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

No No,

Ripe, within the yearly ~30M Euros expenses of it, is able to create such system (an organization with expenses of 1% of it is able to create such system with a small part of its expenses budget).

That kind of system can be over bgp anycast with multiple worldwide locations and automatic syncing (so DDoS attacks will not affect it), and that kind of system can be (for example) for the whole 5 RIRs.

Respectfully,
Elad
________________________________
From: No No <no0484985 at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 3:18 PM
To: Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io>; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

RIPE etc. are the ones themselves who refuse to introduce a centralised system, because of $$$$ related concerns.

It would be great, but then imagine if the spammers etc. DDoS that system for as long as they want to abuse resources.

--

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:18 PM Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io<mailto:elad at netstyle.io>> wrote:
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/20200429/22cef50a/attachment.html>