nanog mailing list archives
Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities
From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 11:35:08 -0400
Just because they were presented with the information doesn't mean they understand.
It's our job as operators to get involved and help them understand as best as can be done, so that the proposals are as well informed as possible.
Just because they understand doesn't mean they execute based on that information.
No set of rules will ever be perfectly executed or implemented. Doesn't matter if it's a government regulation or internal company rule. You try to start from a good place, learn what works and what doesn't, and adjust accordingly. On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 11:11 AM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:
Just because they were presented with the information doesn't mean they understand. Just because they understand doesn't mean they execute based on that information. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ------------------------------ *From: *"Job Snijders via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> *To: *"Josh Luthman" <josh () imaginenetworksllc com> *Cc: *"NANOG [nanog () nanog org]" <nanog () nanog org> *Sent: *Thursday, May 16, 2024 3:20:54 PM *Subject: *Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 04:05:21PM -0400, Josh Luthman wrote:Now do you think they're going to properly understand what an SS7 or vulnerability is?The FCC organised several sessions (private and public) where they invited knowledgeable people from this community to help edifice them on what BGP is and what risks exist. https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2023/07/bgp-security-workshop Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQhoNX2Q0aM to see our very own Tony Tauber looking sharp in a nice suit! :-) FCC staff attended NANOG & IETF meetings to further explore and discuss the problem space in the hallway track. If anything, I think the FCC made a proper effort to connect with various stakeholders and learn from them. Kind regards, Job
Current thread:
- Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Sean Donelan (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Brandon Zhi (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Josh Luthman (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Job Snijders via NANOG (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Josh Luthman (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Mike Hammett (May 17)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Tom Beecher (May 17)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Sean Donelan (May 17)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities heasley (May 20)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Josh Luthman (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Brandon Zhi (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Brandon Martin (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Job Snijders via NANOG (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Michael Thomas (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities John Levine (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Michael Thomas (May 16)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Sean Donelan (May 17)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Ca By (May 17)
- Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities Tom Beecher (May 17)