Slashdot Mirror


Profile of the Russian Business Network

The Washington Post has an article detailing what is known of the workings of the Russian Business Network, a shadowy entity based in St. Petersburg that hosts a good fraction of the world's spammers, identity thieves, bot herders, and phishers. RBN is not incorporated anywhere and may not technically even be violating Russian law. It provides "bulletproof hosting" for about $600 a month to a wide range of bad guys.The author of the Post story, Brian Krebs, supplements it with two blog posts. One provides more detail and back story including a look at one ISP's security admin who decided last summer to ban all RBN traffic from his network, with outstanding results. The other post maps some of the RBN's upstream suppliers and details the extent of the RBN's involvement in recent cyber-attacks: "Nearly every major advancement in computer viruses or worms over the past two years has emanated from or sent stolen consumer data back to servers" in the RBN.

33 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. tragedy strikes! by ILuvRamen · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm hoping the next Slashdot story on this topic is that some drunk driver crashed a propane truck into the RBN datacenter hehehe. Or maybe a nuclear plant will just blow up within close proximity to it lol. Seriously, there's a lot of bad things that could happen to it in Russia! Here's to hoping something does!

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  2. I've been away by 42Penguins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    are we for or against data havens these days?

    1. Re:I've been away by RsG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depends on what they're a haven to, now, doesn't it?

      Put another way, anonymity and secrecy can be used for good - anyone living in an oppressive country can attest to that. Or it can be used to send "3n1arg3 y00r p3nis" spam en masse. I think we can agree on the idea that the existence of data havens is a potential godsend, but the misuse of those havens is a huge headache.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:I've been away by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we can agree on the idea that the existence of data havens is a potential godsend, but the misuse of those havens is a huge headache.

      I'm not sure I'd even agree with that. I am pretty much a pragmatist when it comes to on-line anonymity: I think it is, on balance, overwhelmingly a bad thing. Much the same arguments apply to data havens.

      Sure, these things can theoretically protects discourse, investigative journalism, whistle-blowing and such in an undemocratic society. However, practice is a long way from theory, and on-line "anonymity" is a long way from on-line anonymity. Does anyone really believe, despite the fact that I post under an alias here, that from a technical perspective my government could not track a post back to me if it really had sufficient motivation to do so? Does anyone really believe that if I had sufficiently sensitive information and stored it on a system hosted in one of these less legally restrictive regimes that the Powers That Be could not track it down and take steps to contain it?

      Meanwhile, we have spammers, phishy types such as identity thieves and credit card fraudsters, deceptive folk like inside traders and corporate PR plants, copyright infringers, and countless other people basically abusing a near-anonymous Internet identity and data centres like the one in this article to further their own interests, often at the expense of others... and getting away with it, because no-one has the resources to stop them all reliably.

      For what it's worth, I don't like this position. I appreciate the value of free communications, and I'm well aware of the inhibition imposed by having to put your name to something, and the damage this can do in extreme cases. But I also appreciate the value of privacy, and of being left to mind your own business without constantly having to defend yourself from attacks. Until society grows up, learns not to trust information or offers from anonymous sources, and learns to respect sensitive information — and it has a very long way to go to reach that point — I think we'll do a lot better if people on the Internet are not effectively placed above the law and not held accountable for their actions.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:I've been away by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but civil disobedience usually involves getting intentionally caught and punished for doing something that should not be wrong, thereby bringing public attention to the issue. Anonymity is useful for practising freedoms denied by your government, but it doesn't enable true civil disobedience.

    4. Re:I've been away by superwiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was thinking more of civil disobedience as preached by Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience". It is not necessary to practice civil disobedience as a statement. It can be practiced for the sole purpose of non-violently opposing the corrupt regime. To quote the Wikipedia entry, "Voting for justice is as ineffective as wishing for justice; what you need to do is to actually be just. This is not to say that you have an obligation to devote your life to fighting for justice, but you do have an obligation not to commit injustice and not to give injustice your practical support." As such, practicing civil disobedience anonymously is actually more effective because after not getting caught you get to practice it again.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    5. Re:I've been away by superwiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course it's not. The default is that something you can't control afterwards (the no copyright case) is worth whatever a single patron is prepared to pay for it, as indeed happened for hundreds of years. If you introduce an alternative economic mechanism through which the costs can be shared, then the product is worth whatever the sum of the individual contributions would be. In either case, if the value of the work at market rates is less than what the work costs to do, allowing for a profit the artist is prepared to accept, then the work won't get done. Naturally, this is wrong. Since it doesn't even explore the current economic model in which the government guarantees producers of content near-perpetual ownership of distribution rights. A system in which "the costs can be shared" as you put it is the one that exists for some blank media in the US but it is certainly not the prevailing system of compensating content producers. But my point was that there are gradations to how much compensation the content producers would be able to achieve through the market forces. These gradations are established by the government through establishing lengths of copyrights, patents, etc. This is why what you said is an absolute rubbish. There isn't 2 possible systems. There are many. Depending on which position the government takes, the market place will establish the price point for the compensation for the value of a particular content. Therefore, the establishment is the ruling force in setting the price on the creative work and the market place is a secondary force in this process.

      That is an economic nonsense, and the number of people who repeat it on Slashdot does not change this. We can readily demonstrate this by the fact that if everyone ignored copyrights in this way and the artists received no compensation at all, then the actions of the artists most certainly would change. Your argument holds only as long as a substantial number of people do honour copyright, at which point those who do not are simply freeloaders taking advantage of those who do.

      Naturally, this is wrong. You fail to understand the subtlety of the argument. Your argument amounts to "one votes with one's wallet" type of argument. And these arguments always fail when taken to the extreme of "what if everyone did it". The phrase "taking advantage" implies taking proactive steps to secure a situation in which the actions of the counter-party have greater utility than the utility exchanged for them. The pro-active part is where your argument breaks down. Your language implies an intent to force to perform a certain amount work -- the intent which is very likely not there. That's why an individual who (for whatever reason) is not honoring copyright is not "taking advantage" of a content producer, but is rather "not compensating a content-distribution-rights-owner at the level the content-distribution-rights-owner is demanding" -- a much more neutral phrase.

      In light of the answer to the previous quote, not honoring the compensation demands made by a content-distribution-rights-owner may very well be an act of everyday civil disobedience (sort of like driving above the speed limit) rather than an act of freeloading (sort of like taking apples from pay-what-you-will basket and not paying).

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:I've been away by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Naturally, this is wrong. Since it doesn't even explore the current economic model in which the government guarantees producers of content near-perpetual ownership of distribution rights. A system in which "the costs can be shared" as you put it is the one that exists for some blank media in the US but it is certainly not the prevailing system of compensating content producers.

      On the contrary. I think one of the main advantages of the copyright idea, perhaps even the most important one, is precisely that it makes it commercially viable for an artist to produce a work that takes a lot of time, wouldn't be worth enough for any single patron to commission it, but is worth a small amount to many people. You can argue, very reasonably, that if copyright is an economic instrument and the value it is generating for the artist is far greater than what would be necessary for them to produce and distribute the work then the balance of the copyright bargain should be adjusted, but this isn't an argument against the principle, it's an argument against the specifics.

      By the way, stating that I'm wrong, talking rubbish, and missing the "subtleties of the argument" doesn't really advance the discussion in any useful way. Proof-by-stating-as-fact is a very childlike debating tactic, and I guarantee you it won't cut any ice over here.

      You've written quite a lot in reply to my second point, but as far as I can see you haven't said anything that actually counters the basic principle: if you're getting something for free, and others are paying for it, and the only reason you can get it for free is because those others are paying for it, then it is a logical fallacy to argue that because you can have it for free, no-one needs to pay for it. Economics just doesn't work like that. As you say, 'these arguments always fail when taken to the extreme of "what if everyone did it"'. But that is exactly the point! Your argument only works as long as only some people do it, and the work is supported in real financial terms by others. Now, you can call that whatever you like, but it's still taking advantage.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  3. This article is useless without IP addresses by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Spamhaus project has a list of Russian Business Network addresses, for what it's worth.

    I wonder if anyone has every found a remote exploit that will get past iptables -j DROP recently.

    1. Re:This article is useless without IP addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another good source of information.

    2. Re:This article is useless without IP addresses by apachetoolbox · · Score: 4, Informative

      # Russian Business Network
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.144.182/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.149.171/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 58.65.239.66/31 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.144.3/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.149.27/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.149.181/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.149.178/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.156.0/22 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 193.93.235.5/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.149.110/31 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.148.18/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.148.130/31 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.148.132/31 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.153.243/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.147.202/31 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.144.0/20 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 195.114.16.0/23 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 195.64.162.0/23 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 84.45.90.141/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 88.201.208.0/20 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 195.64.140.0/23 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.94.16.0/20 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 85.249.23.0/24 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 81.95.147.182/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 217.118.119.26/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 85.133.4.138/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 213.200.79.194/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 62.154.15.154/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 213.200.78.66/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 195.66.226.151/32 -j DROP
      $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s 213.200.80.46/32 -j DROP
    3. Re:This article is useless without IP addresses by arivanov · · Score: 5, Informative

      Much easier - Autonomous system 40989.

      Networks - 81.95.144.0/22, 81.95.148.0/22, 81.95.154.0/24, 81.95.155.0/24.

      First upstream ISP - 41173 which is a provider in the Seichelles (so they either run a VPN tunnel to there or have a SAT link). So the article may be actually full of shit. I somehow suspect that they are not hopping back to Russia and the servers are outside Russian jurisdiction in the first place.

      Primary upstream transit ISP is 3257 which is Tiscali. Now this does not surprise me in the slightest. No further comment.

      Other transit ISPs are : 25577 - C4L (???), 8928 Interoute (again, this one is no surprise).

      1. It does not look like Russian hosting to me. The Russians are laughing their arse off at the inept article (and other similar musings). The servers may actually be in Europe (or on an the Seyshelles where you can do diddly squat about them).

      2. The hosting is truly bulletproof. Applause. They have most likely bought wholesale all relevant officials in a small nation telecoms operator. So all requests regarding their business activities will go straight to /dev/null. Add to that the fact that their upstream providers are not known to be particularly caring about fraud, spam and the like and the picture is complete.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  4. Post some ranges by robogun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wish the article had links to the ranges so we could block this stuff.

    Although I have to say over the last ~2 weeks it's been down quite a bit.

    1. Re:Post some ranges by jaxtherat · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't need the range to be in the article. Just use zen.spamhaus.org in your rbl thingy, and that'll keep you covered. spamhaus and spamcop have been blocking these guys for a while now...

      --
      http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
  5. Re:Just block Russia by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except most spam comes from the US via zombies. Should we block them too?

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  6. Service provides "shy away" from blocking nets... by krycheq · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From TFA:

    Danny McPherson, chief research officer at Arbor Networks, a Lexington, Mass.-based company that provides network security services to some of the world's largest Internet providers, said most providers shy away from blocking whole networks. Instead, they choose to temporarily block specific problem sites.

    "Who decides what the acceptable threshold is for stopping connectivity to an entire network? Also, if you're an AT&T or Verizon and you block access to a sizable portion of the Internet, it's very likely that some consumer rights advocacy group is going to come after you."

    First... who's saying anything about blocking "a sizable portion of the Internet"? We're talking about being able to identify bad-actors and doing something about it for a change. From some recent articles I've read, AT&T doesn't seem to have any problems blocking their users from accessing the Internet when they don't like what they're doing... they'll just drop you if they don't like you. Why do they have issues blocking real criminals from doing real criminal activities. Can anyone honestly say that these networks are hosting content that anyone legitimate would want to get to?

    If there are legit companies doing business with these guys, and maybe if the networks were blocked, or the providers refused to carry routes to those networks, they would "shy away from" doing business with the RBN. Or is that too much of a free-market approach to the problem... block the criminals, and if you're associated with them, you can't do business either. Hmmm...

    Second, as to who decides... the market decides! This is pretty cut-and-dry. If there's a company somewhere that specializes in hosting this crap, then shut it down! It will only benefit legitimate business. This is so easy... there isn't a free-speech or access issue here... nothing for anyone to get upset about. The cancer has been identified... cut it out of the body.

    The time for reactive measures is over. The article got one thing right... this problem has been allowed to grow and fester beyond the point where half-measures are going to work. $150 million is real money and it's time to take the ability for these goons to do this away from them.

  7. RBL-XBL by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It makes a lot of sense to use the Spamhaus RBL to block things in a firewall. If a site is black listed for sending spam, then I don't want any traffic from that site, not email, not web traffic, anything. However, I am not aware of a system that ties an iptables DROP rule to an RBL.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:RBL-XBL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Regarding spamhaus, there's the DROP list http://www.spamhaus.org/drop/ plus a perl script http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section=DROP%20FAQ#116 to turn that list into route commands which block those networks. If it has to be iptables for you, the script shouldn't be too hard to customize.

  8. Re:Just block Russia by HexaByte · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Actually, I'd like to see a program that re-routes all 419 scams to Russia, and all RBN traffic to Nigeria. Throw in a few of the other bad sites, too. Just let them all have a private interspammernet.

    --
    HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
  9. Re:Service provides "shy away" from blocking nets. by Torvaun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like I want AT&T to be able to decide what parts of the internet are "off-limits" to me? Like there's any reasonable way of doing this anyway? The Internet was developed with the goal of routing around broken segments in mind. This is not a problem with a market solution. This is a problem where the U.N. tells Russia to get its shit together, and stop these guys from doing things that piss off the rest of the world. Nigeria can get the same treatment. If there's some other group behind all the foreign lottery scams that are apparently being sent out by botnet, then I'd like to get them locked down too.

    --
    I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
  10. Spamhaus DROP list FTW! by SIGBUS · · Score: 3, Informative

    RBN addresses (and assorted other nasties) are also listed in the Spamhaus DROP (Don't Route Or Peer) list. IMO, it's a useful thing to drop (pun intended) into your firewall...

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
  11. As I see it... by SIGBUS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IMO, I'd rather do the blocking myself than have AT&T do it for me. That being said, I don't hesitate to block RBN traffic.

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
  12. I have seen the future. by superwiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a good line in Dune -- "You control a mentat by controlling his information." The religious crowd is easily aroused by "think of the children." Apparently, the slashdot crowd needs to hear "think of the spam." This is how the world network for all-to-free an exchange of information will be fractured. You just need to find a hot-button issue for every crowd and they'll scream for the separation along national borders on their own (thinking it's their own idea).

    A good number of the posts so far propose blocking Russia altogether. Because there is no "business" done with Russia. Aha. But that means no Russian news. No access to chats with Americans for Russians. Hell, the new Russian order couldn't dream of a better situation. Not only do they get not to have their citizens interact with Americans freely, but they also don't have to be the bad guys in it. The Jefferson quote states that giving up freedom for a little bit of security will cause one to lose both. But why go that far? "little bit of security" is not even necessary as the price. Apparently a little bit of expediency is enough.

    It's censorship and xenophobia even if you can make a Yakov Smirnoff joke of it. Sorry, but this time, the boogie man is you!

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  13. Re:One Nuke by JoshJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, a bomb blowing up the entire Microsoft complex, killing everyone involved in Windows (but nobody else) would produce a massive demand for jobs in the IT sector, programming sector, pretty much every technical field you can think of. Apple, Red Hat, Sun, Oracle, Novell, and so on would see massive gains in profits. The Rest Of The World (TM) would take relatively small hits- those who are still on XP would stay on XP (and start a Mac or Linux migration plan instead of a Vista one), those who have finished their Vista migration would be in good shape for a few years until it's time for their next hardware upgrade, and those who are in the middle of a switchover to Vista may well get totally fucked, depending on how they're doing it. It wouldn't be pretty in the short term, but it'd be survivable, and it's likely that replacing the monoculture with diversity would result in long-term economic gains due to competition. I actually think gaming companies would get hit the hardest, I have no idea how hard it is to take a game coded for Vista/360 and port it to another console. It's probably still a drop in the bucket of the greater economy. The biggest hit would probably be Wall Street investment bankers and so forth, but that's a single immediate hit, and not something that has a long-lasting effect. (A long-lasting effect would be something like a calamitous food shortage, sudden oil shortage, whatever; that results in an immediate hit followed by a long period of economic inefficiency because of a lack of resources for other industries to continue their business.)

  14. Re:One Nuke by setagllib · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's pretty optimistic. We're talking about a software industry where it takes many companies years just to update their compiler version, saying nothing of their entire operating platform, not even considering migrating to a completely different platform (Linux, MacOSX, whatever) which Microsoft deliberately stays incompatible with. So an optimistic estimation for Linux to replace Windows, if it's the only way to survive at all, would take a good 5 years or so.

    In the meantime you'd have a bunch of half-assed ports using winelibs and Mono and similar rubbish, which makes the situation even worse than a Windows-dominant one. Some companies would bomb entirely, although that's just good old natural selection. And unlike the current legacy software which is being replaced, some of the half-assed solutions may stay 'good enough' to never be replaced at all, much like how the Windows platform is dominated now. Windows Vista still has the kernel hook to cmd.exe for chrissakes. Is this an industry that could survive a bomb?

    The alternative is to fix the patent system, impose anti-monopoly restrictions on Microsoft, and other regulatory changes to allow competition to take over naturally, and let the market adapt on its own. This is the sort of evolution that led to such strong competition in the PC hardware industry, without any bombs and without long gaps of horrible inefficiency and regression.

    --
    Sam ty sig.
  15. Re:Could we just block Russia? by bvdbos · · Score: 2, Informative

    easy, just look at the spamhaus statistics.

  16. Most spammers are still from the USA though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Although the RBN are certainly bad guys, Slashdotters should pls resist the tendency to assume that all the bad guys are nasty, foreign types. Most of the bad guys - for example spammers - as usual, are home-grown.

    Of the 133 worst spammers on the Spamhaus ROKSO list, the vast majority of the worlds worst spammers are from the USA, followed after a big gap by nasty foreigners from Israel, Ukraine, China and yes Russia too:

    See: http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/index.lasso

  17. RBN's Netblocks by paulmer2003 · · Score: 3, Informative

    # Russian Buisness Network et al. As listed from spamhaus.org on 10/14/2007 81.95.144.182/32 81.95.149.171/32 58.65.239.66/31 81.95.144.3/32 81.95.149.27/32 81.95.149.181/32 81.95.149.178/32 81.95.156.0/22 193.93.235.5/32 81.95.149.110/31 81.95.148.18/32 81.95.148.130/31 81.95.148.132/31 81.95.153.243/32 81.95.147.202/31 81.95.144.0/20 195.114.16.0/23 195.64.162.0/23 84.45.90.141/32 88.201.208.0/20 195.64.140.0/23 81.94.16.0/20 85.249.23.0/24 81.95.147.182/32 217.118.119.26/32 85.133.4.138/32 213.200.79.194/32 62.154.15.154/32 213.200.78.66/32 195.66.226.151/32 213.200.80.46/32

  18. Re:One Nuke by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful


    That's a variant on the broken window fallacy. The idea that breaking somebody's windows is a good thing because it creates work for the glazier, the police, etc. It only works from an internal viewpoint that is based on the relative distribution of wealth. Taking a broad overview of society as a whole, it's pretty plain to see that the total wealth has gone down. It's the same sort of protectionism as farm subsidies. It may keep people in work but its at the cost of having an inefficient, bloated economy. Far better than to create jobs through needless destruction and inefficiency, is to create jobs by aiming higher and achieving more as a society.

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  19. Re:Czar (wannabe) Putin had better . . . by superwiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because we are not talking about taking out a spam shop. After he learns how to take out an ISP for the purposes of stopping spam he will use the same expertise to take out ISP that enable his opposition. I just don't see how an expertly tyrant is better than an incompetent one.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  20. RBN not just for spammers by madsheep · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have see a few posts that seem to zero in on RBN and SPAM. Unfortunately, if you read the article or at a slightly familiar with RBN, you would know it's a whole lot worse than that. An extremely large and extremely disproportionate amount of the hosts in the RBN ranges house malware, virues, trojans, command and control sites (for bots), and child pornography -- in addition to the SPAM issues. It really is a bad place on the Internet; one of if not he worst. If you are at an organization where you can block them, you should if not at least check your logs and see if your hosts are going there and why.

  21. Re:Just block Russia by Reaperducer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many of us have to do business with Russian sites?
    You might be surprised. I know I was.

    I started blocking Russian, Nigerian, and other addresses from one of the forums I run. It's just a community forum for people in Houston, Texas. In a matter of hours I started getting complaints from regular users who I didn't realize were expat oil execs and workers in Russia, Nigeria, etc... who used my forum to keep up on things going on at home.

    The lesson I learned is that even if I can't imagine why someone would want something doesn't mean it isn't something someone would want.
    --
    -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  22. Re: AS#s: 40989, 41173, 28866 and 25577 by anticypher · · Score: 5, Informative

    A little late to the thread to get modded up, but I didn't have time this morning to post my own BGP filtering route-maps to keep these malware ISPs out of my tables. AS41173 seems to be the only upstream ISP to 40989. These companies seem to be the same mysterious people, hoping to hide their identities and locations. The internet isn't that easily fooled, though.

    If you look at the RIPE and whois records for all the parties involved, this is an ISP that popped up in June of last year, apparently dedicated to hosting malware sites. Look closely at addresses and dates. Fictitious Panamanian and UK addresses with an American phone number, claims of being in the Seychelles (English spelling), again with other American phone numbers.

    Some nmap fingerprinting of their routing equipment shows this operation tends towards low budget. I've seen ISPs that were nothing more than a couple of university students who obtained an AS#, a prefix, found a BGP feed, and filled a rented a rack in a colo with some servers and a linux box running quagga. Seen from a looking glass, no difference from the big players. A good looking website regularly updated, proper whois and RIPE records, and it's very difficult for a potential client to know the ISP may go down during exams week.

    This operation seems not much more than what a couple of kids with a little knowledge could put together. The prefixes fill various spamhaus and RBL lists. Doubtful that there are any legitimate clients on those networks. This operation is the malware gangs getting a little more hi-tech, running their own ISP by buying IP transit from companies known for never turning down business. They use C4L/NetSumo, a known no-questions-asked ISP who resell an MPLS service between London and Eastern Europe, probably Interoute's.

    As for location, looking at various internal looking glasses, the prefixes seem to be hitting the internet in London then through a leased line with 70 mSec of delay, and in Prague with a sudden 20 mSec of delay. This certainly is not going through the Seychelles. My best guess would be a data centre in Russia, where bribes to local authorities gives them a certain level of immunity to lawful pursuits.

    Any reasonable ISP hoping to protect their clients from this criminal malware gang would just filter those four AS#s from their main routing tables, and save themselves a world of hurt. Better yet would be to actively blackhole those prefixes. Sure, it might fly in the face of one perfect internet, but since there is no legal remedy, internet providers need to protect themselves. Good ISPs and hosting services already filter all kinds of bogus routing information, adding a known spam and malware operation to the list is just good practice.

    the AC

    --
    Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on