[anti-abuse-wg] Helping EU identify BGP Hijacking as a risk

Hello fellow members,

I will take the chance to also thank Angel for bringing this to our attention.

It seems "regulation" is coming... I wonder if "BGP Hijacking" poses a risk to "the safety and rights of users or the rights of companies to compete in a fair market". I guess so, and I urge all that feel the same, to participate in this public consultation:
hXXps://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12417-Digital-Services-Act-deepening-the-Internal-Market-and-clarifying-responsibilities-for-digital-services/public-consultation

Wouldn't it be great if transit providers registered in the EU, or selling to EU companies, were obliged (regulated) to implement RPKI? Maybe we could even have the EU "add a routing regulator role to the RIPE NCC"! :)

Regards,
Marco




De: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> Em nome de Brian Nisbet
Enviada: 9 de julho de 2020 10:16
Para: Angel Fernandez Pineda <anfernandez at grupogodo.com>; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Assunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers

Angel,

Thank you for this, a very useful prompt!

Brian

Brian Nisbet 
Service Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 mailto:brian.nisbet at heanet.ie http://www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 
________________________________________
From: anti-abuse-wg <mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Angel Fernandez Pineda <mailto:anfernandez at grupogodo.com>
Sent: Thursday 9 July 2020 08:16
To: mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers 
 
CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi,
I would like to make a recommendation to all of you. The EU has opened a consultation on the Digital Service Act, a future regulation that aims to review the role of digital platforms and technoly intermediaries and establish regulations to protect the rights of users and companies that operate online wherever is required. Of course, the role of ISPs or organizations like RIPE NCC can be subject to asses.

The aim of the European Commission with the consultation is to identify situations that put at risk the safety and rights of users or the rights of companies to compete in a fair market.

To those of you who know that this discussion, repeated so many times in this WG, will not reach to anything, I would like to invite you to dedicate a little of your time to answering the consultation. You will find it at:

https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Finfo%2Flaw%2Fbetter-regulation%2Fhave-your-say%2Finitiatives%2F12417-Digital-Services-Act-deepening-the-Internal-Market-and-clarifying-responsibilities-for-digital-services%2Fpublic-consultation&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7bf6cb706d5e48b22dc008d823d80370%7Ccd9e8269dfb648e082538b7baf8d3391%7C0%7C0%7C637298758391658981&sdata=LacRZpFsgQqCcAOQ%2Bzhu64d0ob463OO9IC7MJeXOAMQ%3D&reserved=0

Best,
ángel
Grupo Godó de Comunicación

________________________________________
De: anti-abuse-wg <mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Enviado: jueves, 9 de julio de 2020 8:29
Para: mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers 
 
Hi Info

Maybe one of the reasons some Non-logging VPNs end up on blacklist sis
that the Non-Looging phrase is just an excuse to not go after misuse.
The rights to privacy and free speech do not mean anything goes.

You can fight abuse without violating privacy. But of course that's not
for free, you need abuse people that investigate and they cost money.
Sadly, many of these VPNs frankly just don't care, using the lame excuse
that they are protecting fundamental rights, when in fact they are just
don't care or take responsibility.

I don't agree with everything Spamhaus does, but I find them responsible
and and always found a way way to talk to them.

I was reluctant writing this, because I'm not sure this discussion will
lead anywhere. It's one of these where opinions seem to already have
been formed.

But you start accusing people of posting anonymously. I totally agree
this is bad, but then, who are you, mailto:info at fos-vpn.org?

You don't seem to offer a name yourself. I find this a bit hypocritical.

Best
Serge


On 08.07.20 20:46, mailto:info at fos-vpn.org wrote:
> All I would like from Spamhaus is to stop publishing fake SBL records in
> order to discredit us and to use that to put pressure both upon us and
> our upstreams.
> Non-logging VPN services are as legal within the EU as Exit Nodes of the
> Tor Network (which have massive abuse entries in various data bases,
> especially the larger ones) and public WiFi Hotspots, which can be used
> for abusive activities, too.
> 
> I don't know who "PP" is (probably the same person which posts under the
> nickname "Petras Simeon" on Twitter and on various boards), but he
> contacted us and our upstream providers without telling his name, just
> using this email address: mailto:phishphucker at storey.ovh and sending us the
> list of SBL entries which he also posted here.
> Don't know if he's working for Spamhaus or not, but before attacking
> others publicly, people should reveal their true identity, anything else
> would be sneaky in my opinion.
> 

-- 
Dr. Serge Droz
Chair of the FIRST Board of Directors
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.first.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7bf6cb706d5e48b22dc008d823d80370%7Ccd9e8269dfb648e082538b7baf8d3391%7C0%7C0%7C637298758391658981&sdata=4n5ae2kX7r4qSW5BmJuMUKaHLTbetjhaeFodXh%2FLQb8%3D&reserved=0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200709/5eccb1c7/attachment.sig>