Re: [db-wg] abuse-c

[John Green <]

Menno Pieters (Stelvio) wrote:
> To elaborate on that, the complications for creating an IRT object are:
> - You need a maintainer for an IRT object (which is not required for an 
> extra attribute or a person/role object);
> - Strong authentication from both the IRT and the LIR is required to 
> link an IRT object to the inet[6]num object.
>
> The reasons to do it this way is to prevent that the IRT mentioned in 
> the IRT object gets complaints about abuse made form IP ranges that they 
> are not responsible for, simply because "Evil Company" put the e-mail 
> address of the IRT in its inet[6]num object (or as Daniel Karrenberg 
> suggested in on of the maintainer objects protecting the object).
>
> So both the IRT and the LIR (even if they are in the same room or just 
> next door), must agree. In a small organisation it is possible that it's 
> the same (group of) person(s), using the same PGP key and the problem is 
> void, because the request needs to be signed only once.
I have never understood what this gives you.  If "Evil Company" wants to 
misdirect abuse reports (why?) they can circumvent this by making a fake 
IRT object with IRT XYZ as the contact email address.

John Green
JANET-CERT