4 ms·

The TL;DR of my comment is "I personally enjoy implementing automated solutions to relatively-low-volume abuse, but as long as it doesn't cause you any capacity

The TL;DR of my comment is "I personally enjoy implementing automated solutions to relatively-low-volume abuse, but as long as it doesn't cause you any capacity concerns, I fully understand ignoring it, since it's hard" Using that as a reason to assign me responsibility for the state of the internet seems... slight hyperbole?

Borg3 3y ago
It wasnt directed at you as person, but as an idea. Not sure if you ever did abuse report, but they are mostly ignored. Thats the problem. Everyone just waves the hand like, it doesnt make capacity issues, we can ignore it. Sure, until its too late. Maybe I am overly paranoid, but seems that old russian maxima is reasonable: Fight when they coming for cent, because when they will come to take dollar it will be too late.
- PreInternet01 3y ago
  So, funny story, a major reason why abuse reporting became pointless (unless done at the right level, i.e. when there is a direct and significant business relationship between the parties involved) is... abuse of the abuse reporting process! Sometime around the dawn of this millennium, for example, 'consumer firewalls' at just about every OSI layer became a thing, and a lot of these had the great feature where they would automatically email WHOIS contacts for domains and IP blocks (plus all of their upstreams, for good measure) every time something bad happened, like receiving a single UDP packet on port 139. Stuff like that, predictably, put a bit of a dent in the availability of useful technical contact information, and as much as I would like to go back to the "I have the beeper number of the guy who runs the national backbone" Internet, I'm afraid that Cloudflare is the best we can do these days, sorry. Back to the topic at hand: "fight" on the 2024 Internet means refusing service to abusive parties as much as possible. That responsibility is best outsourced (see 'Cloudflare' above...), and a hard undertaking if you want to do it yourself without causing collateral damage (which, yes, Cloudflare also does, but at least you get someone to point at!). Expecting to somehow get in touch (or worse, 'get even') with the myriad of bulletproof hosters (who simply don't care), admins of bug-ridden/misconfigured systems (who often don't even understand the issue) and assorted detritus is unproductive. And, as with any "the ideal amount of fraud is nonzero" discussion, that can be a hard pill to swallow, but a necessary one nonetheless.
  - Borg3 3y ago
    Huh, interesting story. Can you point to some sources about that? What FW software vendors did it? I never heard about such dumb feature. Really. If I have rule that DROPs traffic, I do NOT care anymore whats really going on (unless its DoS).

Borg3 3y ago

It wasnt directed at you as person, but as an idea. Not sure if you ever did abuse report, but they are mostly ignored. Thats the problem. Everyone just waves the hand like, it doesnt make capacity issues, we can ignore it. Sure, until its too late. Maybe I am overly paranoid, but seems that old russian maxima is reasonable: Fight when they coming for cent, because when they will come to take dollar it will be too late.

PreInternet01 3y ago
So, funny story, a major reason why abuse reporting became pointless (unless done at the right level, i.e. when there is a direct and significant business relationship between the parties involved) is... abuse of the abuse reporting process! Sometime around the dawn of this millennium, for example, 'consumer firewalls' at just about every OSI layer became a thing, and a lot of these had the great feature where they would automatically email WHOIS contacts for domains and IP blocks (plus all of their upstreams, for good measure) every time something bad happened, like receiving a single UDP packet on port 139. Stuff like that, predictably, put a bit of a dent in the availability of useful technical contact information, and as much as I would like to go back to the "I have the beeper number of the guy who runs the national backbone" Internet, I'm afraid that Cloudflare is the best we can do these days, sorry. Back to the topic at hand: "fight" on the 2024 Internet means refusing service to abusive parties as much as possible. That responsibility is best outsourced (see 'Cloudflare' above...), and a hard undertaking if you want to do it yourself without causing collateral damage (which, yes, Cloudflare also does, but at least you get someone to point at!). Expecting to somehow get in touch (or worse, 'get even') with the myriad of bulletproof hosters (who simply don't care), admins of bug-ridden/misconfigured systems (who often don't even understand the issue) and assorted detritus is unproductive. And, as with any "the ideal amount of fraud is nonzero" discussion, that can be a hard pill to swallow, but a necessary one nonetheless.
- Borg3 3y ago
  Huh, interesting story. Can you point to some sources about that? What FW software vendors did it? I never heard about such dumb feature. Really. If I have rule that DROPs traffic, I do NOT care anymore whats really going on (unless its DoS).