Sorry, should have clarified; a mixture of spam and SSH bruteforcing
attempts.
On Fri, 10 May 2019, 21:43 Luis E. Muñoz via mailop,
wrote:
> On 10 May 2019, at 11:49, James Cloos via mailop wrote:
>
> >> "CW" == Chris Woods via mailop writes:
> >
> > CW> Like others I've reached the end of
On 10 May 2019, at 11:49, James Cloos via mailop wrote:
>> "CW" == Chris Woods via mailop writes:
>
> CW> Like others I've reached the end of my tether with DO. In my case, I've
> CW> seen increasing volumes of malicious / junk traffic via their IPv6
> CW> prefixes, with reports to abuse
> "CW" == Chris Woods via mailop writes:
CW> Like others I've reached the end of my tether with DO. In my case, I've
CW> seen increasing volumes of malicious / junk traffic via their IPv6
CW> prefixes, with reports to abuse doing virtually nothing, so now I just
CW> define ip/ip6tables drop
Like others I've reached the end of my tether with DO. In my case, I've
seen increasing volumes of malicious / junk traffic via their IPv6
prefixes, with reports to abuse doing virtually nothing, so now I just
define ip/ip6tables drop rules.
30 seconds' browsing will return the ranges you need,
In article <20190509145346.gd8...@gsp.org> you write:
>It would be far easier and much more effective if everyone on this
>mailing list caused every mail server that they run to refuse all
>mail from all Digital Ocean network space without warning, effective
>immediately
Don't waste your time,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote:
> I wonder if DigitalOcean is running for some social media related
> wake-up call.
It would be far easier and much more effective if everyone on this
mailing list caused every mail server that they run to refuse all
mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 16:49 -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> PPS, You know the IP(s) can change at any time ;)
That is what cron is for. So far, synapp.io has been very good about
listing *only* their own address validators in their spf
Thanks everyone for suggestions about stopping them, but we already have
that.. but to be clearer, just wanted to see if anyone had any insight
into the "operator" behind them..
Any sense of legitimacy at all?
Who's lists are they washing?
PS, don't block them, just tell them every email
On 4/29/2019 12:12 PM, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
On 2019-04-29 8:37 a.m., Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
Speaking of.. anyone have any insight into these guys?
They keep popping up on various CDN's eg, DO, AZURE, etc..
Most, possibly all of these networks are blocked here.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 09:12 -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> Speaking of.. anyone have any insight into these guys?
> They keep popping up on various CDN's eg, DO, AZURE, etc..
> 45.32.138.192 (M) 1
On 2019-04-29 8:37 a.m., Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
On 2019-04-29 8:18 a.m., Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop wrote:
I wonder if we should*all* tweet to them, including the hashtag
#DigitalOceanHostsBadGuys ?;-)
When Anne suggests something like this.. ;)
Done!
Speaking of..
On 2019-04-29 8:18 a.m., Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop wrote:
I wonder if we should*all* tweet to them, including the hashtag
#DigitalOceanHostsBadGuys ?;-)
When Anne suggests something like this.. ;)
Done!
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
On 2019-04-29 7:58 a.m., Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:26:23 -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop
wrote:
PS, pgHammer went quiet yesterday.. either someone caught/killed his C
server, or the actor realized that there was too much attention on the
activity. That
> I Twittered to @digitalocean about the lack of responsiveness from their
> abuse desk.
>
> They promptly replied via Twitter:
>
> "We apologise for the trouble. Our security & operation team is already
> looking into it."
>
> As I still had a case open with them, I appended your nice list of
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:26:23 -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop
wrote:
>PS, pgHammer went quiet yesterday.. either someone caught/killed his C
>server, or the actor realized that there was too much attention on the
>activity. That doesn't mean those servers listed should not still be
>taken
If you follow any of the white hat groups, or security researchers, you
will see a lot of them already doing it with little or no effect..
(Which means of course people stop bothering to report it)
However, a little birdie told me that certain government agencies are
finally waking up and
16 matches
Mail list logo
