[No private replies required, list only is fine.] > It [UCEProtect, ed.] is a really good indicator how many abusive > IPv4 systems are in an AS.
I am questioning their methods, their data sources, and their evaluations. It is guaranteed that they don't have visibility into everything (I am saying this as somebody with a much less public report on similar stuff, but recognizing the shortcomings of *our* data sources in the same way), it is likely that their visibility is heavily biased, and it is clear that their methods indicate that they don't even understand the concept of end-user networks (PBL anyone?) but just lump everything together. Their green listings might indicate that they've just never seen anything from somewhere (the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), and their red listings might indicate that they've once observed a hijacked home user's computer from somewhere, it's not even there any more (because after a reboot it went from A.B.C.D to E.F.G.H), and are now going for the /16 when they see the next one. -- Atro Tossavainen, Founder, Partner Koli-Lõks OÜ (reg. no. 12815457, VAT ID EE101811635) Tallinn, Estonia tel. +372-5883-4269, https://www.koliloks.eu/ _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
