On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 05:02:38PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> I generated the following survey, on the fly, last night,
> based on a simple reverse DNS scan of the evidently relevant addrdess
> ranges:
>
> https://pastebin.com/raw/WtM0Y5yC
>
> As anyone who isn't as blind as a bat ca
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:17:23AM -0700, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> Absolutely unrelated to Ronald's original post, but it's ironic that the
> abuse@ address is itself heavily "abused", by commercial copyright
> enforcement companies which think it's a catch-all address for things which
> are not operat
On 3/19/19, 8:23 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette"
wrote:
In message
,
Tom Beecher wrote:
>Calling everyone an idiot in the midst of Endless Pontification isn't
>really a recipe for success.
I did not call "everyone" an idiot. I'm quite completel
In message
,
Tom Beecher wrote:
>Calling everyone an idiot in the midst of Endless Pontification isn't
>really a recipe for success.
I did not call "everyone" an idiot. I'm quite completely sure that there
are innumerable people in all of the referenced companies who are consumate
and hardw
[[ I've just collected some new information about the length of time
that this specific bincoin extortion spamming bad actor has been
on Digital Ocean's network. For those who may only have an interest
in that one detail, you can just skip down to the line of plus signs
and start rea
Apologies, it was in reply to a list mail. Just bad threading.
* niels=na...@bakker.net (niels=na...@bakker.net) [Tue 19 Mar 2019, 16:51 CET]:
Kind of bad netiquette to repost a private email to the list
Absolutely unrelated to Ronald's original post, but it's ironic that the
abuse@ address is itself heavily "abused", by commercial copyright
enforcement companies which think it's a catch-all address for things which
are not operationally related to the health of a network (BGP hijacks,
DDoS, spam e
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 9:01 AM
To: Ronald F. Guilmette
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Contacts wanted: OVH, DigitalOcean, and Microsoft (Deutschland)
This entire thread could easily have been simply :
"Hey all! I'm having some challenges reaching a live person in the abuse groups
for
Kind of bad netiquette to repost a private email to the list
-- Niels.
Just to clarify, we are RFC 2142 section 4 compliant. I mention section 4
specifically as that is directly within my realm of control, the remaining
sections I will check.
Both methods, web form submission and abuse@ are integrated ultimately into the
same workflow. Being transparent, as things
alf Of Tom Beecher
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:01 AM
To: Ronald F. Guilmette
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Contacts wanted: OVH, DigitalOcean, and Microsoft (Deutschland)
This entire thread could easily have been simply :
"Hey all! I'm having some challenges reaching a live person in the a
On 3/19/19 10:49 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:23:34AM -0400, Jeff McAdams wrote:
We would prefer, but don't require, that you use the web form because that
is integrated into the workflow of the groups that respond to those
reports.
Why isn't abuse@ integrated into the w
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:23:34AM -0400, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> We would prefer, but don't require, that you use the web form because that
> is integrated into the workflow of the groups that respond to those
> reports.
Why isn't abuse@ integrated into the workflow? It darn well should be,
(a)
This entire thread could easily have been simply :
"Hey all! I'm having some challenges reaching a live person in the abuse
groups for X, Y, and Z. Can anyone help with a contact, or if anyone from
those companies sees this, can you contact me off-list?"
Calling everyone an idiot in the midst of
(Disclosure: I, too, work for DigitalOcean as the Manager of Network
Engineering. Nikolas does not work for me, nor I for him.)
On Tue, March 19, 2019 02:17, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> Nikolas Geyer wrote:
>> I have passed your email on to the relevant team within DO to have a
>> look at.
On 3/18/19 11:17 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> I am not sure that there is any other way that a lone outsider can or
> could engage either OVH or DigitalOcean in a way that would actually
> cause either company to take action on the issues I've reported on.
> Complaints from ordinary Internet en
: Contacts wanted: OVH, DigitalOcean, and Microsoft (Deutschland)
In message
,
Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>we are asking Microsoft CDOC to investigate.
Thank you. I am not at all sure who the mysterious "we" is intended to
represent in that sentence. Perpahs it is just intended as
In message
,
Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>we are asking Microsoft CDOC to investigate.
Thank you. I am not at all sure who the mysterious "we" is intended to
represent in that sentence. Perpahs it is just intended as the royal
"we" as in "We are not amused." But I don't really care. I am gre
RFG;
I have passed your email on to the relevant team within DO to have a look at.
I’d like to thank you for your deriding commentary to bring attention to this
problem. I am not sure it is the most effective way to try and engage the wider
industry on a public list, but each to their own.
Oh,
Ronald,
we are asking Microsoft CDOC to investigate.
You can find a variety of ways to report issues at their website as well:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/msrc/cdoc
Thanks,
Christian
From: NANOG on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette
Sent: Monday, March 18, 20
Two notes:
1) We have seen most of the telecom fraud happen from three general
locations
a. The phones themselves. For instance people putting phones out there with
the default password.
b. Compromised routers. Fraudsters will compromise a CPE and bounce their
traffic through it. Back in the day wh
21 matches
Mail list logo
