[138713] in North American Network Operators' Group

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Why does abuse handling take so long ?

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Maassen)
Sun Mar 13 07:45:23 2011

Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:45:04 +0100
From: Alexander Maassen <outsider@scarynet.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: outsider@scarynet.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig34BA543208EA0793B5B089D5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear nanog members,

As current maintainer of DroneBL I happen to receive a lot of unwanted
packets in the form of DDoS attacks, now the DDoS itself is not the real
problem, dealing with it the fast way is.

Now most of you would think: Just filter it, put a big firewall in front
of it, bla bla bla bla. But what I'm really talking about is the
ignorance most providers show when it comes to handling the abuse when
it gets reported.
The issue in there being, it's way too slow, and my hoster needs to
temporary nullroute my ip range in order to protect his network.
We both mail all the involved providers and sometimes need to wait days
before hostings act upon the mail.

In most cases the only thing the abuse@ contacts do as hoster, is relay
the mail to the client but do not dare to do anything themself, even if
you provide them with a shitload of logs, even if you call them and say
that the attack from their source is still continueing, they refuse to
look into it and shutdown the source. And that pisses me off badly.

Why o why are isp's and hosters so ignorant in dealing with such issues
and act like they do not care?

Kind regards,
Alexander Maassen
Maintainer DroneBL


--------------enig34BA543208EA0793B5B089D5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNfK5FAAoJEKrpD8As1wWVO2YH/0k+I6HCu3WYh3Sw7zZTaxsD
trO3/g6EEIbxmhzt7zxAmtM1wkM7bEzKGXYO2pQWCJnm12B1CB4Qtw31ChMXCl6N
CCRKxIQ7wF3YGbzBr9PQusPHjnvdDqHPR/6h3O3gUUiTlTn99kib2IjwcyPpTaXH
66fDMCg6WM1OBe+a+Ku3t767x1nrGJv7ApoxDOqh4ikAucayrGlCWCXMyZvz7m/L
By/AvYve37zotaRANXGDCUJg0kUC64gqKxxfsiAxz24+Oi5E/hrA7bhI95jpHlE5
xRu/gu7E2OANpkVKddPB9C7vfGBDmVnNEq94UeYj/LWFRgYn8D9qi7izpv4vdjs=
=5WFx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig34BA543208EA0793B5B089D5--


home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post