Fwd: Autoreply: Re: Looking for Security / Operational Contact at New York Times

*grumbles something about people and their !...@#$% autoresponders* Is there anything that is done when this stupidity crops up? Original Message Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Looking for Security / Operational Conta ct at New York Times Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:35:05 -0

Re: Looking for Security / Operational Contact at New York Times

On 6/25/09 11:28 PM, Randy Bush wrote: why, when someone asks for a contact on this list is there an implicit assumption that they are too stupid to have done their homework? Cause, its a common delusion to think that big companies actually put valid contact information either on whois or the

Re: Looking for Security / Operational Contact at New York Times

> If this is a private problem, why not look them up in 411 and call > them directly? why, when someone asks for a contact on this list is there an implicit assumption that they are too stupid to have done their homework? randy

RE: Looking for Security / Operational Contact at New York Times

Yup, I have already tried, but it is fairly late in NY. So I was hoping to catch someone tonight, instead of waiting until tomorrow morning when someone cluefull would answer the phone / process online contact forms. -Original Message- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:mar...@theicelandguy.c

Re: Looking for Security / Operational Contact at New York Times

If this is a private problem, why not look them up in 411 and call them directly? On 6/25/09, Stasiniewicz, Adam wrote: > Hello, > > > > In the off chance there is someone who works at the New York Times on this > list, please contact me ASAP, there is a very nasty problem with one of your > in

Looking for Security / Operational Contact at New York Times

Hello, In the off chance there is someone who works at the New York Times on this list, please contact me ASAP, there is a very nasty problem with one of your internet facing system (details will only be provided to @nytimes.com or related addresses). And as always, please respond off list.

Re: tor

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > And which one is targetted at the specific repressive regime effectively > created by the US broadband cartels?  :-) Rod Beck's proposal to modify the common carrier regs, of course. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)

Re: tor

> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Aaron Porter wrote: > > Would you feel better if instead of "Tor" it was called "Crowds" and > > instead of those rapscallions at the EFF it was a nice respectable > > AT&T Research project from Avi Ruben? I bet I still have my "Anonymity > > Loves Company" shirt

softlayer: ipv6 netfow tools

Just wondering what people were using to analyze IPv6 Netflow. I am exporting IPv6 (along with IPv4 sampled) to a server that is running flow-tools as well as to an Arbor SP system. The Cisco's I am exporting from only allow flow export of both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously to an IPv4 address. Ar

Re: question about Mark Koster's ARIN presentation

> The current effort will only allow for ipv6 objects > (route6/inet6num). s/allow for/add support for/ i hope > We are using the same code that RIPE is using at http://certtest.ripe.net. > RIPE has been very kind to allow us to use their code. As for ARIN, > this is a pilot and is certainly no

Re: question about Mark Koster's ARIN presentation

Hi Sandy On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:05:20PM -0400, Sandy Murphy wrote: > The presentation said that ARIN would be doing a lot of work to > improve the IRR. The last I asked, the ARIN IRR did not support the > RPSS (Routing Policy System Security - RFC2725). RIPE supports this, > I know. Will the

Flow Chart

Hello This is my first post in this list. I have the follow situation: I have a multilateral peering, and I´m need to plot a graph showing how many traffic is going to or comming from each member of peering. For example: I have the AS61222, and in the peering there is the AS61333. This AS

Re: Tor abuse FAQs

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Hurricane Electric. Probably a tunnel from their tunnelbroker free v6 service. $ whois 2001:470:f15d:fe1d:33f:ad43:1:fa4 Doh! See, I said my skills were lacking. How lacking I had not realized. Dh, use whois. What a dummy. Consider me

RE: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: tor - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses

-Original Message- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net] Sent: Thu 6/25/2009 2:39 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: NANOG list Subject: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: tor - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > ISPs are not c

Re: Tor abuse FAQs

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Steve Pirk wrote: > On a related note, I posted a question about ipv6 a while back and the > ticket I also opened is gertting bounced around with no one saying "yes, > this is my space". > > My ipv6 skills are seriously lacking... Can anyone shed light on how to fi

Re: common carier

Rod, Sorry for the mislead on this. I agree with you. There are a lot of layer 9 reasons why this is the case. regards NP Quoting rodbe...@gmail.com: > Nancy, > > You're missing the point and you're quoting out of context. > > The point is that common carrier protections should apply to ISPs si

Re: Tor abuse FAQs

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: A friend sent me these links: https://www.torproject.org/faq.html.en#ExitPolicies https://www.torproject.org/faq-abuse.html.en https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en https://www.torproject.org/torusers.html.en

Re: common carriers, was tor

>Fine; re-phrase my question as "an organisation currently enjoying >common carrier status." That would not include any ISP in the United States. (Dunno about Canada.) As other people have pointed out, telcos are common carriers, ISPs aren't, not even ISPs that are subsidiaries of telcos. The l

Re: tor

On Jun 25, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Aaron Porter wrote: Would you feel better if instead of "Tor" it was called "Crowds" and instead of those rapscallions at the EFF it was a nice respectable AT&T Research project from Avi Ruben? Or, before that, if you knew that onion routers were invented by Paul

Tor abuse FAQs

A friend sent me these links: https://www.torproject.org/faq.html.en#ExitPolicies https://www.torproject.org/faq-abuse.html.en https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en https://www.torproject.org/torusers.html.en Btw -- several folks have raised the issu

Re: tor

As I understand & pls correct if I am wrong: > There is a long established legal tradition that telecommunication > transport is not liable for the content it transmits. It's called > common carrier. Telephony = common carrier yes- considered 'basic service'under Telecom Act 96.. but data is con

The Iranian proxy fight

This seems to have routing relevance to me. I love this quote : "don't wait until the tanks are in the streets to fig

Re: tor

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Aaron Porter wrote: > Would you feel better if instead of "Tor" it was called "Crowds" and > instead of those rapscallions at the EFF it was a nice respectable > AT&T Research project from Avi Ruben? I bet I still have my "Anonymity > Loves Company" shirt somewhere.

Re: tor

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Running what's effectively an anonymous open proxy is not a bright > idea, even if there's security bundled on.. > > John Gilmore found that out after Verio disconnected his perpetual > open relay for example ..  and TOR is just as nu

Re: tor

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: ISPs are not common carriers. Geoff Huston is - as always - the guy who explains it best. http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_5-3/uncommon_carrier.html Except interestingly, TOR is the common carrier at its best, not filtering and inve

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

> That's where the confusion sets in, and Randy even stated that the UCLA > data is suspect; partially because it considers a stub to be 4 or less > downstream ASNs. I think Randy's data would be better reflected without > the UCLA information which just confuses it. the first pie chart uses no

Re: tor

for those for whom i am too terse o i believe anonymity is a good thing, and i have done what i can to support it for a few decades. you don't have to like it. o i think tor is cool. you don't have to like it and i do not care. o i found out you need to be a little careful when running