Discuss mailing list

[kevin <krattai AT gmail.com>]

It's also not the responsibility of OpenNIC to shelter people operating
computers on the internet from protecting their systems from viruses,
etc. in the first place.  A C&C won't be called by a system that isn't
infected.  And a system that is protected won't be vulnerable to
infection.

Kevin

On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 15:01 -0500, Daniel Shirley wrote:
> Agreed its kind if what we do is to stand up to censorship 
> 
> On Jul 18, 2017 14:26, "Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
>         Continue to resolve .bit domains. It's not anyone's job to
>         police the Internet at the demands of strangers you've never
>         met.
>         
>         --
>         
>         -Dan Q
>         
>         
>         On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:11:25 +0100, Calum McAlinden
>         <calum AT mcalinden.me.uk> wrote:
>         
>         > (sorry, I wrote this email earlier but accidentally sent it
>         to Arthur
>         > Garnier instead of the mailing list)
>         >
>         > Hi,
>         >
>         > I am the operator of the OpenNIC server which generates
>         OpenNIC's .bit
>         > zone from the blockchain.
>         >
>         > This is something that has been concerning me for awhile. I
>         recently
>         > became aware of malware developers are using OpenNIC T2
>         servers in their
>         > malware to resolve .bit domains which contain the IP address
>         of command
>         > and control servers.
>         >
>         > I had also been answering a several inquiries about zone
>         updates over a
>         > few months. Eventually I looked into the domains in question
>         and what
>         > they appear to be used for, which was C&C servers for
>         malware.
>         >
>         > OpenNIC really has 3 options:
>         >
>         > - Continue resolving .bit domains known to be used for
>         malware purposes,
>         > in effect facilitating the distribution of malware
>         >
>         > - Blacklist these domains democratically, thus not being a
>         true
>         > representation of the names registered in the blockchain and
>         raising
>         > censorship issues
>         >
>         > - Drop the entire .bit zone
>         >
>         >
>         > What are people's thoughts on this?
>         >
>         > Regards,
>         > Calum
>         >
>         > On 18/07/17 15:49, Jonah Aragon wrote:
>         > > You can probably blacklist that single domain for the time
>         being as
>         > > attack mitigation, but blacklisting any domain or TLD
>         would make your
>         > > Tier 2 no longer compatible with OpenNIC.
>         > >
>         > > But this is the reason we keep bringing up removing .bit
>         entirely, from
>         > > what I can tell it seems to bring much more trouble than
>         it's worth, but
>         > > maybe that's the cost of a successful alt-TLD. Perhaps we
>         should revisit
>         > > the .bit removal discussion.
>         > >
>         > > Look into rate limiting or ask for help on IRC if your
>         server is under
>         > > attack.
>         > >
>         > > Jonah
>         > >
>         > >
>         > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017, 4:22 AM Arthur Garnier
>         <arthur AT arthurgarnier.fr
>         > > <mailto:arthur AT arthurgarnier.fr>> wrote:
>         > >
>         > >     Hello,
>         > >
>         > >     My dedicated server provider (OVH.com) asked me,
>         yesterday, to blacklist
>         > >     the domain "letit2.bit" because it's a domain used by
>         a malware
>         > >
>          
> (https://malwarebreakdown.com/2017/06/06/relst-campaign-delivering-pony-downloads-chthonic/
>         > >     )
>         > >
>         > >     After checking my logs from yesterday, this domain
>         name has been
>         > >     resolved more than 125,000 times in 24 hours.
>         > >
>         > >     Maybe we should blacklist this domain from an higher
>         level than Tier2.
>         > >     Or it's against the policy ?
>         > >
>         > >     Regards,
>         > >
>         > >     Arthur
>         > >
>         > >
>         > >
>         > >     --------
>         > >     You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>         > >     You may unsubscribe by emailing
>         > >     discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>         > >     <mailto:discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org>
>         > >
>         > >
>         > >
>         > >
>         > >
>         > > --------
>         > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>         > > You may unsubscribe by emailing
>         discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>         > >
>         >
>         >
>         > --------
>         > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>         > You may unsubscribe by emailing
>         discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         --------
>         You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>         You may unsubscribe by emailing
>         discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>         
> 
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org