On Fri, Aug 13, 2004, Bevan Slattery wrote:
Hi,
Just to ease peoples concerns, the patent has nothing to do with
blackholing. A brief description of the way it works can be found here:
http://www.scamslam.com/ScamSlam/whatis.shtml
We have not disclosed the site address to the
--On 14 August 2004 22:23 +0300 Hank Nussbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Predating this is Bellwether (June 2000):
Indeed. In days of yore, when people developed at least marginally
non-obvious operational techniques, people sent email to nanog about it,
explaining the technique and their
I do miss the old days of this list, technical growth
and global participation in events was exciting...
-her
--- Alex Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 14 August 2004 22:23 +0300 Hank Nussbacher
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Predating this is Bellwether (June 2000):
Indeed. In
Niels Bakker wrote:
Do you propose blocking goatse/tubgirl as well? The
same reasoning can apply to those sites.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) [Sat 14 Aug 2004, 06:38 CEST]:
No, and you are comparing apples to oranges. As far as I know, neither
goatse nor tubgirl tried to phish my
Predating this is Bellwether (June 2000):
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0006/hardie.html
Specifically:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0006/ppt/hardie/sld008.htm
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0006/ppt/hardie/sld009.htm
-Hank
BGP Shunt to a tunnel is has been done by several providers on this
list for years.
Bevan Slattery wrote:
Just to ease peoples concerns, the patent has nothing
to do with blackholing. A brief description of the
way it works can be found here:
I believe that I am not the only one that is concerned precisely because it is _not_
blackholing, it is hijacking, no matter how
Micheal,
At 04:30 PM 13/08/2004, Michel Py wrote:
Trying to patent the wheel is not good for credibility, nor is using the
very same stinky methods as the scam artists.
Appreciate the hospitable welcome to the NANOG list. For future reference
your concern and feedback has been noted and filed
sorry cant find a really good link, this is what BT have been doing in the UK
for a couple months:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5158457/
In answer to the critics, what an ISP chooses to do with its traffic
*internally* is up to the ISP, and bear in mind you are not suggesting the scope
of the
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
This is not IP hijacking by any means,
Mmmm. What tells you that these routes won't be announced to peers or
won't leak? We are not supposed to see announcements for bogons nor for
RFC1918 space, but we do.
Thinking about it, I agree that hijacking is not the proper
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Michel Py wrote:
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
This is not IP hijacking by any means,
Mmmm. What tells you that these routes won't be announced to peers or
won't leak? We are not supposed to see announcements for bogons nor for
RFC1918 space, but we do.
Thinking about
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bevan Slattery wrote:
Hi,
Just to ease peoples concerns, the patent has nothing to do with
blackholing. A brief description of the way it works can be found here:
http://www.scamslam.com/ScamSlam/whatis.shtml
And based on what I've read, the above has a
At 01:41 PM 12-08-04 +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Petri Helenius wrote:
We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending
on the
date they filed, prior art exists well documented. (blueprints obviously
predate running code)
everyone has gone patent
One would have to conclude since it is the behavior of
the present. that it shall not subside anytime soon.
Ir was a wonderful time on the internet when we still
had trust and respect for each other's endeaver, now
we
will have to collaborate to get things done with legal
shields, we can all
William,
At 06:15 PM 13/08/2004, william(at)elan.net wrote:
And based on what I've read, the above has a lot to do with blackholing, I
don't see how patent can be claimed on this system with so many cases of
prior work of similar nature.
The service mainly uses the process of what we have made a
Redirecting is nothing new and has been around for
years, it was never a real problem until washington
and the media stuck their face into something they
had no clue about, as usual.
I am certain there are ways to prevent redirection and
those should be applied without a congressional
I like point 13 where you highlight how the system is doesn't
work. In anycase I doubt that this patent is any more valid
outside of the blackholing part and I hope this gets stuck
in some lengthy patent legal argument preventing anyone
from using it! :-) Why not ask the banks to be
responsible
BS Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:33:33 +1000
BS From: Bevan Slattery
BS The service doesn't use a transparent firewall/proxy, but
BS instead updates routing information by BGP and that traffic
BS gets sent to:from the system via a tunnel.
Search recent NANOG presentations. Keep an eye out for
william(at)elan.net wrote:
The only imlementation change to do this would be to provide
a link from the webpage where user might have been redirected
to the original website they wanted to access
But the user never wanted to access the site in the first place; lots of
these phishing scams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The only implementation change to do this would be to provide
a link from
the webpage where user might have been redirected to the
original website
they wanted to access (it would have to be done by using
proxy service since ip is not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The service doesn't use a transparent firewall/proxy, but
instead updates
routing information by BGP and that traffic gets sent to:from
the system
via a tunnel.
BGP Shunt to a tunnel is has been done by several providers on this
list for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've admittedly not read the entire thread, but
Squid+GRE+WCCP comes to mind. That combination has been
around more than six months.
Yep - WCCPv2 can be BGP triggered via a community. So you can have a
bunch of devices (not just web) on a
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) [Fri 13 Aug 2004, 16:04 CEST]:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
The only imlementation change to do this would be to provide
a link from the webpage where user might have been redirected
to the original website they wanted to access
But the user never wanted to
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Niels Bakker wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) [Fri 13 Aug 2004, 16:04 CEST]:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
The only imlementation change to do this would be to provide
a link from the webpage where user might have been redirected
to the original website they
BRG Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:01:06 -0700
BRG From: Barry Raveendran Greene
BRG Yep - WCCPv2 can be BGP triggered via a community. So you
Speaking of questionable patents...
Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Niels Bakker wrote:
Do you propose blocking goatse/tubgirl as well? The
same reasoning can apply to those sites.
No, and you are comparing apples to oranges. As far as I know, neither
goatse nor tubgirl tried to phish my password, SSN, or PIN (or I am
missing something?)
OTOH, I have
We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending on
the date they filed, prior art exists well documented.
(blueprints obviously predate running code)
Pete
Niels Bakker wrote:
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,10394549%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
2004-08-10
The implications of this are scary. Hijacking of IP space by
a private company, supported by the government?
Niels,
The UK government have looked at this as a possibility to
use this non-technology as away for the banks to advise
ISP's about false bank logon schemes phishing sites.
The UK
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Petri Helenius wrote:
We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending on the
date they filed, prior art exists well documented. (blueprints obviously
predate running code)
everyone has gone patent crazy, every time a new concept is developed some
Well if it will harm the community, would it be
possible to auto copyright rfc's, so that the authors
of a concept can prevent someone from sipping their
effort off?
Ignorance at the top doesn't mean we can't be like
always leading the way..
-Henry
--- Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL
http://www.linx.net/papers/blocking/Blackhole%20Policy%20Announcement%20Serv
ice%20-%20LINX%20position%20paper%20FINAL.pdf
Is the paper for those who are interested. Malcolm Hutty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
did a lot of the good work on this paper.
Regards,
Neil.
I Wrote:
Niels,
The UK government
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just to set the history straight - so it is on the record. RTBH -
Remote Triggered Black Hole filtering reemerged as a key security
reaction tool when two things happened:
1. When Chris Morrow and Brian Gemberling shared their Backscatter
Traceback
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Niels Bakker wrote:
The implications of this are scary. Hijacking of IP space by a private
company, supported by the government?
this happens today in many countries
1) france and the 'yahoo nazi site'
2) state of PA (usa) and child porn sites
3) panama and
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
this happens today in many countries
1) france and the 'yahoo nazi site'
2) state of PA (usa) and child porn sites
3) panama and blocking of VOIP traffic
there are quite a few more, and yes, it's not too pretty ;(
Prof Jonathan Zittrain and Ben Edelman at
Petri Helenius wrote:
We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending on
the date they filed, prior art exists well documented.
(blueprints obviously predate running code)
You have to be aware that the Australian Patent System is of declaratory
nature only. Anyone can claim
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote:
You have to be aware that the Australian Patent System is of declaratory
nature only. Anyone can claim anything in an patent application. There
is no check on the content done by the patent office. Only the general
formal outline of an patent
Hi!
We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending on the
date they filed, prior art exists well documented. (blueprints obviously
predate running code)
everyone has gone patent crazy, every time a new concept is developed some
company applies for patent. is this
one issue with that might be that the patents are taken out on variations of the
core idea, imho the variations are not new ideas but legally they seem to get
away with it
Steve
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Well if it will harm the community, would it be possible to auto
ok so then in the copyright let us see if can cover
all variations of the original concept as belonging to
the original author or author's as a test case for
adaption and modificaiton to copyright law. I strongly
believe in the protection of original idea's in
reference to rfc's
-Henry
---
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Henry Linneweh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?
--- Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote:
--- Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED
Andre Oppermann wrote:
If you remember the very old story on Slashdot where
some guy in Australia managed to secure a patent on a
circular transportation device (a.k.a. Wheel) it
will explain many things... ;-)
I mean no disrespect to people from down under, but I have heard several
times
40 matches
Mail list logo
