Internet heavyweights have teamed up to form a non-profit organisation designed to supply internet infrastructure operators with free tools and intelligence in the fight against cybercrime. Facebook, security intelligence firm Crowdstrike, Verisign, ESET Anti-Virus, Verizon and the Anti-Phishing Working Group, among others, are …
No, no and no again
The key problem with such a proposition is that these people set themselves up as law enforcement, but without the controls (well, ok, expected controls) society normally imposes on people who are given extra privileges.
In this case, we have a number of unelected people "managing" domains without any transparency, control or legal statue. To do this right, sponsor a centre where law enforcement is educated about the issues and can start to work on something to address it, but please stop the vigilantes - especially not those who have a vested interested in personal data. That's like putting Gary Glitter in charge of a child charity.
Re: No, no and no again
This is not China. These things are OK here. (sigh)
Re: No, no and no again
You raise some valid points and it's certainly worth discussion, but to me it doesn't sound much different to the various providers of DNS-based spam blacklists. There is debate over the accountability of such providers (and in particular how much of a scattergun approach they take and how hard it is to remove yourself if they wrongly block your domain) but they certainly provide a service which many people and organisations decide - through choice - to use.
If there was something similar which could warn that certain domains had attributes which were cause for concern (e.g. contact details are the same as those given for domains known to be phishing) then I could choose to block those domains at the firewall perimeter. That's not necessarily a bad thing...
Re: No, no and no again
A RBL for domain names is exactly what it is. I've never spammed anyone in my life and those blackhole lists have caused me no end of brain damage. I can no longer run a desktop mailserver (pretty well all domestic ISPs are blocked) so I now have to trust a 3rd party with the triple threat of extra step for something to break in; easier spook data-hoovering; and expense.
Plus when someone is spamming from a shared server they shut down the whole fucking lot. This has happened to my clients 3 times this year so far and it's only March.
While the net effect may be good; there's a whole lot of collateral damage.
Also, I'm not big on this validation stuff. The current setup is that they insist on proper information and then blackmail you for ½ the price of the domain not to publish it for everyone to see. The obvious solution to this is to cut out the middleman and lie glibly on the signup forms. That might be very slightly unethical but they started it.
Is our internet and online wellbeing just the interest of well-meaning amateurs?
What about NSA, GCHQ, Police, ... (here in the UK we have no police apart from the Police and if anyone tries to police us without being Police they are on a legally sticky slope to the law courts (as the law stands at the minute that is)?)?
"if anyone tries to police us without being Police they are on a legally sticky slope to the law courts"
Not really. There's a very long list of UK agencies well-known and obscure who have enforcement powers with respect to criminal and civil matters. Whether such agencies should have such powers is another matter, but there it is. And although a citizen's arrest is a potential risky act because of the sheer number of caveats, it's provided for in statute.
Aha! Got you?
Yes, there are lots of organisations with powers, or status of an authority but there is only one police force and that is the police.
Policing is not quite the same as using legal powers or enforcement powers but UK subjects are only subject to policing by the Police?
Never the less - here 'av a pint mate.
"Yes, there are lots of organisations with powers, or status of an authority but there is only one police force and that is the police."
But some of those agencies have more powers than the police.
Sounds a bit like SPF
Sounds a little like the Sender Policy Framework system, which helps filter out email address-spoofed spam before it reaches the perimeter by simple addition of a DNS record.
In theory, this could work too but I would recommend it stay voluntary.
In fact it sounds a lot like the paid services offered by companies like Websense.
But, some of these botnets are generating hundreds (if not thousands) of domain names and URLs on the fly which could make this whitelist a little tricky to maintain. For example, how can we prevent www.xxxxcybcrim12z7.cc from getting blocked (or whatever the plan is) and not block www.toocheaptoregister.cc ?
And does it mean everyone with a potentially dodgy URL needs to register with these guys? Dunno
Too early to say really, I'd like to see a detailed RFP, right now it looks like a publicity exercise.
I 'red yev 'ad a litl security problem guv an me an meh mates mite jus' be hable to 'help you aht.
I work Satdi neets at Tesco, do a few shifts at Asda on short call an me an my kolleegz in security can 'help yoo aht proper.
Koos anyfink we find aht abaht will be sent t'rozers straight away like so no fear there then.
Wot yoo say mister?
Goggle translation services:
I understand you have had a spot of bother and are in need of some professional services.
If so my jolly self and equally jolly fellows might be able to offer professional services to an extremely high and rewarding standard.
We have some diverse experience at local establishments and uphold professional standards of the sector.
If there is anything I can do to help just let me know - I will be there.
(Edit timed out :_) )
- Comment Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
- Game Theory Dragon Age Inquisition: Our chief weapons are...
- 'How a censorious and moralistic blogger ruined my evening'
- Leaked screenshots show next Windows kernel to be a perfect 10
- Amazon warming up 'cheapo web video' cannon to SINK Netflix