[anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: [dns-wg] EU: DNS abuse study

Exactly
And unfortunately this is a trend with a lot of the EC’s activities that push towards more and more regulation of digital

I also find the ridiculously broad definition of abuse so broad that it renders any output without much merit.


--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
https://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845


From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Farzaneh Badiei <farzaneh at digitalmedusa.org>
Date: Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 15:16
To: Markus de Brün <markus at mxdomain.de>, anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: [dns-wg] EU: DNS abuse study

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
I probably should say this on the DNS mailing list but I find it quite curious that the study surveyed such limited stakeholders, and mainly the intellectual property crowd.

"We gathered the data and inputs from stakeholders with two questionnaires: 1) the first one surveyed registries, registrars, hosting providers, other DNS operators, and 2) the second one surveyed intellectual property rightholders, practitioners, associations, business intelligence, and brand protection companies. The study also collected data from third parties and publicly available reports (secondary research), as well as evaluated the impact of DNS abuse." (Page 7)


Intellectual property is not the best way to combat abuse and it will lead to protectionism and intellectual property overreach. Same applies to this space.  They use "illegal" and "harmful"  in their definition of DNS abuse which are ambiguous at best and expand the definition of DNS abuse so much that of course can result in concluding that we are all drowning in harmful activities online and it's all the DNS fault.




On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 10:50 AM Markus de Brün <markus at mxdomain.de<mailto:markus at mxdomain.de>> wrote:

For those who are not following the DNS wg list:

The European Commission has published a quite comprehensive study on DNS
abuse. (One could also call it enormous.)

It study itself be found here:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/7d16c267-7f1f-11ec-8c40-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/

There is an additional document containing the appendix:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d9804355-7f22-11ec-8c40-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

--
Markus de Brün

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [dns-wg] EU: DNS abuse study
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 10:52:53 +0100
From: Petr Špaček <pspacek at isc.org<mailto:pspacek at isc.org>>
To: dns-wg at ripe.net<mailto:dns-wg at ripe.net>

On 01. 02. 22 9:32, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> The EU has published is 173 page opus on DNS abuse:
>
> https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/7d16c267-7f1f-11ec-8c40-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/

I have had a peak when waiting for other things to happen and it might
be interesting read. Here is a gist from chapter Executive summary:

The study adopts the following definition of DNS abuse:
Domain Name System (DNS) abuse is any activity that makes use of domain
names or the DNS protocol to carry out harmful or illegal activity.

The main findings of the measurements are:
a) In relative terms, new generic Top-Level Domains (new gTLDs), with an
estimated market share of 6.6%, are the most abused group of TLDs
(Appendix 1 – Technical Report, Section 5, p. 26).
b) Not all new gTLDs suffer from DNS abuse to the same extent. The two
most abused new gTLDs combined account for 41% of all abused new gTLD
names (Appendix 1 – Technical Report, Section 9.2, p. 32).
c) European Union country code TLDs (EU ccTLDs) are by far the least
abused in absolute terms and relative to their overall market share
(Appendix 1 – Technical Report, Section 5, p. 26).
d) The vast majority of spam and botnet command-and-control domain names
are maliciously registered (Appendix 1 – Technical Report, Section 10.3,
p. 41).
e) About 25% of phishing domain names and 41% of malware distribution
domain names are presumably registered by legitimate users, but
compromised at the hosting level (Appendix 1 – Technical Report, Section
10.3, p. 41).
f) The top five most abused registrars account for 48% of all
maliciously registered domain names (Appendix 1 – Technical Report,
Section 11.2, pp. 43-44).
g) Hosting providers with disproportionate concentrations of spam
domains reach 3,000 abused domains per 10,000 registered domain names
(Appendix 1 – Technical Report, Section 12.3, pp. 48-49).
h) The overall level of DNS security extensions (DNSSEC) adoption
remains low. (Appendix 1 – Technical Report, Section 15.3, pp. 62-63).
i) There are 2.5 million open DNS resolvers worldwide that can be
effectively used as amplifiers in distributed denial-of-service attacks
(Appendix 1 – Technical Report, Section 16.4, p. 70).

The numbers above sound interesting.

--
Petr Špaček

--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or
change your subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-wg

--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20220210/11a14bad/attachment.html>