Slashdot Mirror
After Links To Cybercrime, Latvian ISP Cut Off
alphadogg writes with this Network World story, excerpting "A Latvian ISP linked to online criminal activity has been cut off from the Internet, following complaints from Internet security researchers. Real Host, based in Riga, Latvia was thought to control command-and-control servers for infected botnet PCs, and had been linked to phishing sites, Web sites that launched attack code at visitors and were also home to malicious 'rogue' antivirus products, according to a researcher using the pseudonym Jart Armin, who works on the Hostexploit.com Web site. 'This is maybe one of the top European centers of crap,' he said in an e-mail interview. 'It was a cesspool of criminal activity,' said Paul Ferguson, a researcher with Trend Micro."
The questions that should be asked is "Are they closing in on the criminals who set up these sites?"
Surely with all the information they can get from this rogue ISP they can track down the wankers who run them.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Why is this being cast in a good light? We should demand net neutrality and not just when it suits us, but always. If you have an issue with their content: sue them, block them, ignore them. Also, how do we define "criminal activity" when talking about an ISP in Lativia? I'm no expert in Lativian law myself, but is spam or a command-and-control center illegal there? Bandwidth suppliers should be doing that, supplying bandwidth. Leave the politics and legal issues to the governments.
Perhaps the malice these researchers feel towards Latvia is similar in some way to the anger the RIAA feels towards filesharers?
Latvia? You're taking things out of context. This is not about Latvia in general, this is about a Latvian ISP responsible for a shitload of spam and botnets. You're free to replace Latvia for any country you wish and it wouldn't make a difference. Also I think it's fair to say that RIAA only serve their interests, whilst spam and botnets concern anybody who uses internet.
I am the lawn!
Well, malice towards Latvians would be xenophobia, and the RIAA definitely have a lot of phobias, so yes.
...finds this situation most vexing.
You may have noticed that there have been stories recently about ISPs who *do* cut off the access of copyright infringers. Without deep packet inspection (which I'm wholly opposed to without a warrant, just making that clear) it's not like they catch anywhere close to all of it, but if they do catch you the contract you signed lets them cut off your access, and they will.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
This is maybe one of the top European centers of crap,'
The server 216.178.38.116 is an American server known to have loads of crap too! I hope they also could get it!
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
And I oppose that type of action as well. I don't think that it is the ISP's job to filter what goes on over their networks except to the extent that they may need to throttle some users who flood the pipes during peak usage hours.
The law provides means for wronged parties to seek restitution. The RIAA should definitely sue the filesharers. And if the actions on the Latvian ISP were illegal, the Latvian police should take down the criminals.
Taking down the whole ISP is collective punishment which may make us feel better in the short term, but it only reduces our personal security like any collective action does.
But the bastards shut my ISP down!
Because this IS a good thing.
You do understand the purpose of a DoS attack don't you?
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
But except for Dr. Doom and a Seinfeld episode most people have never heard of Latvia so this makes it sound exotic.
Personally I love Riga it is nice city with interesting sites to visit and some decent restaurants.
...it's a cesspool of crap.
the other kinds are ok.
This space available.
why Latvia is the best country in the world! http://www.millionreasonswhylatviaisthebestcountryintheworld.com/en/all/best
Glad to see law enforcement is keeping up with this kind of activity. Use your talents for good...not evil!
I thought xenophobia was a fear of virtualised environments?
AT&ROFLMAO
That one's long overdue...
No sig today...
A real problem here is that if upstream providers do this sort of thing, there is no limit to their power. We're not talking about any court action, any due process or any other legal nicity. We are talking about vigilante action and mob rule.
The idea of "net neutrality" pretty much can be agreed upon that upstream providers do not cut off users for actions that violate the laws of some jurisdiction on their own. Now this may not be a good idea, but if your ISP is prevented from cutting you off for downloading pirated music and movies then a rogue ISP better not be cut off for hosting botnet control centers and phishing web sites. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Of course the real problem is that there is no force of law that can successfully prosecute folks like this. They might even be violating laws in their home country - but how do law enforcement agencies conduct a highly technical investigation when they have no facilities. Not only that, but the whole idea of the Internet makes it extremely difficult to conduct investigations without effectively wiretapping and requires the cooperation of a high level provider. It is difficult to see how such an investigation can be conducted by anyone without lots of resources and financial backing. And cooperation of providers, often at their own expense.
No, prosecution of such crimes as are alleged on the Internet is very difficult without either inside information (usually bragging) or evidence collected for other court actions. For example, the ISP is sued for lack of tax payments and the servers are seized as part of discovery, which then uncovers further evidence.
No I think this vigilante action is short lived and not in the best interests of people vitally concerned with the freedom of action on the Internet. Of course, freedom of action implies freedom to commit crimes on the Internet, like copyright violation and phishing.
Dr. Doom is from Latveria, a fictional country.
The summary is quite wrong, though I do not blame the submitter. All English and Russian language sources that I can find state that supposedly Real Host, an ISP, got cut off. That is not actually so.
Real Host is some company that is running fraudulent operations and other crap, making use of the Zeus botnet. Real Host rented servers from Junik, which is an ISP. They're a small ISP connected upstream via the Latvian branch of Telia. And the story now is that Junik cut off Real Host's access and revoked the servers they rented. Real Storm itself doesn't appear to be linked to Latvia in any real way. They use an address in Kazakhstan as the legal address from where the IP blocks are leased, the botnet itself is being linked to a Russian group of hackers. And they chose Latvian servers to rent, which doesn't make them a Latvia-based group.
Don't take him so seriously, he's just living up to his nick.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Whenever I see such emotionally charged statements, I tend to take them with a grain or two of salt, especially when they're coming from people who are supposed to be rational, like security researchers...
Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
No, it's fear of shooting tortoises.
The Pirate Bay and others who believe they are doing no wrong are more likely to fight in court.
Criminals are more likely to either walk away to avoid a government-issued ban-hammer or use illegal, er, I mean, extra-legal means of "persuasion" to make sure their next ISP won't cut them off.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I don't think that it is the ISP's job to filter what goes on over their networks except to the extent that they may need to throttle some users who flood the pipes during peak usage hours.
I don't even agree with throttling -- at least with the way it tends to be implemented. I don't see an issue with traffic shaping that puts p2p/ftp/nntp/etc at the bottom of the packet queue but if there's so much as a kilobit of free bandwidth it's stupid to throttle someone down just because it's "peak hours"
My own traffic shaping set up at the office looks something like this:
0) VOIP
1) Business related VPN activity
2) TCP ACKs and SYNs, DNS requests, NTP packets
3) Small ssh packets (only small ones so scp/sftp transfers don't get priority -- you want interactive traffic prioritized, not bulk transfers)
4) Web browsing/downloads from our administrative staff
5) Web browsing/downloads from other staff
6) Web browsing/downloads from guest users of the network
7) UDP packets relating to p2p (i.e: DHT trackers)
8) TCP packets relating to p2p (i.e: bittorrent)
Items #7 and #8 can get the full bandwidth of our pipe unless something higher up in the list needs to use it. Each item gets a guaranteed minimum amount of bandwidth. Setups similar to this seem perfectly fair to me -- blanket throttling of traffic just because it's p2p or not bound for the ISPs network does not.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Filesharing is NOT a criminal activity. RIAA is more akin to the criminals in the article than file sharers are. The clients who support RIAA have raped copyright law to the point it is unrecognizable. Fair use is all but history, DRM ensures that most people can't reasonably use their purchases in a fair manner.
IF AND WHEN filesharing is proven to be "unlawful" (as opposed to "illegal") it is a CIVIL matter, as opposed to a criminal offense. As a rule, unlawful and/or illegal acts take place well before the file is shared, as in the case of a Universal Studios employee stealing an early copy of a movie. In such a case, there are multiple civil and criminal actions that can be taken against the perpetrator. The file sharing, in and of itself, is not criminal, and if it is ever made so, that will be a gross violation of all the freedoms guaranteed by the United States consitution.
RIAA is little more than an Americanized Gestapo.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I conquered my xenophobia and all that parellels it by cointaining it all within a virtualbox!
Be relentless!
Phix went off the net because an upstream provider was told their connection would be shut off if they did not kick safet.net off its servers. They chose to be principled, and pulled their own plug. Safet.net was a legal resource for boylovers. Epifora ISP, which ran a large number of legal boylover resources, had their connection cut off because of pressure from a vigilante group. They didn't have the money to fight it.
So it is already a fact that this kind of behavior will hit not only illegal activities but also unpopular legal activities.
No, no, Xenophobia is a fear of paradoxes, especially relating to finding how long it takes to get somewhere.
Not a sentence!
OMG!
He makes a valid point. I'm glad their gone, yet I too wonder about the method of taking them out.