IP addresses being attacked in Krebs DDoS?

As an ISP who is pro-active when it comes to security, I'd like to know what IP address(es) are being hit by the Krebs on Security DDoS attack. If we know, we can warn customers that they are harboring infected PCs and/or IoT devices. (And if all ISPs did this, it would be possible to curtail s

IP Addresses

Hi Anyone can help on how to get IP addresses, purchase or lease or any broker who can help. Your help will be appreciated. Thank you KARIM

Re: The Internet Is Now Officially Too Big as IP Addresses Run Out - NBC News

them away from Jim Fleming. > > > http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/internet-now-officially-too-big-ip-addresses-run-out-n386081 > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > -- // jamie rishaw // Chess is just a game, and real people aren'

Re: The Internet Is Now Officially Too Big as IP Addresses Run Out - NBC News

bcnews.com/news/us-news/internet-now-officially-too-big-ip-addresses-run-out-n386081 > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >

The Internet Is Now Officially Too Big as IP Addresses Run Out - NBC News

John Curran gets a quote; NBC gets the etymology of "IPv4" wrong. Just keep them away from Jim Fleming. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/internet-now-officially-too-big-ip-addresses-run-out-n386081 -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Paul Graydon wrote: > On 12/1/2011 7:20 PM, John Curran wrote: >> Wayne - >> >> Your subject line (IP addresses are now assets) could mislead folks, >> so I'd advise waiting to review the actual sale order once approved by &g

Re: IP addresses are now assets

- Original Message - > From: "Owen DeLong" > On Dec 5, 2011, at 12:27 AM, cdel.firsthand.net wrote: > > The British have been using the correct six character word length > > for humour ad memoriam. > > Extra and unnecessary characters do not a correct word make. The u is silent. Like th

Re: IP addresses are now assets

Extra and unnecessary characters do not a correct word make. Owen On Dec 5, 2011, at 12:27 AM, cdel.firsthand.net wrote: > The British have been using the correct six character word length for humour > ad memoriam. > > > Christian de Larrinaga > > > On 4 Dec 2011, at 15:15, Gary Buhrmaster

Re: IP addresses are now assets

The British have been using the correct six character word length for humour ad memoriam. Christian de Larrinaga On 4 Dec 2011, at 15:15, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 18:18, David Barak wrote: > >> Should the HAC be expected to manage the transition to HumorV6? >> > >

Re: IP addresses are now assets

- Original Message - > From: "Robert Bonomi" > "if you're going to do a thing, do it RIGHT!!" > > "Anything worth doing, is worth over-doing." I love a good self-referential posting; don't you? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@bayli

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 18:18, David Barak wrote: > Should the HAC be expected to manage the transition to HumorV6? > I am not that familiar with Humorv6. Has Hv6 had sufficient operational input, or is it based on a philosophically pure redesign of humor making it theoretically funny, but in pr

Re: IP addresses are now assets

From: David Barak > > Should the HAC be expected to manage the transition to HumorV6? > BEFORE that is introduced, one needs a mailing-list designated for discussion of the potential problems an dangers associated therewith, similar to the ACM's discussion list on computer technoogy. May I prop

Re: IP addresses are now assets

Should the HAC be expected to manage the transition to HumorV6? David

Re: IP addresses are now assets

It's hard to sustain that kind of commitment... so we need to form a Humor Advisory Committee. Their job would be to determine which behaviors the community finds most humorous. When the community doesn't produce enough material, the comedy HAC would write jokes on our behalf (for adoption by Jo

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 20:01, wrote: . > > Suggestion received and needing confirmation: > > That ARIN or a party it designates assign one or more sense(s) of humour to > the CEO. > I believe this suggestion su

Re: IP addresses are now assets

Ah... *this* is the Whacky Weekend thread. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 03:33:55AM +, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 2, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > > > No, Valdis, the ARIN posi

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 03:33:55AM +, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 2, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > > > No, Valdis, the ARIN position is "if we wanted Curran to have a sense of > > humor, > > we'd have issued him one". > > > Changes in this area may be proposed via the ARIN Con

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Dec 2, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > No, Valdis, the ARIN position is "if we wanted Curran to have a sense of > humor, > we'd have issued him one". Changes in this area may be proposed via the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process -

Re: IP addresses are now assets

h > > litigating this one"? > > It's pretty simple: you can write a contract to transfer IP > addresses in accordance with policy, and we are now seeing > most parties come to us in advance either to prequalify or > make the sale conditional on approval. No, Valdi

Re: IP addresses are now assets

e, are agreements with IP address registries, and the community, to provide unique usage of IP addresses. The existence of unique IP addresses exist only because of the community and the address registries' efforts; the community "owns" the uniqueness of IP addresses, which is a kin

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Dec 2, 2011, at 2:56 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:37:29 MST, joshua sahala said: >> the speculative market exists and is growing, why do certain factions >> of the community keep trying to pretend that it doesn't? > > I'm sure at least some of those factions pre

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:37:29 MST, joshua sahala said: > the speculative market exists and is growing, why do certain factions > of the community keep trying to pretend that it doesn't? I'm sure at least some of those factions pretend it doesn't because admitting it does would be a game changer. I

Re: IP addresses are now assets

an asset? Joshua - Rights to addresses (in the registration database) are being transferred for money. Those rights may indeed be "assets" (although that's likely a question better suited for lawyers) Perhaps "Rights to IP addresses can be sold!" would be a better t

Re: IP addresses are now assets

>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:37:29PM -0700, joshua sahala wrote: >>>    Any property or right that is owned by a person or entity and has >>>    monetary value. See also liability. >>> >>>    All of the property of a person or entity or its total value; >>>    entries on a balance sheet listing s

Re: IP addresses are now assets

In a message written on Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:28:22PM -0500, Joe Loiacono wrote: > Mike Jones wrote on 12/02/2011 03:14:58 PM: > > What about land? it's a public resource that you've paid money to > > someone in exchange for transferring their rights over that public > > resource to you. > > L

Re: IP addresses are now assets

Mike Jones wrote on 12/02/2011 03:14:58 PM: > What about land? it's a public resource that you've paid money to > someone in exchange for transferring their rights over that public > resource to you. Land is private property. Joe

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On 2 December 2011 20:01, Henry Yen wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:37:29PM -0700, joshua sahala wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:20 PM, John Curran wrote:[cut] >> > Your subject line (IP addresses are now assets) could mislead folks, >> [cut] >> ianal, but

RE: IP addresses are now assets

"John Lightfoot" wrote; > I have a boatload of IPv6 addresses I'm willing to sell at the low, low price > of $.01 each. Good for you. _I_ have somewhat over 17.8 million IPv4 addresses, in 3 large blocks, for which I will sell my 'right to use', at half your offering price.

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:37:29PM -0700, joshua sahala wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:20 PM, John Curran wrote:[cut] > > Your subject line (IP addresses are now assets) could mislead folks, > [cut] > ianal, but the treatment of ip addresses by the bankruptcy court would >

RE: IP addresses are now assets

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Fri Dec 2 13:29:31 > 2011 > From: Leigh Porter > To: "Justin M. Streiner" , > Leo Bicknell > > Subject: RE: IP addresses are now assets > Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:29:43 + > Cc: N

RE: IP addresses are now assets

I have a boatload of IPv6 addresses I'm willing to sell at the low, low price of $.01 each. -Original Message- From: Christopher J. Pilkington [mailto:c...@0x1.net] Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 12:18 PM To: Michael R. Wayne Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: IP addresses are now assets On

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:37:29 -0500, joshua sahala wrote: Any property or right that is owned by a person or entity and has monetary value. See also liability. If it was a RIR assignment, it's not "owned". It's more akin to a "lease". That said, there are documented rules/proceedures

Re: IP addresses are now assets

--- jsah...@gmail.com wrote: the speculative market exists and is growing, why do certain factions of the community keep trying to pretend that it doesn't? --- Because they're busy getting ipv6 up and that will make these things less important? >;-) sc

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:20 PM, John Curran wrote:[cut] > Your subject line (IP addresses are now assets) could mislead folks, [cut] ianal, but the treatment of ip addresses by the bankruptcy court would tend to agree with the definition of an asset from webster's new world law dictiona

RE: IP addresses are now assets

> -Original Message- > From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org] > Sent: 02 December 2011 19:26 > To: Leo Bicknell > Cc: NANOG > Subject: Re: IP addresses are now assets > > On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > > In a message writ

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:04:23PM -0500, Michael R. Wayne wrote: After negotiating with multiple prospective buyers, Cerner Corp. agreed to buy the Internet addresses for $12 each. Other bids were as low as $1.50 each, acco

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Dec 2, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > ARIN, on many occasions, has stated that they have no authority over > legacy address space. They made this declaration in the Kamens/sex.com > case. I haven't heard that anything has changed since then. Martin - ARIN will maintain the regis

Re: IP addresses are now assets

I have acres on the moon that are up for sale. On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: > On Dec 1, 2011, at 23:04, "Michael R. Wayne" wrote: > >> After negotiating with multiple prospective buyers, Cerner Corp. >>   agreed to buy the Internet addresses for $12 each. Oth

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Dec 1, 2011, at 23:04, "Michael R. Wayne" wrote: > After negotiating with multiple prospective buyers, Cerner Corp. > agreed to buy the Internet addresses for $12 each. Other bids were > as low as $1.50 each, according to a bankruptcy court filing. Clearly the addresses with the last octe

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Dec 2, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Leigh Porter wrote: > So I do wonder, how is this policy is being enforced and will ARIN be > investigating this current news item? Leigh - No investigation is needed, as I already noted the parties have sought out ARIN in advance. Note that original sales s

Re: IP addresses are now assets

om case. I haven't heard that anything has changed since then. Nortel/MSN was the first, big, public transaction. There have been others prior to Nortel. There will be more after Borders. Circuit City: http://www.slideshare.net/Streambank/offering-memo-ip-addresses-92111final Best. -M<

Re: IP addresses are now assets

In a message written on Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:04:23PM -0500, Michael R. Wayne wrote: >After negotiating with multiple prospective buyers, Cerner Corp. >agreed to buy the Internet addresses for $12 each. Other bids were >as low as $1.50 each, according to a bankruptcy court filing. S

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 03:52, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > In any litigation, Counsel always wins.  I often remind myself that > there's still time to go to law school.  :-) It may be too late. The glory days of getting a JD and then racking in the money are apparently over. I remember readi

RE: IP addresses are now assets

> -Original Message- > From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net] > Joly - > > Requests are processed according the transfer policies > . If a > request doesn't meet the transfer policy (e.g. the sale > is not to an actual entity tha

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Dec 2, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > Hi John, > > I'm sorry to be thick, but can you explain "right of visibility to the > public portion of registrations" a little further?. > > Under what circumstances might ARIN deny approval? Joly - Requests are processed according the tra

Re: IP addresses are now assets

> > > Would it be correct to summarize the ARIN position as "It's murkier than > Cerner > > makes it out to be, and some lawyers are gonna get stinking filthy rich > > litigating this one"? > > It's pretty simple: you can write a contract to tran

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Dec 2, 2011, at 2:48 AM, wrote: > Would it be correct to summarize the ARIN position as "It's murkier than > Cerner > makes it out to be, and some lawyers are gonna get stinking filthy rich > litigating this one"? It's pretty simple: you can write a contr

Re: IP addresses are now assets

valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes: > Would it be correct to summarize the ARIN position as "It's murkier than > Cerner > makes it out to be, and some lawyers are gonna get stinking filthy rich > litigating this one"? > > :) In any litigation, Counsel always wins. I often remind myself that there'

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 05:20:39 GMT, John Curran said: > ARIN holds that IP address space is not property but is managed as a > public resource. Address holders may have certain rights (such as the > right to be the registrant of the address block, the right to transfer the > registration, etc.) but

Re: IP addresses are now assets

On 12/1/2011 7:20 PM, John Curran wrote: Wayne - Your subject line (IP addresses are now assets) could mislead folks, so I'd advise waiting to review the actual sale order once approved by the court before making summary conclusions. ARIN holds that IP address space is not property b

Re: IP addresses are now assets

Wayne - Your subject line (IP addresses are now assets) could mislead folks, so I'd advise waiting to review the actual sale order once approved by the court before making summary conclusions. ARIN holds that IP address space is not property but is managed as a public resource. Ad

IP addresses are now assets

>From >http://www.detnews.com/article/20111201/BIZ/112010483/1361/Borders-selling-Internet-addresses-for-$786-000 Borders selling Internet addresses for $786,000 Bill Rochelle/ Bloomberg News Borders Group Inc., the liquidated Ann Arbor-based bookseller, will generate $786,000 by se

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On May 12, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote: >> I wonder does IANA frequently receive legal papers demanding the >> name and street address of the customer at 127.0.0.1 ? :) > > I know people, well at least one, that have sent spam complaints to IANA > claiming junk mail originated

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Thu May 12 11:04:15 > 2011 > Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 19:33:21 -0500 > Subject: Re: 23,000 IP addresses > From: Jimmy Hess > To: Michael Holstein > Cc: NANOG list > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Michael Hols

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Michael Holstein wrote: > I have the netflow records to prove this is NOT the case. All > MediaSentry (et.al.) do is scrape the tracker. We have also received a > number of takedown notices that have numbers transposed, involve parts Seems really prone to failure.

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > On 5/11/11 8:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM, William Allen Simpson >> wrote: >> Courts like precedent. I choose Facebook's precedent. Seems reasonable to me. >>> That's also roughly in line

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On 5/11/11 8:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM, William Allen Simpson > wrote: > >>> Courts like precedent. I choose Facebook's precedent. Seems reasonable to >>> me. >>> >> That's also roughly in line with Nextel and others for CALEA. > > Hrm, I had thought tha

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On 5/11/11 11:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On May 10, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: On 5/10/11 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: A good reason why every ISP should have a published civil subpoena compliance fee. 23,000 * $150 each

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote: >> Courts like precedent. I choose Facebook's precedent. Seems reasonable to >> me. >> > That's also roughly in line with Nextel and others for CALEA. Hrm, I had thought that CALEA specifically removed the ability of the Provider to

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On May 10, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> On 5/10/11 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> A good reason why every ISP should have a published civil subpoena >> compliance fee. >> 23,000 * $150 each should only cost them $3.45M to ge

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On 5/10/11 10:35 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: Facebook charges $150.00 (not a great link but http://lawyerist.com/subpoena-facebook-information/ Sorry, that's old and incorrect. Finding that on facebook's site is difficult. Other sites have Facebook charging $250 to $500 for civil subpoena fe

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

> ("it's one in a billion to crack it! beyond a > reasonable doubt! we dont have anyone anywhere in our IT who could possibly > crack it!") A billion iterations takes what fraction of a second using a high-end multi-card gamer rig and CUDA? (or for the cheap/lazy, a S3/Tesla instance). Even for

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Michael Holstein wrote: > >>> I wonder how things go if you challenge them in court.  This is surely a >>> topic for another list, but it seems to me it'd be fairly difficult to >>> prove unless they downloaded part of the movie from your IP and verified >>> that w

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 09:56:56AM +0800, Ong Beng Hui said: > while, I am not a lawyer, so what after they know who is using that > broadband connection for that IP. So, they have identified the 80yr old, > what next ? and what if i have a free-for-all wireless router in my > house which an

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

>> I wonder how things go if you challenge them in court. This is surely a >> topic for another list, but it seems to me it'd be fairly difficult to >> prove unless they downloaded part of the movie from your IP and verified >> that what they got really was a part of the movie. I have the netfl

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

In article <5f713bd4b694ac42a8bb61aa6001a...@mail.dessus.com>, Keith Medcalf writes Article 5 - Categories of data to be retained 1. Member States shall ensure that the following categories of data are retained under this Directive: (a) data necessary to trace and identify the source of a commun

RE: 23,000 IP addresses

Luis Marta wrote on 2011-05-10: > In the EU you have Directive 2006/24/EC: http://eur- > lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF > Article 6 - Periods of retention > Member States shall ensure that the categories of data specified in Article > 5 are retained for

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On 5/10/11 8:30 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: On 5/10/11 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: A good reason why every ISP should have a published civil subpoena compliance fee. 23,000 * $150 each should only cost them $3.45M to get the information. See

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On May 10, 2011, at 9:53 16PM, Michael Painter wrote: > Deepak Jain wrote: >> For examples, see the RIAA's attempts and more recently the criminal >> investigations of child porn downloads from unsecured access >> points. From what I understand (or wildly guess) is that ISPs with remote >> diag

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

Hi， I am not an US citizen and I don't live in US. But I am interested to know how the case progress, because we have similar such cases in my country. :P But seriously, are they after the end-user or making the ISP responsible for their end-user ? while, I am not a lawyer, so what after t

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

Deepak Jain wrote: For examples, see the RIAA's attempts and more recently the criminal investigations of child porn downloads from unsecured access points. From what I understand (or wildly guess) is that ISPs with remote diagnostic capabilities are being asked if their provided access point is

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > On 5/10/11 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > A good reason why every ISP should have a published civil subpoena > compliance fee. > 23,000 * $150 each should only cost them $3.45M to get the information. > Seems like that would take the pro

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

--As of May 10, 2011 9:37:55 AM -0400, Jon Lewis is alleged to have said: I wonder how things go if you challenge them in court. This is surely a topic for another list, but it seems to me it'd be fairly difficult to prove unless they downloaded part of the movie from your IP and verified that

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: >> >> > If I've found the right case, it was 05-1404, and published as 451 F.3d 226 > (2006); > see http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/451/226/627290/ > I have no idea if it's still good law. According to EDUCAUSE the

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On May 10, 2011, at 3:51 32PM, Michael Holstein wrote: > >> In the US, I believe that CALEA requires you to have those records for 7 >> years. >> > > No, it doesn't (records *of the requests* are required, but no > obligation to create subscriber records exists). > > Even if it did .. academ

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:51:32 -0400 > From: Michael Holstein > > > > In the US, I believe that CALEA requires you to have those records for 7 > > years. > > > > No, it doesn't (records *of the requests* are required, but no > obligation to create subscriber records exists). > > Even if

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

Hello, On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > In the US, I believe that CALEA requires you to have those records for 7 > years. > FWIW, in Argentina there is a requirement to hold all records for a full ten years. A sweet bite for the storage folks here... regards, cl.

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

> In the US, I believe that CALEA requires you to have those records for 7 > years. > No, it doesn't (records *of the requests* are required, but no obligation to create subscriber records exists). Even if it did .. academic institutions are exempt (to CALEA) as private networks.* There are

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Tue, 10 May 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: In the US, I believe that CALEA requires you to have those records for 7 years. Some universities have taken the position that they do not meet the criteria for being "communications service providers" under CALEA, and therefore not subject to the inte

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

> From: Owen DeLong > Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 12:02:33 -0700 > > On May 10, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Michael Holstein wrote: > > > > >> In the EU you have Directive 2006/24/EC: > >> > > > > But I'm not, and neither are most of the ISPs in the linked document. > > > > Regards, > > > > Michael Holst

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On May 10, 2011, at 3:02 33PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On May 10, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Michael Holstein wrote: > >> >>> In the EU you have Directive 2006/24/EC: >>> >> >> But I'm not, and neither are most of the ISPs in the linked document. >> >> Regards, >> >> Michael Holstein >> Information

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On May 10, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Michael Holstein wrote: > >> In the EU you have Directive 2006/24/EC: >> > > But I'm not, and neither are most of the ISPs in the linked document. > > Regards, > > Michael Holstein > Information Security Administrator > Cleveland State University In the US, I b

Re: Fwd: 23,000 IP addresses

> In the EU you have Directive 2006/24/EC: > But I'm not, and neither are most of the ISPs in the linked document. Regards, Michael Holstein Information Security Administrator Cleveland State University

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On May 10, 2011, at 2:10 10PM, Wil Schultz wrote: > On May 10, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > >> >> On May 10, 2011, at 9:07 11AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> >> >> Has anyone converted that file to some useful format like ASCII? You know >> -- something greppable? >> > > I've

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On May 10, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > > On May 10, 2011, at 9:07 11AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > > Has anyone converted that file to some useful format like ASCII? You know > -- something greppable? > I've converted it to ascii, but I don't have a place to host it. I can

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

. > > I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these addresses : > > http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/expendibleipaddresses.pdf > > If you have IP addresses on this list, expect to receive papers shortly. Has anyone converted that file to

RE: 23,000 IP addresses

> A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena > ISPs over 23,000 alleged downloads of some > Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of; subpoenas are expected > to go out this week. > > I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these > addresses : >

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

In article , Roland Perry writes >Attempts a bit like this have come unstuck in the UK. Search for >"Davenport Lyons" and "ACS Law" And this ruling (and fine) have appeared from the UK's privacy regulator today (note especially that the fine would have been ~$300k if the company was still trading

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

re might be some interest in the list of these addresses : >>> >>> http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/expendibleipaddresses.pdf >>> >>> If you have IP addresses on this list, expect to receive papers shortly. >>> >>> Here is more o

Fwd: 23,000 IP addresses

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Michael Holstein < michael.holst...@csuohio.edu> wrote: > > > > http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/expendibleipaddresses.pdf > > > > The dates in the timestamps are back in February. We deleted those logs > "..in the regular course of business..

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:37 AM, William Pitcock wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2011 10:22:03 -0400 > Christopher Morrow wrote: >> At least baytsp got theirs? (money I mean) >> > > Do you have any links to evidence of this?  I would love to just be > able to automatically throw BayTSP mails in the garb

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

> http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/expendibleipaddresses.pdf > The dates in the timestamps are back in February. We deleted those logs "..in the regular course of business.." a LONG TIME AGO. If you didn't do that, you really ought to ask yourself why. Regards, Michael

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Tue, 10 May 2011 10:22:03 -0400 Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Scott Brim > wrote: > > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:42, Leigh Porter > > wrote: > >> So are they basing this on you downloading it or on making it > >> available for others? > > > > Without knowing t

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:42, Leigh Porter > wrote: >> So are they basing this on you downloading it or on making it available for >> others? > > Without knowing the details, I wouldn't assume any such level of > competence or integrity.  It

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:42, Leigh Porter wrote: > So are they basing this on you downloading it or on making it available for > others? Without knowing the details, I wouldn't assume any such level of competence or integrity. It could just be a broad witch hunt. > Apologies for the top post

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

ds of some Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of; subpoenas are expected to go out this week. I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these addresses : http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/expendibleipaddresses.pdf If you have IP addresses on this li

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

So are they basing this on you downloading it or on making it available for others? Apologies for the top post... -- Leigh Porter On 10 May 2011, at 14:40, "Jon Lewis" wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > >> A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" s

RE: 23,000 IP addresses

bakl...@amtrak.com -Original Message- From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:38 AM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: 23,000 IP addresses On Tue, 10 May 2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Gr

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

e interest in the list of these addresses : http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/expendibleipaddresses.pdf If you have IP addresses on this list, expect to receive papers shortly. Here is more of the backstory : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/biggest-bittorrent-case

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

>A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena >ISPs over 23,000 alleged downloads of some Sylvester Stallone movie I have >never heard of [. . .] >I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these addresses : >http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >