[bcop] Initiative to create a RIPE BCOP discussion document on proactively mitigating IoT attacks in CPE

Hi Sylvain,

Thanks for your inputs. We will be taking a look at your references.

Sandoche.

On 14/06/2019 13:25, Sylvain BAYA wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Le vendredi 14 juin 2019, sandoche Balakrichenan
> <sandoche.balakrichenan at afnic.fr
> <mailto:sandoche.balakrichenan at afnic.fr>> a écrit :
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     The origin for this initiative came from the ICANN SSAC document
>     on DNS and IoT :
>     https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-105-en.pdf
>     <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-105-en.pdf>
>
>     As RIPE IoT chairs, we asked (in the RIPE IoT mailing list)
>     whether we should prepare a Best Current Operational Practice
>     (BCOP) document in RIPE scope for proactively mitigating IoT attacks.
>
>     From both the Academy and the Industry, we got interests to
>     contribute to this work. Possible contributors name can be found 
>     at the end of this mail:
>
>     Thanks for your input on how to proceed further:
>
>      1. Do you think the topic is useful for the RIPE community? If
>         yes, any guidance on how to proceed further will be appreciated.
>
> Dear Sandoche, 
> Thanks for this initiative.
>
> ...IMHO, the usefulness of this kind of topic is based on fact and we
> can easily gather these facts in every communities around the Internet
> ecosystem ; including the RIPE Community.
>
> Internet Society have shared a blog post [1] about the collaborative
> security. Maybe you are following a similar security approach :-/
>
>  This week i heard about an hidden microphone [2] inside an IoT home
> equipment, distributed in France... 
>
> For reference, you have a blog [3] about how the RIPE Atlas network
> “of IoT” could be used as a “BCOP” for the IoT industry :-) 
>
>      1. Should this discussion be initiated in the RIPE IoT WG and not
>         in the BCOP task force?
>
> Surely the two WG matter. But if you need useful information about
> IoT, the IoT WG with its community is the appropriate place to go...
>
> ...let's say, you can prepare a survey for them, and include most of
> them in the process ; amongst other collaborative|inclusive possible
> actions...
> __
> [1] https://www.internetsociety.org/collaborativesecurity/approach/
> <https://www.internetsociety.org/collaborativesecurity/approach/> •
>  https://www.internetsociety.org/collaborativesecurity/
> <https://www.internetsociety.org/collaborativesecurity/>
> [2]: In French
> — https://www.numerama.com/tech/526115-monsieur-cuisine-connect-lidl-sexplique-sur-laffaire-du-micro-cache.html
> <https://www.numerama.com/tech/526115-monsieur-cuisine-connect-lidl-sexplique-sur-laffaire-du-micro-cache.html>
> [3]: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/kistel/ripe-atlas-probes-as-iot-devices
> <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/kistel/ripe-atlas-probes-as-iot-devices>
>
>      1. Anyone in this mailing list would be interested in
>         contributing or provided references to people who will be
>         interested to contribute?
>
>
>     People who have already expressed interest in contributing:
>
>     *From the Academy: *
>
>      1. Andrzej Duda  (http://duda.imag.fr/)
>      2. Maciej Korczynski (http://mkorczynski.com/)
>
>     *From the Industry:*
>
>      1. Ad Bresser (SPIN product manager)
>      2. Eliott Lear (CISCO)
>      3. Jacques Latour (CIRA - The Canadian Internet registry)
>      4. Peter Steinhauser (Embedd.com)
>      5. Possiblity from CZNIC  (Czech Internet registry) who are
>         involved in Turris router project
>
>     Sandoche.
>
>
> I'm new here, then i hope this helps :-)
>  
> Regards,
> --sb.
> __
> http://www.chretiennement.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/bcop/attachments/20190617/4984a022/attachment.html>