-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> a combination of retarded registry policies (pitting business
>> interests against common technical sense)
>
>In a capitalist country, I do not see how you could do otherwise. In a
>non-capitalis
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:05:25AM -0800, Matthew Black wrote:
[snip]
> This presupposes that corporations have a more significant claim
> to domain names than individuals.
Wrong; that kind of policy does -and did when enforced back in
the InterNIC days when the generic TLDs were meaningful- no
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 06:46:00AM +,
Fergie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 60 lines which said:
> a combination of retarded registry policies (pitting business
> interests against common technical sense)
[Disclaimer: I work for a registry.]
In a capitalist country, I do not see
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:05:25AM -0800, Matthew Black wrote:
> This presupposes that corporations have a more significant claim
> to domain names than individuals.
Not necessarily; if I am providing login details to a phishing site, I
have probably visited the actual business web site before to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Back in the day, pre-CIRA, .CA was managed according to rules which
>> included the restriction that a single company was only allowed one
>> domain name. So, to choose a company at random, General Mo
> Back in the day, pre-CIRA, .CA was managed according to rules which
> included the restriction that a single company was only allowed one
> domain name. So, to choose a company at random, General Motors Canada
> was welcome to GMC.CA but they couldn't also register PONTIAC.CA or
> GM.CA
: Joe Abley
Cc: Joseph Jackson; Travis H.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Foster; Rich
Kulawiec
Subject: Re: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 08:43:37AM -0500,
Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
> Back in the day, pre
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:38:14 -0600
"Travis H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...snip]
The domain name system has enough problems (is mazdausa.com really related
to mazda.com?) without involving javascript and ActiveX, but they could be
corrected with proper education (how about keeping every URL
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 08:43:37AM -0500,
Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
> Back in the day, pre-CIRA, .CA was managed according to rules which
> included the restriction that a single company was only allowed one
> domain name.
Same thing in ".fr", until
Back in the day, pre-CIRA, .CA was managed according to rules which
included the restriction that a single company was only allowed one
domain name. So, to choose a company at random, General Motors Canada
was welcome to GMC.CA but they couldn't also register PONTIAC.CA
On 17-Jan-2007, at 21:05, Joseph Jackson wrote:
Proper education for whom, the people setting up the site probably
know
this already. It's the bosses and marketing that don't care about DNS
structure. Damn it they want mazdausa.com and not usa.mazda.com and
they will have it their way!
At
s H.
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 5:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Mark Foster; Rich Kulawiec
Subject: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing
> If you don't have personal control over the mail system you are using,
> it's possible that you don't have control o
> If you don't have personal control over the mail system you are using,
> it's possible that you don't have control over whether or not you use
> HTML.
As an armchair security pundit, I think phishing has adequately highlighted
the ability of HTML to mislead, in the sense that its intended recipi
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:35:30PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> SecureID might be helpful if you want to differentiate your product
> between automatic and manual use, but it doesn't do anything to
> authenticate the party you are relaying information to. But it's
> useless in a phishing context
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 02:14:43PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
> > Anyway, I wouldn't write a letter with nothing worth reading on the
> > first page. I don't write articles with nothing in the first
> > paragraph.
>
> Nor do I, but there is a well-established tradition
> in written Engl
Somewhere in the following confused ramble may actually be the only
cogent argument for top-posting I've seen.
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:52:29AM +, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
>
> For those of us who read nanog from a mobile device, it's incredibly
> annoying to have no content in the first
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Pete Templin wrote:
> This "place" is full of people with opinions. Some like it hot, some like it
> not. We are never going to agree on top/inline/bottom posting.
> Why can't we all just get along and discuss operational issues?
>
Let's throw preference out the window a
> (All right then, scroll down for content :-))
It is not necessary to quote an entire message
when you are only replying to one specific
part of it.
> Minority? A mail client has been standard-ish for the last three to
> four years of upgrade iterations. There are a LOT of mobiles out
> there.
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Anyway, I wouldn't write a letter with nothing worth reading on the
first page. I don't write articles with nothing in the first
paragraph. Why should over a billion users of the English language,
etc, etc..
We're not talking about a letter or an article. We're tal
(All right then, scroll down for content :-))
On 1/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For those of us who read nanog from a mobile device, it's incredibly
> annoying to have no content in the first few bytes - a lot of mobile
> e-mail clients (all MS Windows Mobile 5 devices
> For those of us who read nanog from a mobile device, it's incredibly
> annoying to have no content in the first few bytes - a lot of mobile
> e-mail clients (all MS Windows Mobile 5 devices and every Blackberry
> I've seen) pull the first 0.5KB of each message, i.e. the header,
> subject line an
For those of us who read nanog from a mobile device, it's incredibly
annoying to have no content in the first few bytes - a lot of mobile
e-mail clients (all MS Windows Mobile 5 devices and every Blackberry
I've seen) pull the first 0.5KB of each message, i.e. the header,
subject line and the fir
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:26:00AM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
...
But there are worse offenses. HTML emails - every author has a choice
there, so that ones unforgivable IMHO. Top-Posting and Legalese Addendums
to messages are both things that an en
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:26:00AM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
...
> But there are worse offenses. HTML emails - every author has a choice
> there, so that ones unforgivable IMHO. Top-Posting and Legalese Addendums
> to messages are both things that an end-user in a COE corporate
> environment
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:44:28PM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
So why the big deal?
Because it's very rude -- like top-posting, or full-quoting, or sending
email marked up with HTML. Because it's an unprovoked threat. Because
it's an attempt to uni
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Bill Nash wrote:
> malicious/hacked sites. Currently, phishing sites and open proxies, make
> it into blacklist, but drone network C&Cs do. Darknet is intended to
Someone pointed out my typo. This should read 'phishing sites and open
proxies don't make it into the blacklis
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Andy Davidson wrote:
> From a 'problem solving' perspective, a Team Cymru-style bgp peer that
> injected very specific routes into their routing table, and matching
> configuration which caused those particular routes to be dropped would be
> ideal. Additions and deletions wo
> SecureID might be helpful if you want to differentiate your product
> between automatic and manual use, but it doesn't do anything to
> authenticate the party you are relaying information to. But it's
> useless in a phishing context. If you want a token solution, at least
> use something that
* Neil J. McRae:
> I didn't see the original post but the topic came
> up in 2005 here in the UK as the banks here wanted to
> use BGP filtering in the same light. The LINX prepared
> a paper on the issues with BGP blackholing and recommended
> that if the banks want to trade on the Internet that
On 3 Jan 2007, at 01:02, Joy, Dylan wrote:
I'm curious if anyone can answer whether there has been any
traction made relative to blocking egress traffic (via BGP) on US
backbones which is destined to IP addresses used for fraudulent
purposes, such as phishing sites. I'm sure there are s
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:44:28PM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
> So why the big deal?
Because it's very rude -- like top-posting, or full-quoting, or sending
email marked up with HTML. Because it's an unprovoked threat. Because
it's an attempt to unilaterally shove an unenforceable contract down
I didn't see the original post but the topic came
up in 2005 here in the UK as the banks here wanted to
use BGP filtering in the same light. The LINX prepared
a paper on the issues with BGP blackholing and recommended
that if the banks want to trade on the Internet that
they should introduce authe
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mark Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Joy, Dylan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:44:28 +1300 (NZDT)
I have to ask.
The 'st
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
One more thing:
If anyone thinks that fast-flux hosting isn't a problem, then you
haven't dealt with it.
I cannot imagine inject a /32 continuously into a BGP community-set.
That just sounds... insane.
More:
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lass
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Instead of quoting earlier submissions, let me just add two
thoughts to this Bad Idea (tm):
(1) Proxy bypasses; and
(2) Fast-Flux place-shifters...
These are two hard problems, by themselves, although not impossible.
Having said that, injecting cand
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Travis H. wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:20:01PM -0700, Bill Nash wrote:
> > The biggest challenge I can see is scrubbing phishing reports that
> > aren't.. themselves.. maliciously crafted phishing attacks against a
> > registry of such addresses.
>
> Can you rephrase
I have to ask.
The 'stock' disclaimer message says 'may'.
It also says 'If you are not the intended recipient...'
Key words - 'if' and 'may'.
Since the post is being made to NANOG, we can assume the NANOG Audience
(defined as anyone whos on the list _or_ who can read the web archive;
ala; e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then there's the whole trust issue - though the Team Cymru guys do an awesome
job doing the bogon feed, it's rare that you have to suddenly list a new
bogon at 2AM on a weekend. And there's guys that *are* doing a good job
at tracking down and getting these sites mitig
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:20:01PM -0700, Bill Nash wrote:
> The biggest challenge I can see is scrubbing phishing reports that
> aren't.. themselves.. maliciously crafted phishing attacks against a
> registry of such addresses.
Can you rephrase that? I want to understand but I'm failing.
> Li
Le Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:52:26PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> After you post to NANOG, it's not confidential, no matter what your legal
> eagles
> pretend.
There has been some issue recently on a French similar mailing-list (FRnOG),
an CTO of a major ISP said something vague about a tec
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:02:02 PST, "Joy, Dylan" said:
> I'm curious if anyone can answer whether there has been any traction
> made relative to blocking egress traffic (via BGP) on US backbones which
> is destined to IP addresses used for fraudulent purposes, such as
> phishing sites.
>
> I'm sure
Hi. You have sent a message to the entire list that seems to be some sort
of automatically generated product of the Smugotron-2000, intended to
annoy a single person but is actually annoying everyone. Your mail user
agent detected something you didn't like, and instead of simply deleting
it,
you have sent a message to me which seems to contain a legal
warning on who can read it, or how it may be distributed, or
whether it may be archived, etc.
i do not accept such email. my mail user agent detected a legal
notice when i was opening your mail, and automatically deleted it.
so do not
The biggest challenge I can see is scrubbing phishing reports that
aren't.. themselves.. maliciously crafted phishing attacks against a
registry of such addresses. Likewise, since BGP isn't application aware,
when you blackhole an address that's both website and mail server, how do
you inform
Happy New Year all,
I'm curious if anyone can answer whether there has been any traction
made relative to blocking egress traffic (via BGP) on US backbones which
is destined to IP addresses used for fraudulent purposes, such as
phishing sites.
I'm sure there are several challenges to implement
45 matches
Mail list logo
