New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Aurologic accused of being a major actor in enabling cybercrime
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Obviously you dont understand the difference of a hijack and a technically automatically injected route. If you check out the AS-Path any further, you can find out, that we had upstreamed the upstream of Hostslick back in the time. aurologic has automated infrastructure to generate rtbh as well as flowspec routes, which may be visible as /32 announcement. Still, that does not qualify them as hijack. I'd suggest that you stop throwing around with wild speculations before you dont understand how networks operate.
If i were to report phishing on your downstream, would you do the same?
We do what is lawful. Dont try to change the context.
Sounds like bullshit to me. Downstream wasn't even contacted, you did it all on your own.
While now, with reports of illegal content on your downstreams, you shift the responsibility on them and claim you are "neutral".
Internet critical infrastructure does what it needs to do.
LMAO.
@jh_aurologic do you have any $7 VPS deals for people who haven't shit on you so far
i mean might as well while we're here
Wtf I thought you are interested only in free VPSes
Yeah but a VPS that I can host my cyber-criminal empire on for $7 is probably worth it tbh
Fuck does that count as shitting on them
As we are talking lawful stuff, which is what we try to stay on point. Asking for interested parties:
If one of your downstreams is hosting illegal material and failing to take action on the abuse reports, for whatever bullshit reason.
And if we get in touch with you citing this with proof, and you still don't take any action because of your internal tools or whatever is behind NDA. And believe all is fine.
Can we just go and file complaint about your company to German police / courts because you are helping to provide access to those content and ignoring complaints reported to you?
In case this helps to someone on the internet.
Unfortunately we stopped all virtual server offers. It's also not possible for private customers to order anymore. We are focusing only on business customers. If we will ever bring back virtual server offerings, they will be priced in a range, which is outside of $7. Still I'm paying for the provider tag in this forum every year, given the fact that we offered quite some time ago our first services here and like the conceptual idea.
You are free to file a police report, if you suspect a crime. However, I can assure each proper abuse complaint at aurologic is handled in accordance with applicable law (EU-DSA).
If aurologic operates from EU/USA - they will eventually receive a visit/raid from authorities. This is only a matter of time. Good old “play stupid games, win some BBC into your anus from legal system”.
You only need to push it a bit harder. Thousands of smart ass’s done that previously. The end is the same. Enjoy while it last.
nnNnNNnno way! the provider that never responds or act on abuse report is enabling cybercrime??1!!! chat, i'm so shocked rn no cap
Look, while I really appreciate your repeated attempts to stick to the matter and facts, I wonder whether you fail to understand how LET ticks nowadays after what @emgh and others have dragged it down to.
Example: "you are accused of [whatever]" and seriously expecting you to either prove your innocence or to feel their wrath. And usually it's not even about the matter itself it's only about the herd and feelings. They don't care a flying fuck about some provider doing shady stuff, all they care about is whether said provider has a "friend" or a "foe" tag plus of course of their fun of marauding.
No matter what you say, you have no chance because they arrogate to be prosecutor and judge in one. That's why I liked you saying (paraphrased) "you are free to contact the relevant authorities if you think we acted illegally". Plus, in case they create damage to your business, sue the living hell out of them.
Again, bent perception. The context there was that the brit regime willy nilly sanctioned "shady" Aeza and I asked why they didn't sanction other shady providers as well (like e.g. MG).
Btw and FYI: I never was an Aeza customer and am not related to them in any way. Also, I did not doubt what @jar said, but then jar's statement is based on concrete, direct, and extensive experience and data, while all you have is wild allegations based on a "report" by an obviously biased entity, i.e. a slightly pimped up form of hear-say.
Of bloody course you - again - go ad hominem.
Have you ever considered not being dumb as a rock?
Only jsg can go on a 500 word rampage about a person, then accuse them of using ad hominems when they just quote you
Again, look at this thread, see for yourself if people agree with you, no one does. If you want to help aurologic don’t associate yourself with them because if anyone has a worse reputation than aurologic on LET it’s you, everyone but you know it. I doubt you’ll ever realize, however.
Anyway I don’t think we’ll get a clearer picture of what kind of people are the target audience for @jh_aurologic than the above. One community member finds them okay, the same member that minimized and defended Aeza when they faced US & UK sanctions. It’s not a coincidence this same person now defends Aurologic.
Ecatel would be ashamed
Since the guys over at recordedfuture.com are probably also reading this thread, can you guys give me a shoutout on your next report? Or atleast look into AS206540 something shady is going on over there
Will Aurologoc sue insiktus group for slander and possible huge damage to business reputation? Would be interesting to see such case in German court system.
Internet providers are under attack from various groups of activists who operate under different ideological terms. It doesn't matter what ideology they promote - protecting LGBTQ+ rights, saving the climate, protecting nature, protecting black lives, or anything else. Each group requests independent companies to comply with their specific terms and conditions, even if their requests are against current law.
Politicians, as they depend on their voters, include these activists' requests in their legislative process, and as a result, the degradation of the Internet occurs. At first, these laws were designed to protect children, but quickly they began to be used for censorship and other harmful purposes.
It's funny that these activists don't realize that they are thereby undermining the freedom that allows them to form communities and promote their ideas.
Pretty sure any lawyer will strongly recommend him to not do this.
The legal basis for this is very thin and the lawsuit itself will probably create even more media attention than the one report did.
exactly, and also there's the minor detail that all accusations are backed up with sources.
This is so true. Just look at some truly great countries!
Russia, China, Iran, all places that bravely stopped activists early on. No pesky people demanding LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, or freedom of the press to undermine society. Thanks to that, their internet is perfectly open, free, and absolutely not censored in any way. Everyone can express themselves freely! Truly a model for the rest of the world
For those asking about the legal angle: Aurologic operates under the DDG (Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz), Germany's implementation of the EU Digital Services Act which replaced TMG in 2024.
DDG maintains the key principle: no general obligation to monitor transmitted information or actively investigate illegal activity. As an upstream transit provider ("mere conduit"), Aurologic has maximum liability protection. They're not responsible for content they transmit.
The business model works because no monitoring obligation means no costs for looking the other way. US/UK sanctions on Aeza don't automatically bind German companies. Intelligence reports aren't legal orders and German authorities haven't acted. High-risk customers are loyal and profitable because they have limited options. Aurologic only needs to respond to actual German legal demands.
Hofmann said it himself: "I can kick everyone out, but then at some point I won't make any sales." That's the calculation.
DDG lets upstream providers profit from strategic ignorance. As long as Aurologic doesn't violate German criminal law directly and responds to formal legal demands, they can legally monetize being a stable upstream for TAEs and sanctioned entities. It's profit over principle, but it's probably legal under current German law. Reputation damage in communities like LET doesn't matter when bulletproof hosting customers pay the bills. That's the reality they've chosen.
I completely agree and this is why I created the thread and tagged @jbiloh (for the second time now). Companies that decide to act in the way you describe don’t deserve to advertise on LET, stealing eyes from companies that choosed a different path.
Legality and its enforcements is a long process. What’s legal today might not be legal tomorrow. Something being legal is the absolute bare minimum and I’d argue it’s a fairly low standard to have letting providers advertise.
Calin is an example of someone not convicted of a crime (AFAIK) yet not allowed to advertise. I think this reasoning is sound and can be applied to providers like this.
It's like the joke: Westerners can freely criticize their own government. Citizens of those great countries you mention can also freely criticize those western governments. In fact it happens in many of their comments as seen in this thread.