Re: [AusNOG] Melbourne Primus/Vocus datacenter at 55 King closing

[Michelle Sullivan]

Wonder if that’s why the SORBS mirror went offline?  I didn’t get any 
notification and it just disappeared.. can’t connect to the OOB port etc... :/

Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
Hallowed are those that walk in unison.

> On 14 Apr 2021, at 21:33, Jared Hirst  
> wrote:
> 
> Link the DA / Plan for the sites then if it's a co-incidence? Vocus tried to 
> offload the business in 2017 and couldn't.
> 
> "
> Vocus also confirmed it had appointed advisors to sell off its Australian 
> data centre assets. Vocus operates 20 data centres in Australia, which were 
> valued at $160 million by Macquarie analysts in May, according to a report in 
> the Australian Financial Review. Vocus made $46.5 million from its data 
> centre business in FY17, down from $50 million the previous financial year.
> The company said it would continue to evaluate its other non-core Australian 
> assets for a potential sale, and that it had received further approaches for 
> potential acquisitions since announcing the asset review in August."
> 
> Sounds 100% like a shut down is happening. Which I think is a great idea, the 
> Doody street site and 55 King are both terrible sites, but they should be 
> open about it if that is the truth.
> 
> - Jared
> 
> 
>> On April 13, 2021, 4:27 PM GMT+10 nathan...@prodigy.com.au wrote:
>> 
>> Unless there’s a replacement planned (particularly one planned to open 
>> before the existing one closes), I’m not sure whether it really matters 
>> whether there was an external or internal motivation for the change, the end 
>> result is much the same.
>>  
>> -Nathanael Bettridge
>>  
>>  
>> From: Mailing Lists  
>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2021 11:08 AM
>> To: Nathanael Bettridge 
>> Cc: adam brzovic ; aus...@ausnog.net
>> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Melbourne Primus/Vocus datacenter at 55 King closing
>>  
>> Hi All,
>>  
>> There is no grand conspiracy here. 55 King is being knocked down by the 
>> building owner for a bigger tower, 59 Doody has a road planned to go through 
>> it.
>>  
>> Certainly we could do better with notifications and I'm sure your account 
>> managers would love to hear feedback on how we can improve.
>>  
>> Cheers,
>> Damien.
>>  
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:41 AM Nathanael Bettridge 
>>  wrote:
>> Our account manager just advised (after we had to ask first) that the 59 
>> Doody St NSW DC is closing November 2022 as well, so looks like they’re 
>> exiting the business entirely.
>>  
>> -Nathanael Bettridge
>>  
>> From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of adam brzovic
>> Sent: Sunday, 11 April 2021 6:30 PM
>> To: aus...@ausnog.net
>> Subject: [AusNOG] Melbourne Primus/Vocus datacenter at 55 King closing
>>  
>> Hi All
>> 
>> I have just found an email lost in my spam folder than the Melbourne Primus 
>> datacenter at 55 King Street operated by Vocus is closing down in 4 months 
>> on the 1st of August 2021.
>> 
>> I know this is an old datacentre but every time I visit its full of servers 
>> and has been very stable since they had power issues 10 years ago so I do 
>> not understand why its closing down and now the headache of finding a new 
>> provider and moving our servers with only four months notice.
>> 
>> I have had no contact from our account manager, no phone call from anyone 
>> which is disappointing and no option provided by Vocus to move our servers 
>> to a new location.
>> 
>> Surely if you are actually going to close down a datacenter you would offer 
>> to move your customers to a new location free of charge and how about all 
>> the network and fiber providers in this location what will happen to them.
>> 
>> Has anyone else received notification that the Primus 55 King Street 
>> datacenter is closing down or are they just trying to get rid small 
>> customers.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Adam – CCNP Senior Network & Systems Administrator
>> 
>> ___
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

[Michelle Sullivan]

Paul Wilkins wrote:
Obviously this has been in limbo over the Christmas break. There's 2 
really important issues, on hold because of this.


1 - When or if the PJCIS will call for public comment on the Act as 
passed.


2 - The appearance of the Labor amendments.

So we probably won't see any developments until Parliament resumes 
12th February.


I'll lay money there will be no amendments (passed), there will be an 
attempt to force Apple etc to write in a weakness which will be 
challenged.  There will be many people that will not update their 
iOS/Andriod anytime soon.  Personally I stopped updating the moment this 
bill was passed - particularly as there is at least one Apple update 
that stated, "No bug/security fixes"...


What you will most likely find (and the idiots over in the ACT haven;'t 
worked it out yet) is that the terrorists have some very smart people 
"working" for them and they probably already jailbreak their phones and 
install their own messaging software on it.. (not that you need to 
jailbreak when you can use the 'team' functionality in xcode to install 
non apple approved apps on your phone.)


Of course the highly amusing part is how easy it is to plugin to online 
services and how easy it is to run your own asymmetric cryptography... I 
suspect it would be trivial to put your own encryption over the top of 
any of those services/apps that allow such (and some already do - 
recently came across a plugin to the mailapp that has a custom 
encryption/decryption mechanism which is used by a bank for secure 
messaging.  This means as posted elsewhere any interception would have 
to be by screen capture and keyboard interception on the device, which I 
personally would immediately class as a systemic weakness because if I 
were doing it i'd be cut/pasting messages into my own non-internet 
connected app for encryption/decryption so you can capture what you want 
off imessage, facebook messenger etc... you'd still be getting encrypted 
blocks of data.. and if you capture everything you have online banking 
passwords and everything else that goes with that and there one thinks 
about who else can see the captures


This is what you get when you have people in charge that have interest 
in obtaining data they are not entitled to.


At least the Queensland police will not get voice recorded giving out 
new locations to abusive ex-husbands, now they can protect themselves by 
just accessing the phone of the wife in hiding..


... anyone seen my foil hat today I seem to have misplaced it? :P

--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

[Michelle Sullivan]

I suspect this might be something like Apple issuing an update for a specific 
phone/user...  however... considering that Apple stores keys on its specialized 
chip one has to question how they would do this..?  Capture the user’s key upon 
access so they can unlock the store later?  Capture everything in the store 
when the user unwittingly unlocks it?

Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
Sent from my iPad

> On 05 Dec 2018, at 08:33, Nick Stallman  wrote:
> 
> Also does this mean that the custom firmware for one or a handful of targets 
> is not a systemic weakness, but if (when) the custom firmware leaks out 
> publicly and can be used criminally, it suddenly does become a systemic 
> weakness?
> 
> So a request can become illegal after it's already been executed?
> 
> Note: I say "when" because by it's very nature, a copy of the firmware must 
> be provided to the targeted criminals.
> Smart people being targeted could detect and make a copy of it, do a diff and 
> hey presto they know exactly what's going on.
> It's like DVD encryption - you encrypt the content and then hand over the 
> keys so the DVD can be viewed.
> 
>> On 5/12/18 7:12 am, Scott Weeks wrote:
>> --- m...@chrishawker.com.au wrote:
>> From: Christopher Hawker 
>> 
>> https://apple.news/AOnumlAB9THOmg_8mnMS9DA
>> -
>> 
>> 
>> "Custom firmware built to address one notice or request 
>> is not a systemic weakness unless it is deployed to 
>> users other than the intended targeted user."
>> 
>> I don't understand.  They're going to write encryption 
>> software with a weakness they can exploit and then force 
>> the criminal to put it on his computer?  How do they get 
>> this malware only on "the intended targeted user('s)" 
>> computer and no one elses???
>>   
>> 
>> 
>> "So long as the capability is held in reserve it does 
>> not jeopardise the security of other users and is not 
>> a systemic weakness," the department stated.
>> 
>> Um, it compromises "the security of other users" in 
>> that any computer interacting with the malware infected 
>> computer is compromised by the interaction.
>> 
>> 
>> scott
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>> ___
>>>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>>>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net>
>>>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>> ___
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net>
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> ___
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> -- 
> Nick Stallman
> TECNICAL DIRECTOR
>   n...@agentpoint.com
>   www.agentpoint.com.au
> 
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

[Michelle Sullivan]

I hope my info is wrong but I got told it’s all agreed on following amendments 
today and tomorrow’s vote will see it passed.

Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
Sent from my iPad

> On 04 Dec 2018, at 20:40, Tim Raphael  wrote:
> 
> Solid interview on ABC News Paul! 
> 
> Unfortunately it’s very much a case of, let’s see what gets passed at this 
> stage. 
> 
> - Tim 
> 
>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 20:34, Robert Hudson  wrote:
>> 
>> #facepalm
>> 
>>> On Tue, 4 Dec. 2018, 8:23 pm Christopher Hawker >> wrote:
>>> https://apple.news/AOnumlAB9THOmg_8mnMS9DA
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 2:30 pm, Paul Wilkins  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> APH calendar shows the Bill scheduled for debate tomorrow.
>>>> 
>>>> Last media release from PJCIS 28 Nov, they would hear evidence from 
>>>> security agencies as to the urgency of the Bill.
>>>> 
>>>> Push meets shove?
>>>> 
>>>> Kind regards
>>>> 
>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 11:16, Paul Wilkins  
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> This morning I don't know what to think.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Somehow a confidential submission, by the AFP no less, to the PJCIS has 
>>>>> leaked.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So the government needs to pass new powers so police can investigate 
>>>>> serious crime, including I suppose where it's the government that leaks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or on the other hand, if the government can't maintain the security of 
>>>>> their own papers, how can the public and industry ever rely on government 
>>>>> for the security of their business and personal data? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> By the way, where you see Liberals arguing police need the same powers as 
>>>>> ASIO and AFP, this actually is not correct. The intelligence services 
>>>>> need Exceptional Access powers. I see no reason for the extent of 
>>>>> judicial writ for the police to go anything beyond Legal Intercept. Which 
>>>>> requires a different set of powers, different technical implementations, 
>>>>> and diminished consequences for data security, and different rules of 
>>>>> evidence.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How you avoid a dozen different agencies all kicking in the doors on data 
>>>>> centres without stepping on each others toes is an exercise for the 
>>>>> reader.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>> 
>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 15:31, Mark Smith  wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 11:17, Paul Wilkins  
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Well obviously taking the time to read and consider the public and 
>>>>>> > industry submissions is preferable to pronouncements of "extensive" 
>>>>>> > consultation, then trying to second guess what's on the 5 Eyes' 
>>>>>> > "Letter to Santa" so we can push the Bill through before Christmas.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > There does need to be a settlement between the State's need to enforce 
>>>>>> > the rule of law, and citizen rights of privacy and private property. 
>>>>>> > The problem is if you say it can't be done at all, governments will 
>>>>>> > simply proceed without your input.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > So I think EA is going to happen, regardless.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Until the legislation is passed, EA hasn't happened.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > So we need a debate how that can be accommodated, minimising the 
>>>>>> > adverse impacts, while maximising the benefits for national security, 
>>>>>> > and coming to some kind of settlement with Law Enforcement that 
>>>>>> > preserves citizens rights. Of course, this isn't possible under the 
>>>>>> > current Dep't Home Affairs' timeline, though if Labor stalls the Bill, 
>>>>>> > that will be some welcome respite.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nobody is obligated to spend any time on something the government
>>>&

Re: [AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

[Michelle Sullivan]

Paul Brooks wrote:

On 23/11/2018 11:37 AM, Alex Samad wrote:

Wondering what the implications of this bill and the recent China was stealing 
our
traffic

So in theory could china steal / sniff our traffic and because of these 
weakening of
encryption allow china to snope on our stuff

A

In theory no - this bill doesn't weaken encryption, and explicitly doesn't 
allow any
changes that would weaken encryption.

This bill seeks to bypass encryption entirely by giving the agencies easier 
access to
get into devices and the back-end databases of apps and websites, to see what is
stored in there -bypassing unlock codes, PINS, thumbprint readers etc on 
devices for
example. So for traffic being sniffed 'in the middle' the information is still
sent/received as fully encrypted - and man-in-the-middle snooper won't see 
anything.


I wonder how it would affect HDMI/HDCP enabled devices then.. from my 
understanding all protected (encrypted) content is transmitted 
encrypted, decoded, re-encoded (where necessary) so it is always 
encrypted on the wire (I know that's pushing way beyond the desired 
scope of the legislation, but what's good for the goose is of course 
good for the gander..)



--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] SORBS DUHL blacklist

[Michelle Sullivan]

Peter Tiggerdine wrote:
I guess the point I'm making is that SORBS is about getting rid of 
spam to which their middleware is getting a lot of hits coming from 
gmail MX's. We can't make a rule that says, if you're big enough then 
it doesn't apply to you.


I agree commerce needs to continue but we fight all the time for a 
level playing field, this is no different. Yeah we allow the traffic 
surely our attitude should be more about pressureing gmail to create 
extra measures to combat it further.





and Google's answer was to pressure the C*s of the people who pay my 
wages to whitelist them unconditionally or issue press releases designed 
specifically to destroy *their* credibility. ('their' being the C*'s not 
Google)... that's what they think of the world in a nutshell.


*This* is why I stand my ground on them. (Note: I have implemented 
controls and checks to give the larger legitimate providers a more 
lenient policy in output spam, providing they engaged in actively 
terminating their spammers.  Microsoft signed up, Google refused... draw 
your own conclusions.)


Michelle

--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] SORBS DUHL blacklist

[Michelle Sullivan]

Michael J. Carmody wrote:


Because the pressure applied to me by paying clients expecting their 
emails, is greater than the pressure I exert upon google by rejecting 
their emails.


Maybe I am being too pragmatic for you.




Maybe you should try the other trick that I have seen done.  Those 
'paying clients that are pressuring you' turn off all blacklisting for 
them and them alone.  Make it clear to them, if they want emails from 
known spamming servers the result is an increase in Spam let them 
make the executive decisions.  Most mail servers now a days have the 
ability to trivially exempt clients from any spam filtering, let them 
have their spam and continue protecting the clients you want to protect.


Of course you could just keep trying to persuade people not to use X 
anti-spam service, but remember any and all mentions of SORBS helps me.  
You slinging mud at others will often result in people taking your 
'advice' as something to be ignored (even when you are right and 
justified... especially as they will know that you could easily chose 
not to use, in this case, SORBS yourself.)


Regards,

--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

[Michelle Sullivan]

Paul Wilkins wrote:
If Dutton is in fact ineligible to sit, then so too is his motion to 
introduce the Bill to Parliament. Or such is the stuff of dreams?


You are correct, if he is ineligible .. and *if he was at the time of 
the introduction* then it should be challenged as not validly 
introduced.. this will not be automatic though.


Michelle


Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 09:39, Paul Wilkins <mailto:paulwilkins...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Seems Dutton is about to get a lesson in constitutional law:

S44 (iv)  holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any
pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the
revenues of the Commonwealth; or

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a
member of the House of Representatives.

Kind regards


Paul Wilkins

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 10:34, Paul Wilkins
mailto:paulwilkins...@gmail.com>> wrote:


After the Department Home Affairs sitting on this Bill for
over a year and conducting industry consultation they claim is
confidential (ie: they have no one who'll go on record
supporting the Bill) suddenly it's a priority, and the
Minister for Home Affairs writes a wheedling letter to PJCIS
to pass the Bill before Christmas.

The lack of public and industry consultation, the vague and
poor drafting, and then a sudden push to pass the Bill in a
couple of weeks, rather suggest a deliberate strategy to pass
a Bill that's out of all proportion to the need to combat
terrorism and serious crime in the context of rising use of
encryption.

Rising use of encryption is hardly news to anyone. After all,
a rising tide lifts all boats.



https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a46f0ed4-fc0d-4e95-bbd3-ef8fafe419ab&subId=663130


Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 13:56, Paul Wilkins
mailto:paulwilkins...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

/"In practice, if they balls-up the change request given
to the device manufacturer or app/website developer,
anything could happen."/

Then you recall the obligation under the
Telecommunications Act 1997 for carriers to "do their best
to  protect networks and facilities". No such obligation
attaches to the Crown under the powers of the  Assistance
and Access Bill 2018.

So, even if in the cases of misfeasance, non feasance, or
malfeasance on the part of the Crown or its  agents in the
implementation of TCNs/TANs/TARs, and their impact on
carriers businesses, liability rests, not with the Crown
as you might ingenuously assume, but with the carrier who
unwittingly acted as directed.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 06:38, Scott Weeks
mailto:sur...@mauigateway.com>>
wrote:



---
...the drafting certainly seems loose enough for a future
government to establishthe machinery of a police state.
---

I'm seeing this in *NOG lists and elsewhere all over the
world.  It's going to be an interesting next buncha years!

scott





























___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog


___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog



___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog



--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] "How China diverts, then spies on Australia's internet traffic"

[Michelle Sullivan]

Hahha then the same Peter Dutton wants to install backdoors to bypass 
encryption on all devices that are made where?...and he’s “concerned”... 
bwahahahah oops

Sorry all, the irony is just too much...!

Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
Sent from my iPad

> On 21 Nov 2018, at 17:38, Christian Heinrich  
> wrote:
> 
> Has anyone observed
> https://www.smh.com.au/technology/how-china-diverts-then-spies-on-australia-s-internet-traffic-20181120-p50h80.html
> or not?
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Christian Heinrich
> 
> http://cmlh.id.au/contact
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] [AUSNOG] MS patches Intel memory management

[Michelle Sullivan]

Paul Wilkins wrote:

Latest advice from Intel:

https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00088&languageid=en-fr

No mention of warranty :)

News to me, defect applies also in AMD and ARM.

Very interested to hear if anyone takes this to Dep't Fair Trading and 
the response.




What will be as interesting is the word on why they are still selling 
flawed processors especially as they have indicated there is no way 
to fix it with an update.  Can you imagine selling a car that doesn't 
actually have working brakes and then saying, "not our problem it's 
working as designed"...


Michelle


Kind regards

Paul Wilkins


On 8 January 2018 at 11:50, James Hodgkinson > wrote:


Yep, we have security appliances sold on performance figures
that’ll be checked and pointed at pretty firmly post patching.


On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, at 09:57, Mark Newton wrote:

The phrase, “Of merchantable quality and fitness for purpose,”
will become increasingly familiar to vendors over the next few weeks.

Note that if you have relied on performance statements from a
server vendor, and that performance can’t be delivered because
the CPU can’t operate as advertised, both the CPU vendor /and the
server vendor/ have an obligation to make good.

Start on page 5:

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Warranties%20and%20refunds%20-%20a%20guide%20for%20consumers%20and%20business.pdf




   - mark



On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:18 AM, Giles Pollock mailto:glp...@gmail.com>> wrote:


From their warranty section:

WHAT THIS LIMITED WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER:
• design defects or errors in the Product (Errata). Contact
Intel for information on characterized errata.
• any costs associated with the repair or replacement of the
Product, including costs of removal or replacement of the Product;
• damage to the Product, or errors or malfunctions in the
Product, due to accident, abnormal electrical, mechanical or
environmental conditions, use contrary to product instructions,
misuse, neglect, alteration, mishandling, repair, improper
installation or testing, combinations with incompatible products
or any third party virus, infection, worm or similar malicious
code;
• that the Product will protect against all possible security
threats, including intentional misconduct by third parties;
• any Product which has been modified or operated outside of
Intel’s publicly available specifications, including where clock
frequencies or voltages have been altered, or where the original
identification markings have been removed, altered or
obliterated. Intel assumes no responsibility that the Product,
including if used with altered clock frequencies or voltages,
will be fit for any particular purpose and will not cause any
damage or injury.

Option 1 and 4 seems to have them covered :-(

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 1:07 AM, James Hodgkinson
mailto:yale...@ricetek.net>> wrote:


Watch them pull out the “this warranty doesn’t actually
cover anything, and we don’t say it’ll work in all
conditions” card. It’ll be nice to get a free CPU if they do
have to, however! :)

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, at 18:32, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:

If the hardware is under warranty, I'd be expecting the
vendor to replace the CPU's with updated ones which are not
affected? (oh man that's going to hurt Intel?)

On 4 January 2018 at 16:31, Burt Mascareigne
mailto:b...@stormnetwork.com.au>> wrote:

So, with this performance hit, does that mean we have
to buy more Intel Servers to cope O_o



Regards,



*Burt Mascareigne
Mobile* 0414 450 962 *Office* (02) 9965 5422
*Address* Level 19, 1 O’Connell Street, Sydney NSW 2000
*Web* http://www.stormnetwork.com.au
 



*From:*AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-boun...@lists.ausnog.net
] *On Behalf Of
*Paul Wilkins
*Sent:* Thursday, 4 January 2018 3:52 PM
*To:* ausnog@lists.ausnog.net

*Subject:* [AusNOG] [AUSNOG] MS patches Intel memory
management


Fix for security bug in Intel CPUs will be released
patch Tuesday, and predictions are of a 5 - 30%
performance hit.

This is a problem in cloud, but I'm sure it will all be
good on the day :)

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins


___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net 

Re: [AusNOG] Microsoft outlook.com, live.com, Office365 etc IP blocking

[Michelle Sullivan]

paul+aus...@oxygennetworks.com.au wrote:


Hi All, just wondering if anybody can suggest a better approach to 
this situation for us.


We had a new IP block allocated a while ago for customers and are 
beginning to migrate customers onto that block now off an old one, 
however it seems that Microsoft is not trusting any IP’s in that block 
for some reason, perhaps they have been spammed in the past or 
something from it.


The only option seems to be requesting each individual address to be 
removed from the block, which after getting their automated response 
which says that they can’t do it you then reply and they will do it, 
but only 1 at a time even though we have asked about the whole block 
but had no response.


Can anybody suggest a better approach or is there a better contact we 
might be able to use then the standard outlook.com delivery support 
people ?





You might want to head over to the mailop mailing list ... Microsoft 
people frequent that for these type of issues.  If you had posted the IP 
block in this mail I'd have forwarded to one of my contacts over there, 
but you didn't so I can't. :)


Regards,

Michelle
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog