[anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

 
Your email presumes that an "ombudsman" model would resolve an issue.
 
If a person has dedicated themselves to controlling a 200,000 strong botnet and sending spam emails through unauthorised access etc. what is sending them a fancy piece of paper or an email "asking them to be nice" going to do?
 
For example, there are 3 types of phishing websites:
 
1) Outright false domain name,
2) hacked server, using legitimate domain name,
3) free website sign-up
 
Which of these would it be appropriate to ask the criminal to behave through a letter or email?
 
In reality, none of them, because the phisher has hacked the server, dumped the phishing website template and left, never to return.
 
The service needs to be suspended, as the server owner cannot expect:
 
1) a customer to know how to fix the security vulnerability,
2) the customer to log in to their email within the next day, week or even month, it might take them years to log in.
3) the criminal not to control the customers email also etc.
 
 
Often when reporting phishing websites, the response from ISP is "I have notified the customer to investigate."
 
The question then is, in which instance would it be appropriate to ask nicely of a customer? I can't think of any examples.
 
You are like the United Nations... "North Korea, you are killing 2 million people in concentration camps, so we are asking nicely and going to send you a piece of paper expressing how bad it is."
 
I'm sure North Korea really cares!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
From: "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Date: 1/17/20 2:03 am
To: "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>

 Hi Jordi, 
 your example seems a bit off though. If your contract is with your ISP and you need to complain to them, why would you complain to another ISP you have no contract with?
 I agree that current GDPR implementations may impact the contactibility of the customer, but that can be improved in GDPR-compliant manners that do not require playing chinese whispers down the chain. 
 Not objecting to your 3. but you need to consider it may not be the contractual partner acting against the contract. They may be a victim as well, and therefore enforcing any actions against them may be unproductive. Would you shut down Google.com because of one link to a site violating third party rights?
 Best,
 Volker
 Am 16.01.2020 um 15:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg:
  Hi Volker,
  
 I don't agree with that, because:
  I believe the electricity sample I provided proves otherwise. My contract is with the electricity provider (the Internet provider), so I need to complain to them and they need to follow the chain. For a victim, to complain directly to the customer (not the operator), will need to know the data of the “abuser” which may be protected by GDPR. Customers sign a contract with the operator. The contract must have clear conditions (AUP) about the appropriate use of the network. If you act against that contract, the problem is with the operator, not victims. 

  
  By the way, if an operator has a badly designed AUP, either they are doing a bad job, or they have *no interest* in acting against abuses.
  
 Regards,
 Jordi
 @jordipalet
  
 
 
  
   El 16/1/20 15:44, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Volker Greimann" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de vgreimann at key-systems.net> escribió:
 


 
Obviously every user should lock their doors / protect themselves against fraud. I am just saying that the ability of many service providers to curtail abuse of their system (without impacting legitimate uses) is very limited as it may not their customers doing the abusing and any targeted action against those customers themselvesd would be inappropriate and affect many legitimate users of their services.
 At what point should a network service provider remove privileges from a customer that is himself being abused but is technically unable to deal with it properly? Would the complaint not be better directed at that customer, not the provider, since they are the ones that can resolve this issue in a more targetted and appropriate manner? How does the service provider differentiate between a customer that is abusing vs one that is being abused?  Deputising the service providers will not necessarily solve the problems, and possibly create many new ones.
 In the domain industry, we were required to provide an abuse contact, however the reports we get to that address usually deal with issues we cannot do much about other than pulling or deactivating the domain name, which is usually the nuclear option. So we spend our time forwarding abuse mails to our customers that the complainant should have sent to the customer directly.
 Best,
 volker
 
  Am 16.01.2020 um 15:16 schrieb Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg:
 
 Hi Volker   On 16/01/2020 15:03, Volker Greimann wrote:  isn't making the world (and the internet) first and foremost a job of law enforcement agencies like the police and Europol?  Law enforcement's job primarily is arresting criminals. And yes they do prevention. But you can't stop locking your door or walk by fight just ignoring it, because it's LEA's job.   This is even more true on the internet, where CERT's have long been working together fighting cybercrime etc.   While there obviously is an appeal to the notion of "The best problems are some one else's problem" my believe is we don't want to have an internet or a world, for that matter, where this is how things run. The internet is a bottom up thing, it is so cool because people follow protocols, that are not law.   There was a time whn this wasn't a given: During the "Browser wars" different producer leveraged ambiguities in the HTML standard, and the end result was horrible.   We don't want this. If we delegate the problem, we've already lost.   Best Serge         -- 
 Volker A. Greimann
 General Counsel and Policy Manager
 KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH
 
 T: +49 6894 9396901
 M: +49 6894 9396851
 F: +49 6894 9396851
 W: www.key-systems.net
 
 Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
 CEO: Alexander Siffrin
 
 Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.
 


 **********************************************
 IPv4 is over
 Are you ready for the new Internet ?
 http://www.theipv6company.com
 The IPv6 Company
 
 This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
  -- 
 Volker A. Greimann
 General Counsel and Policy Manager
 KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH
 
 T: +49 6894 9396901
 M: +49 6894 9396851
 F: +49 6894 9396851
 W: www.key-systems.net
 
 Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
 CEO: Alexander Siffrin
 
 Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200116/647614c4/attachment.html>