[anti-abuse-wg] Adding a "Security Information" contact?

Moin-Moin and hello, TL;DR: Should there be an optional contact for sending security information to (i.e. about vulnerable services), which can be different from the abuse contact? Background: We get a reasonable amount of security information sent to our abuse mailbox about things like "Ther

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Adding a "Security Information" contact?

Hi Alessandro, Am 20.06.22 um 18:04 schrieb Alessandro Vesely: Our abuse mailbox is not overflowing with these, of course, but it makes semi-automated handling a bit painful. For example, we would like to forward these information to our customers, but we wont need to take further action on

[anti-abuse-wg] Weird Packets from source ::0/64

Hello, today I noticed that my IPv6 NTP server (intentionally public available) gets NTP packets from source network ::0/64 on the WAN interface. Source addresses are, for example: ::5cb2:92ff:fefe:9a47 ::7c04:27ff:fe6b:b26b ::8c7c:99ff:fe38:12b6 These packets are getting dropped by my firewa

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] The well-behaved ISP's role in spamfight

Hi, Am 13.02.2017 um 22:18 schrieb peter h: > There is not any req that all customers always should be forced to use > ISP relays, the default behaviour might be to use ISP relays, and > to have DHCP given address. But for an extra service one could > obtain a fixed address, and as extra service