Security Incidents mailing list archives
Re: No one wants responsibility
From: UnixGeek <ed () XWING CENTIGRAM COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:36:39 -0700
sent to a Canadian ISP. He did not want any more reports (I have sent two) as he did not have time and did not care about what his clients did.
Wonderful. I'm telling you(you meaning anyone that'll listen), there should be a coordinated effort to yank the netblocks out from under organizations like this(if in fact the individual is an accurate representation of the org). Given that DARPAnet and eventually the Internet were founded on academic information sharing, research and general mature responsibility, what would be so wrong with shooing these undesirables off the 'net? ORBS n' RBL essentially do this to mail services. Why not just carry the blacklisting a bit farther?
In browsing through the RR web pages I found that their AUP no longer contains any reference to hacking, cracking or other intrusions.
That sounds like an invitation if I've ever heard one. *sigh*
Another report to a Korean bounced back. They post a contact e-mail address, but then never read their mail.
Give the whole country one IP and NAT everything(even that may be generous).
Current thread:
- No one wants responsibility Harlan S. Barney, Jr. (Sep 19)
- Re: No one wants responsibility UnixGeek (Sep 20)
- Re: No one wants responsibility Terje Bless (Sep 21)
- A port scan is not an Incident (was No one wants responsibility) Etaoin Shrdlu (Sep 20)
- Re: A port scan is not an Incident (was No one wants responsibility) Rob McCauley (Sep 21)
- Re: A port scan is not an Incident (was No one wants responsibility) David Brumley (Sep 21)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: No one wants responsibility Guilherme Mesquita (Sep 20)
- Re: No one wants responsibility Paul Franson (Sep 20)
- Re: No one wants responsibility Craven, William (Sep 20)
- Re: No one wants responsibility Laumann, Dave (Sep 21)
- Re: No one wants responsibility UnixGeek (Sep 20)