Me too Markus -could fill a folder with that tax issue :-(( Costing a lot of time to answer and restrict the IPs
Plus my ISP moaning with good reason: "It's not just about you, but you're giving a bad reputation to one /21 and one /22 subnet. That's ~ 3000 IPs which are potentionaly endagered to be marked as source of malicious content / blacklisted / whatever ... so you see, this is quite critical for us." Am 04.10.2016 um 17:48 schrieb Markus Koch: > same shit here: > > Dear User, > We are contacting you because of unusual activity coming from your IP > address towards the IT infrastructure of the European Commission. > In specific, since 03/10/2016, IP addresses 95.85.45.159 & > 104.236.225.19 of Digital Ocean, located in the Netherlands (NL) and > the USA respectively, have submitted a significantly large number of > invalid VAT number requests as compared to the total number of > requests (89,59% & 89,96% respectively) towards VAT numbers from a > multiple of EU member States (MS) through the VIES on the Web service > (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/). For more information on > Invalid VAT number requests please refer to FAQ, questions 7, 11, 12, > 13 and 20 of the VIES on the WEB site > (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/faq.html). > The scope of our team is to monitor on a daily basis the performance > of the VIES-on-the-Web (VoW) service in order to ensure its > performance in accordance with the standards agreed upon between EU's > Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD) and the > EU Member States. > Our objective is to secure constant and uninterrupted availability and > flow of traffic (requests for VAT validation) at all times. > Under this framework, our team intervenes whenever there is out of the > ordinary, unusual and potentially suspicious use of the system that > violates the rules of use as they are stated in the Specific > disclaimer for this service, which is available at the VoW site > (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/disclaimer.html). > Consequently, in order to allow flawless use of the service, we were > obliged to block the access to VIES on the Web for the IP address > 88.198.110.130. > Following our action, we would like to know if you are aware of this > situation. Furthermore, your cooperation and contribution is necessary > in order to determine the reason for this occurrence. > Please inform us if this behaviour is normal and if such, how often it > should occur; we would then take action to unblock the traffic coming > from the corresponding IP address assuming you will agree to follow a > set ITSM VIES/Web Team > "ITSM2 is a contracted support partner for the IT Service Management > of the European Commission. > This e-mail is a reply to your message sent to the > taxud-vies...@ec.europa.eu<mailto:taxud-vies...@ec.europa.eu> e-mail. > Answers provided by the contactor are on behalf and according to > policy guidelines of DG TAXUD, but not binding for the European > Commission." > > I am so done with it, I added > > ExitPolicy reject 147.67.136.103 # TAX SPAM > ExitPolicy reject 147.67.136.21 # TAX SPAM > ExitPolicy reject 147.67.119.103 # TAX SPAM > ExitPolicy reject 147.67.119.3 # TAX SPAM > ExitPolicy reject 147.67.136.3 # TAX SPAM > ExitPolicy reject 147.67.119.21 # TAX SPAM > > Thats going on for months now and by all means, this is not free speech ... > > Markus. > > > > 2016-10-04 17:42 GMT+02:00 pa011 <pa...@web.de>: >> Am 04.10.2016 um 16:48 schrieb krishna e bera: >>> On 04/10/16 08:48 AM, pa011 wrote: >>>> One of my main ISP is going mad with the number of abuses he gets from my >>>> Exits (currently most on port 80). >>>> He asks me to install "Intrusion Prevention System Software" or shutting >>>> down the servers. >>> >>> You can first ask him for a copy of the complaints in order to >>> understand what sort of alleged abuses are taking place. Are the >>> complaints about spam or scraping or web server exploits or something else? >> >> I do get a copy of every complaint - they are unfortunately: >> >> - Http browser intrucion - >> /var/log/apache2/other_vhosts_access.log:soldierx.com:80 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx - - >> [30/Sep/2016:11:14:34 -0400] "HEAD / HTTP/1.0" 302 192 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 >> (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nl; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201Firefox/2.0.0.12" >> >> - invalid VAT number requests >> >> -recorded connection attempt(s) from your hosts to our honeypots >> >> - Issue: Source has attempted the following botnet activity: Semalt Referrer >> Spam Tor Exit Bot >> >> - botnet drone|Description: Ramnit botnet victim connection to sinkhole >> details, >> >> - attackers used the method/service: *imap* >> >>> You can change your exit policy to reduce likelihood of complaints: >>> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tips-running-exit-node >> >> I know, but I hardly like to block port 80 >> >>>> As far as I understand implementing such a software is not going together >>>> with Tor - am I right? >>> >>> If your exit nodes tamper with traffic in any way they will be labelled >>> as Bad Exit. (Tor tries to be net neutral.) >>> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/badRelays >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> tor-relays mailing list >>> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org >>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> tor-relays mailing list >> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
