- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
by Marshall Eubanks 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes... Regards Marshall Eubanks ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> ----- From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: FC: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking To: politech(a)politechbot.com Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:29:35 -0400 X-URL: http://www.mccullagh.org/ X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/ http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html?tag=politech Could Hollywood hack your PC? By Declan McCullagh July 23, 2002, 4:45 PM PT WASHINGTON--Congress is about to consider an entertainment industry proposal that would authorize copyright holders to disable PCs used for illicit file trading. A draft bill seen by CNET News.com marks the boldest political effort to date by record labels and movie studios to disrupt peer-to-peer networks that they view as an increasingly dire threat to their bottom line. Sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble, R-N.C., the measure would permit copyright holders to perform nearly unchecked electronic hacking if they have a "reasonable basis" to believe that piracy is taking place. Berman and Coble plan to introduce the 10-page bill this week. The legislation would immunize groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America from all state and federal laws if they disable, block or otherwise impair a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer network." Anyone whose computer was damaged in the process must receive the permission of the U.S. attorney general before filing a lawsuit, and a suit could be filed only if the actual monetary loss was more than $250. According to the draft, the attorney general must be given complete details about the "specific technologies the copyright holder intends to use to impair" the normal operation of the peer-to-peer network. Those details would remain secret and would not be divulged to the public. The draft bill doesn't specify what techniques, such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking, would be permissible. It does say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files, but it limits the right of anyone subject to an intrusion to sue if files are accidentally erased. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : tme(a)multicasttech.com http://www.multicasttech.com Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Status of Multicast on the Web : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html

14 15

RE: QoS/CoS in the real world?
by Jeff Hancock 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

Kurtis, My apologies on the low SNR. The original question(s) centered around the customer requirements/applications/experience and I thought the product guys could speak to it better than I ... and certainly and without giving away any of our "patent pending processes". :) I think "native" can be translated as to mean "non-ATM". All core links are PPP/POS. MPLS does not imply or require DSCP, or vice versa. DSCP/EXP promotion ensures priority packets to be forwarded ahead of best effort at each hop thru the network. Could this be done other ways? Sure. The original question was how was/is this being done for customer traffic - this is how we do it in the core...along with queueing gymnastics. As for MPLS features, I think fast re-route qualifies. MPLS also provides traffic eng capabilities, as well as in-order packet delivery, which we've found to be useful for customer voice 'n video traffic. J -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:kurtis@kurtis.pp.se] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 5:54 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: QoS/CoS in the real world? Appart from that this to me looks like a marketing post.... > Sorry I didn't see this note earlier, but wanted to make you aware > that Masergy Communications is actually offering such a service on a > native MPLS based IP network. We provide differentiated IP services > via "native MPLS based IP network" ? Native to what? > MPLS based IP network. We provide differentiated IP services via > customer DSCP marking at the network edge. QoS is supported end to end > through the Masergy core via promotion to the MPLS EXP marking. Uhm, I never figured out why we need MPLS to honor the DSCP markings. After reading further in the text it doesn't seem to me as if you are using any of the MPLS "features" either... Sorry - I couldn't resist... - kurtis -

2 1

Fwd: Re: ELF/Scalper-A Spreading?
by senthil ayyasamy 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

--- Jeff Shultz <jeffshul(a)wvi.com> wrote: > Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:24:34 -0700 > From: "Jeff Shultz" <jeffshul(a)wvi.com> > To: "senthil ayyasamy" <mplsgeek(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: ELF/Scalper-A Spreading? > > http://www.glocksoft.com/trojan_list/Kuang2_the_virus.htm > Apparently > not very new. (May 1999) > > Feel free to forward to NANOG - I don't have posting > priviliges. > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 7/25/2002 at 9:18 PM senthil ayyasamy wrote: > > >> > But activity in more across 17300. > >> > > >> > (http://www.dshield.org/port_report.php?port=17300) > >> > what might be the reason? > >> > >> yeah. > > > >I have read somewhere that 17300 is used by a new > >virus called *Kuang2 Virus*. Have anyone heard of > such > >names? > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better > >http://health.yahoo.com > > > > -- > Jeff Shultz > Network Support Technician > Willamette Valley Internet > 503-769-3331 (Stayton) > 503-390-7000 (Salem) > tech(a)wvi.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: ELF/Scalper-A Spreading?
by Drew Linsalata 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

Doh! That was a typo in my original message. I meant UDP port 2001. Drew Linsalata The Gotham Bus Company Internet Server and Carrier Neutral Co-Location http://www.gothambus.com > Most of the 'I got flodoed by apache wormed machines' floods are udp/2001 > not 2100... you sure its 2100 in your acls? > >> >> Our border ACLs are catching about three thousand UDP/2100 hits every minute >> tonight. Is anyone else seeing this? It seems as if ELF/Scalper-A (the >> Apache/FreeBSD worm) is spreading. >>

1 0

ELF/Scalper-A Spreading?
by Drew Linsalata 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

Our border ACLs are catching about three thousand UDP/2100 hits every minute tonight. Is anyone else seeing this? It seems as if ELF/Scalper-A (the Apache/FreeBSD worm) is spreading. Drew Linsalata The Gotham Bus Company Internet Server and Carrier Neutral Co-Location http://www.gothambus.com

3 3

RE: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
by Rowland, Alan D 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

Yep. They don't like playing whack-a-mole any more than we do. Maybe we'd be better off asking if we could add spamming to this bill... =0 Best regards, _________________________ Alan Rowland -----Original Message----- From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean@av8.com] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 3:12 PM To: Rowland, Alan D Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking Best you can do is shutdown people on complaints. --Dean

1 0

Re: PASSIVE [D]WDM... Like, Cisco 15216.
by rs＠seastrom.com 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike(a)swm.pp.se> writes: > There should be quite a few manufacturers making units like these, I know > the MRV people does it as well (or some company within MRV). here's another: http://www.opticalaccess.com/products-ld.shtml Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with the company, I'm not even a satisfied customer, I'm just some guy who typed "optical transponder DWDM" into Google and shoveled through what came out. ---rob

1 0

RE: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
by Rowland, Alan D 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

First I agree that this is BAD on general principle but... IANAL but IMHO spewing cracked copies of say, Photoshop, or other copyright violations might be considered probable cause with the specific place/things being the share program and it's contents. Sharing the content of your favorite program/CD/DVD with the world has never met "fair use." I had significant input in my life regarding the difference between "can" and "may." IMHO significant numbers of net citizens have forgotten that difference. Just my 2¢. Best regards, _________________________ Alan Rowland -----Original Message----- From: Joseph T. Klein [mailto:jtk@titania.net] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 12:16 PM To: Marshall Eubanks; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking I would argue that my home computer is the repository of my papers and effects. No place in the below law does it limit the restriction to the government only. Indeed any law passed giving sanction to any party having the right IMHO is in direct violation of both the spiret and the letter of the Bill of Rights. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The dogs of stupidy have been unleashed. --On Wednesday, 24 July 2002 12:40 -0400 Marshall Eubanks <tme(a)multicasttech.com> wrote: > > Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to > clean up the resulting messes... > > Regards > Marshall Eubanks -- Joseph T. Klein jtk(a)titania.net "... preserve, protect and defend the constitution ..." -- Presidential Oath of Office

3 2

RE: How secure should it be? (was RE: password stores?)
by Rowland, Alan D 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

Ah, There's the rub. Access has a range from open to closed. The point you choose along that line directly effects cost and ease of use. Put another way, "Careful what you ask for, you may get it." Best regards, _________________________ Alan Rowland To quote another NANOG poster's sig file that applies to this discussion: "Wrong questions are the leading cause of wrong answers." -----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:19 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: How secure should it be? (was RE: password stores?) snip... Should we secure routers better, worse or the same as burglar alarms? While I agree there are settings which are insecure, its seems like we haven't figured out the optimum level of security yet. Which may be less than what the experts think.

1 0

proposed changes in national "cyber security"
by Fred Heutte 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_8.15.shtml#2 (2) NEW DEPARTMENT LIKELY TO GAIN AUTHORITY OVER CYBER SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION Both House and Senate bills would grant the Department of Homeland Security authority over cyber security and infrastructure protection. Specifically, the bills would transfer to the new department the functions of the following entities: * the National Infrastructure Protection Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (excluding the Computer Investigations and Operations Section); * the National Communications System of the Department of Defense; * the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the Department of Commerce; * the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center of the Department of Energy; * the Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the General Services Administration. Following objections by the high-tech industry and others, the House bill would not transfer the Computer Security Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The Senate bill as introduced would transfer that NIST component, along with the Energy Security and Assurance Program of the Department of Energy and the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration. Both bills would leave the FBI and CIA untouched by the reshuffling (with the exception of the FBI's NIPC, as noted above).

2 1