[anti-abuse-wg] The Ongoing Summer of Hijacks: MNT-SERVERSGET / dnsget.top
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] The Ongoing Summer of Hijacks: MNT-SERVERSGET / dnsget.top
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] The Ongoing Summer of Hijacks: MNT-SERVERSGET / dnsget.top
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Erik Bais
ebais at a2b-internet.com
Tue Aug 14 17:57:15 CEST 2018
Hi Ronald, I'll respond here ( AA-WG ML) to ask you a couple clarifying questions about this HUGE post that you made and the amount of cross links. I've put the other WG's in BCC, and will only reply to the anti-abuse WG ML to have it correctly documented in a single WG. So if someone would like to comment, please do it only in AA-WG. I've seen the bitcanal story and from what I can see in your email, your are stating that there are a lot of prefixes where mnt-serversget is listed as either the maintainer or the mnt-route or mnt-domain contact. From my experience, it wouldn't be possible, without the owners permission of the actual resource, to put the maintainer of mnt-serversget in any of those objects. Stating that some or most of the listed prefixes don't have their reverse DNS in place isn't a reason, last time I checked, to take some kind of action ... So the question that I have with all the information that you stated here. - Are they doing something (Other than 'probably' leasing IP space) wrong ?? - Are the leased or used prefixes used to send out spam or host malware or do something else that is frowned upon ? or even illegal.. ( And is there proof of spam source or hijacking etc.. ? ) - Are the prefixes they used / leased perhaps not cleaned by the current legit holder ... for some reason .. Because from all the information that you stated, that is not something I could get out of your email. If you want to get the exec-board to take action to a listed broker, that should be take up with the exec-board and the NCC. It is my experience that they are very responsive if you have the situation presented that a child could understand it. Because if it is based on speculations, it is very hard to take action on members. If you want someone to take action on something, it is probably best to make the case a bit more clear, as it is for me (and I actually like to read stuff like this and see if I can find the same or something else.. ) very unclear what the goal is.. Regards, Erik Bais On 10/08/2018, 02:08, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote: The entire set of objects in the RIPE WHOIS data base that are currently registered with mnt-by: MNT-SERVERSGET is listed here: https://pastebin.com/raw/GiYWxHMh Among this set of objects there are 235 separate route objects. Evidence indicates persuasively that some sizable fraction of these RIPE- registered route objects are fradulent and are simply there to provide cover for multiple IPv4 address block hijacks. The presence of these objects in the data base permits the following set of ASNs to claim that they are acting "legitimately" even as they route these hijacked blocks: AS9009 M247 Ltd (UK) AS43350 NFOrce Internet Sevices (Netherlands) AS57129 Optibit, LLC (Russia) AS197328 Istanbuldc Veri Merkezi Ltd. Sti (Turkey) AS202287 Men Danil Valentinovich (Russia) AS204895 Santa Plus, LLC (Russia) The total amount of IPv4 space encompassed within the set of route objects registered with mnt-by: MNT-SERVERSGET at the present time amounts to eight hundred and fifty nine (859) /24 blocks. Of these, only three hundred and five (305) actually have correctly functioning and properly delegated reverse DNS at the present time, and even among those, only two hundred and two (202) have functioning reverse DNS delegations to the prefered name servers of MNT-SERVERSGET, which is to say the name servers ns5.dnsget.top and ns6.dnsget.top. The bottom line is that it appears that, at the present time, something less than 1/4 of all of the IPv4 address space currently registered in the RIPE data base (via route objects) by and to MNT-SERVERSGET is space for which a plausible case could be made that the blocks in question are actually legitimately assigned to and/or under the legitimate control of whoever or whatever is MNT-SERVERSGET. The other 3/4ths of the IPv4 space in question has provenance which is, at best, dubious. Due to its use of little country-of-registration flags for each IP address block, the web site bgp.he.net provides the most visually obvious indications of at least two of the specific block hijacks in this case, specifically the hijacks of 27.103.192.0/19 and 36.0.192.0/19 by AS57129: https://bgp.he.net/AS57129#_prefixes Based upon the foregoing, I hereby respectfully request RIPE NCC to undertake an immediate and conmprehensive review of all objects in the data base that are currently registered with mnt-by: MNT-SERVERSGET. Additionally, I also respectfully request RIPE NCC to publish the results of this review to the mailing lists of the Database Working Group and the Anti-Abuse Working Group. The charters of both of these Working Groups are directly relevant to this issue, and there exists neither need nor reason to simply sweep this issue quietly under the carpet, as has been done in previous and similar cases. Cases such as this, and the two others of similar magnitude that I have publicly disclosed just this summer, affect the operation of, the stability of, and the continued enjoyment of the entire planetary Internet and its billions of users. Despite its status as a strictly private corporation, RIPE has a public responsibility, not only to handle such incidents responsibly and competently, but to show the world that it is ready, willing, and able to do so. The responses of RIPE to prior instances of this exact type of bad behavior have been largely or entirely cloaked in secrecy, presumably to protect the guilty. This longstanding and antiquated tradition of omerta within the RIPE community is unambiguously counterproductive to the goal of a well-managed and properly fuctioning Internet. Just as importantly, it naturally gives rise to unavoidable questions about the actual competence of, and capabilities of RIPE NCC staff as they attempt to deal with such incidents. I personally feel that RIPE NCC staff are doing the best they can when responding to incidents such as this, but the tradition of playing "hide the ball" with respect to their actions in such cases reflects badly on them, and badly on RIPE generally. It certainly raises doubts about RIPE's claim to authority over even its own data base. Lastly, I respectfully request both the RIPE Executive Board and the RIPE membership to make plain and explicit their respective intentions with regards to the various bad actors that have been caught, and that may in future be caught red handed engaging in the deliberate and premeditated corruption of the RIPE data base. To date, the policies an actions that RIPE applies, or which RIPE may apply to such bad actors have been shrouded in apparently deliberate secrecy and mystery. To put this request in more concrete terms, I would like to know if RIPE and the Executive Board actually and deliberately intend to take no action whatsoever with respect to the ongoing RIPE memberships of clearly identified bad actors, specifically, in this case, whatever persons or entities are currently hiding behind the RIPE WHOIS handle MNT-SERVERSGET (aka AS202287 and AS202275), which would appear to be this specific entity / RIPE member: https://www.ripe.net/membership/indices/data/ru.danil.html Is it the express intention of both the Board and the RIPE membership to simply deprive this bad actor of just those fradulent data base entries that have effectively legitimized his/her/its fradulent routing announcements? Is it the express intention of both the Board and the RIPE membership to simply make this bad actor give back what he has stolen, and to otherwise take no action, just as the response has been in the two other and similar cases that have also arisen in the RIPE region and that I have also publicly reported on this summer? https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2018-June/096034.html https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2018-July/096437.html My question is prompted by the following simple facts. In the two prior cases cited above, and also in the one I am presenting here today, the bad actors involved were seen to have not only hijacked large swaths of IP address space that clearly didn't belong to them, but also, as in the case I am presenting today, these same bad actors additionally acted to corrupt the RIPE data base with premeditated and deliberately fradulent entries. Nonetheless, and regardless of these attacks on the reliability and trustworthyness of the RIPE data base, to date it appears that no action whatsoever has been taken which might affect the ongoing RIPE memberships of the relevant parties and bad actors involved, and they are all still members in good standing of RIPE at the present time: https://www.ripe.net/membership/indices/data/pt.bitcanal-pt.html https://www.ripe.net/membership/indices/data/ua.d2investukraine.html https://www.ripe.net/membership/indices/data/bz.universal.html This is, to say the least, puzzling. I would like to know when, where, and how the Executive Board and/or the RIPE membership reached the altogether dubious conclusion that the best possible way to deal with bad actors such as these is to make them give back -just- the stuff the stole, and then to otherwise impose no penality of any kind, thus allowing them to live on, so that they may hijack another day. Whether this policy is a result of either deliberation or default, it *does* appear to be the policy, based on the evidence. Without intending to be rude, I feel that I must ask the obvious question: In what Universe does this otherwise admirable and generous Christian policy of "turning the other cheek" with respect to such verified bad actors have any effect other than encouraging the next hijacker, and then next one, and the one after that? Has either the Board or the membership even ever seriously debated what penalties should be imposed upon those members who are caught red handed deliberately corrupting the RIPE data base? Is the present RIPE policy of "forgive and forget" with respect to such travesties a product of anyone's intentional design, or is it instead merely the result of utter apathy and indifference on the part of the entire RIPE community? In either case, I believe it to be self evident that the time is... ummm... blooming, blossoming, burgeoning, flourishing, and flowering for this policy to be reexamined and revised. From where I am sitting it is self evident that the current policy of turning a blind eye to these events, and to the bad actors behind them is quite clearly encouraging others to follow suit and to themselves undertake the exact same sorts of travesties. Why shouldn't they? There is no downside. At the very worst, one is simply made to give back all of the stuff that one has stolen, and one is then allowed to go on one's merry way. Regards, rfg P.S. As incensed as I am at the fact that the above named bad actors have been allowed not only to retain their RIPE memberships, but also, apparently, 100% of their legitimately-allocated number resources, this is not even nearly as utterly appalling and inexplicable as the fact that two of the bad actors with direct and provable connections to the prior instances of hijacking that I have reported on publicly this summer have been allowed to remain as officially recognized RIPE IP brokers: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/brokers I am referring here specifically to Ebonyhorizon Telecomunicacoes Lda (aka Bitcanal) and also to NetAssist LLC (AS29632), which conveniently continues to maintain its association with, and peering arrangements with both AS57166 aka D2 International Investment Ukraine, Ltd. and, indirectly via D2, AS205869 aka Universal IP Solution Corp., both of which apparently continue to this day to try their best to hijack, either directly or indirectly, via AS Path fraud, a number of IPv4 blocks that clearly do not belong to any of these three Ukranian entities: https://bgp.he.net/AS57166#_peers https://bgp.he.net/AS205869#_peers https://bgp.he.net/AS29632#_peers What IP blocks are these two officially recognized RIPE IP brokers, Ebony Horizon and NetAssist brokering, exactly? Are they blocks that have been successfully hijacked? Does either RIPE or RIPE NCC even know? Does either RIPE or RIPE NCC even care? (One cannot help but wonder what might occur if RIPE were put in charge of distributing meat supplies within Europe. Would RIPE officially designate the McDonald's "Hamburglar" as RIPE's officially recognized agent for said distributions?) I guess that, in the end, all of the questions I have raised above can be boiled down to just one simple question: Who exactly does one need to either kill or maim or seriously wound in order to get kicked out of this organization (RIPE)? Regards, rfg P.P.S. Among the set of six companies / ASNs listed toward the top of this message as possible facilitators of the current hijacks of MNT-SERVERSGET, three are already fairly well known... at least in anti-spam circles... as being among "the usual suspects" when it comes to facilitating spamming and spammers. And no, I do not care to publicly specify which three. It may be true, as the saying goes that "On the Internet, nobody knows that you're a dog", but memories are long, and people don't forget if your company has been repeatedly caught acting like one.
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] The Ongoing Summer of Hijacks: MNT-SERVERSGET / dnsget.top
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] The Ongoing Summer of Hijacks: MNT-SERVERSGET / dnsget.top
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]