem

Best
Serge





On 28.04.20 16:01, Petrit Hasani wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> A new version of RIPE policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of
> "abuse-mailbox"", is now available for discussion.
> 
> This proposal aims to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:" information
> more often and introduces a new validation process.
> 
> Most of the text has been rewritten following the last round of
> discussion and the proposal is now at version 3.0. Some key points in
> this version:
> 
> - The abuse-mailbox should not force the sender to use a form
> - The validation process must ensure that the abuse mailbox is able to
> receive messages
> - The validation should happen at least every six months
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04
> 
> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this
> four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide
> feedback to the proposer.
> 
> At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of
> the Anti-Abuse Working Group Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the
> proposal.
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> > before 27 May
2020.
> 
> Kind regards,
> --
> Petrit Hasani
> Policy Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Serge Droz
Chair of the FIRST Board of Directors
https://www.first.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200429/6a037727/attachment.html>