3 ms·

Good. Do we really want ISP's (or anyone) deciding who and who is not a "cybercrime gang" anyway? It's trivial to expand the current vogue definition.

by jakeogh 11y ago

caf 11y ago
It doesn't seems like they would need to decide who is and isn't a "cybercrime gang", just whether or not their customer actually owns the IP blocks that they're asking to be routed.
Dylan16807 11y ago
Uh. Replace "cybercrime gang" with "people that do not own these IPs" and reread the article.
- jakeogh 11y ago
  In another universe, a "cybercrme gang" lost it's /16 today due to a xyz regulatory body's decision deeming it as such. "In addition, spamming from these stolen IP addresses is a felony under the US CAN-SPAM Act." said another way.... "In addition, sending information in a unauthorized fashion is a felony under the US CAN-SPAM Act." Should we really be cheerleading more rules and tighter restrictions on comms? Uh. Lets require biometrics to xmit!
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    If you're against the entire concept of allocating IPs, I can't help you there.
    - jakeogh 11y ago
      I'm against the implied idea that this is a problem we need more rules to fix. If V's peers are really annoyed, they can take their own action.
superuser2 11y ago
The problem is not their distasteful use of IP addresses, but that they are committing the IP-address equivalent of identity theft: doing business under identifiers which are not theirs. BGP is a trusting protocol, with expectations enforced by social contract rather than cryptography. Part of the social contract among ISPs is that only competent, legitimate entities get to participate in BGP, and Verizon is violating that.
- jakeogh 11y ago
  "competent, legitimate entities" aka whatever that's decided to mean at the moment. BGP is trivially broken, but that's not what's happening here, and even if it was it's a proto flaw, not something that we should be "fixing" with more prior restraint. It's too easy to restrict people by 'fixing' a non-problem (junk mail from 'gangs' in this case).
  - superuser2 11y ago
    It is simply not your right advertise routes that aren't yours. Doing so intentionally is solid proof that you have no business participating in BGP, gang or not.

Good. Do we really want ISP's (or anyone) deciding who and who is not a "cybercrime gang" anyway? It's trivial to expand the current vogue definition.

by jakeogh 11y ago

Good. Do we really want ISP's (or anyone) deciding who and who is not a "cybercrime gang" anyway? It's trivial to expand the current vogue definition.

caf 11y ago

It doesn't seems like they would need to decide who is and isn't a "cybercrime gang", just whether or not their customer actually owns the IP blocks that they're asking to be routed.

Dylan16807 11y ago

Uh. Replace "cybercrime gang" with "people that do not own these IPs" and reread the article.

jakeogh 11y ago
In another universe, a "cybercrme gang" lost it's /16 today due to a xyz regulatory body's decision deeming it as such. "In addition, spamming from these stolen IP addresses is a felony under the US CAN-SPAM Act." said another way.... "In addition, sending information in a unauthorized fashion is a felony under the US CAN-SPAM Act." Should we really be cheerleading more rules and tighter restrictions on comms? Uh. Lets require biometrics to xmit!
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  If you're against the entire concept of allocating IPs, I can't help you there.
  - jakeogh 11y ago
    I'm against the implied idea that this is a problem we need more rules to fix. If V's peers are really annoyed, they can take their own action.

superuser2 11y ago

The problem is not their distasteful use of IP addresses, but that they are committing the IP-address equivalent of identity theft: doing business under identifiers which are not theirs. BGP is a trusting protocol, with expectations enforced by social contract rather than cryptography. Part of the social contract among ISPs is that only competent, legitimate entities get to participate in BGP, and Verizon is violating that.

jakeogh 11y ago
"competent, legitimate entities" aka whatever that's decided to mean at the moment. BGP is trivially broken, but that's not what's happening here, and even if it was it's a proto flaw, not something that we should be "fixing" with more prior restraint. It's too easy to restrict people by 'fixing' a non-problem (junk mail from 'gangs' in this case).
- superuser2 11y ago
  It is simply not your right advertise routes that aren't yours. Doing so intentionally is solid proof that you have no business participating in BGP, gang or not.