On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei < jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > > Cogent seems to have been very very silent on the issue. > > why would they say anything at all? it's blatantly clear what's happened, right? "lea order to block access" no explanation necessary. > Could this be because they got some police/NSA/FBI letter requiring > confindentiality and requiring Cogent to snoop on all traffic to > unclear why you think snooping is happening? packets dont' return, nothing to sniff... this is just a blackhole. > 104.31.19.30 , and along with agreeing to comply, blocked all the > requested traffic which means that their cooperation yield logs of what > IP has made a SYN to 104.31.18.30 but since that SYN went nowhere, > my guess is that: "all of the internet" is syn'ing to that IP, because "all of the internet" syns to all of my ips... scanning is always happening. > contains no other information, so the agency gets its logs as requested, > but with no actionable information in them ? > > you are pushing for a conspiracy where none must exist. > That would explain the block AND Cogent being coy/silent on issue. > > they are not coy, the data is available. > This could be a "protect users" move even though on the surface Cogent > appears to be the bad guy. > > The other question is whether other major backbone providers got the > same order and complied without telling ayone nor taking any action to > block. > > In my case, the ISP I used has local peering with Cloudfare, so not > affected. Not sure what percentage of users have local transit-free > connections. > > >
