Automated Network Abuse Reporting
medina at columbia.edu
Mon Dec 29 17:59:09 UTC 2003
Not wanting to be ripped to shreds here, I think it's still worthwhile
to alert people to, say, Slammer-infected hosts on their networks.
Sure, the good folks are already monitoring their networks for hosts
sourcing things like that, and they're also the ones that will know how
to deal with automated complaints. The people that don't already
monitor their networks will benefit from being alerted.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 12:32:52PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:24:16AM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> > if you automate abuse reporting you can basically assume that the reciver
> > will automate abuse handling. since that has in fact happened as far as i
> > can tell the probably of you automated asbuse replaies ever reaching a
> > human who cares or can do something about it is effecetivly zero.
> It's difficult to sort out legitimate complaints for port scanning.
> Consider that the vast majority of such complaints a provider receieves,
> particularly automated ones (groan), are just flat out wrong or stupid (or
> For example: "Your web server is hacking my web browser on port 80", or
> "Why are you probing me with UDP packets on port 53 from this host named
> NS1...", but usually stated with far more capital letters, misspellings,
> profanity, and threats to sue or report your web server to the
> authorities because it dared to respond to their port 80 connection. :)
More information about the NANOG