Kanak,
NANOG moderators have requested this conversation go off list.
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, noc acrino wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> By the way, Jeffrey, by the 24th of October, when you posted the information
> that the RBN is located in our networks we couldn't even know about any
>
Greetings!
By the way, Jeffrey, by the 24th of October, when you posted the information
that the RBN is located in our networks we couldn't even know about any
malware redirectors on our clients resources -
http://www.stopbadware.org/reports/asn/44571. I'm trying to solve the Google
SB issue (stil
Kanak,
We're not a Staminus reseller. Please do your homework:
http://webtrace.info/asn/32421 .
I'm not going to hold court on whether or not you or your resellers
are DDoSing competitor's customers, I was merely stating my opinion.
The reader can draw their own conclusion. I think your network i
2009/11/6 Jeffrey Lyon
> The primary issue is that we receive a fair
> deal of customers who end up with wide scale DDoS attacks followed by
> an offer for "protection" to move to your network. In almost every
> case the attacks cease once the customer has agreed to pay this
> "protection" fee.
Hello, Jeffery and other NANOC members.
Sorry for making another thread - I'm not too experienced in mailgroups.
The problem is in structure of new generation advert or banner networks -
they allow to return other subject traffic to the partner's URL. And this
could also be used to redirect the
On 24 okt 2009, at 14:36, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Marco Hogewoning
wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
\>>
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/russian-police-and-internet-registry-accused-of-aiding-cybercrime-2165
With mo
The decision to filter networks should remain with the collective
network operators. Everyone, even criminals, has a "right" to
distribute content but it's up to each operator to decide if that
content will be allowed to transit their network. Personally, if an
entire /22 does not have a single leg
On 24.10 03:05, Paul Bosworth wrote:
> I think the larger point is that ripe turned a blind eye to an
> internationally recognized criminal network.
That may be a point but not a convincing one.
Imagine the outcry on this list if ARIN were to deny some organisation
address space or ASNs just beca
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
\>>
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/russian-police-and-internet-registry-accused-of-aiding-cybercrime-2165
>
> With more on that:
> http://www.ripe.net/news/rbn.html
I am glad
We already filter this network but the move is largely symbolic. This needs
to be done by eyeball networks, not just hosting networks.
In filtering 91.202.60.0/22 we primarily keep our reverse proxies from
serving up their "content" and keep them from offering proxies on our
network.
Its pretty r
* a. harrowell:
> It ought to be superfluous to point out that the only effective
> action taken against RBN was by the Internet community in getting
> all their upstreams to null route them. As is blindingly obvious,
> SOCA would never have been granted a warrant by the Russians.
Ugh, in reality
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/russian-police-and-internet-registry-accused-of-aiding-cybercrime-2165
With more on that:
http://www.ripe.net/news/rbn.html
"Press coverage this week portrayed the RIPE NCC as being involved
with
1.202.60.0/22 range?
Consider that can of worms opened :o)
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Lyon [mailto:jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net]
Sent: 24 October 2009 08:18
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Interesting Point of view - Russian police and RIPE accused
m: Jeffrey Lyon [mailto:jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net]
Sent: 24 October 2009 08:18
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Interesting Point of view - Russian police and RIPE accused
of aiding RBN
Since we're on the subject, here is where RBN went:
inetnum: 91.202.60.0 - 9
I think the larger point is that ripe turned a blind eye to an
internationally recognized criminal network.
On Oct 24, 2009 2:01 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian"
wrote:
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/russian-police-and-internet-registry-accused-of-aiding-cybercrime-2165
Some quotes from the arti
That's what I thought.
I still see the author's point =)
Indeed. If they bought fries and a drink that's two counts.
Jeff
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Benjamin Billon wrote:
> Accusing RIPE of complicity is in my opinion abusive. So when a RBN member
> buys a burger at MacDonald's, should we consider MacDo accepts money from
> RBN while helping th
Accusing RIPE of complicity is in my opinion abusive. So when a RBN
member buys a burger at MacDonald's, should we consider MacDo accepts
money from RBN while helping them to run their "business" as they feed
the criminal member?
Since we're on the subject, here is where RBN went:
inetnum: 91.202.60.0 - 91.202.63.255
netname: AKRINO-NET
descr: Akrino Inc
country: VG
org: ORG-AI38-RIPE
admin-c: IVM27-RIPE
tech-c: IVM27-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PI
mnt-by:
19 matches
Mail list logo
