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
I think this is what he meant to be fair.
wb smokah
I might've misunderstood what he was trying to say, apologies.
lol that ad is fuckin great haha
No abuse = No service termination.
Aeza may be shady af but at least they have a cute mascot.
I kinda wish more legitimate providers also had their catgirls...
/s hehe
Are you willing to pay extra for your services? Will hire a professional designer using extra profits.
I am willing to pay $3/y and can adjust -- thanks
Sounds just about right
Well, I don't think I could afford to pay extra. But I really appreciate your Aeza catgirl refugee offer
Define abuse.
If a provider allows malware, C2 servers and if the customers hosts these, does this count as abuse or not?
ok me I am opening a ticket
for this very right and adjusted price 
I love how @AS203446 was very eager to ask if bulletproof was enough to terminate but not ”everything allowed” and ”fastflux” lmfao
Apologists still find the reason… it is useless to poke into obvious.
Realistic recreation of some providers trying to identify bad actors on their network
In think I should have said abuse (reports).
We are not looking into the traffic of our downstreams except if there are a lot of abuse reports but honestly, if we receive one abuse report a week, that is not enough for us to terminate a service or even look into it.(Except CSAM content, but that is a totally different story since even T1 ISPs report CSAM)
We only really process and look into an abuse report if the IP involved is part of our IP space in our AS. Otherwise we either forward the abuse or ignore it.
You might think that the security researchers and Spamhaus send these abuse reports directly to us because they expect that the networks that actually originate the abusive content/IP/ whatever are not going to respond, but I can tell you that this is also the case for abuse reports where the involved IP is part of another ISP, whether it's residential or business hosting.
Also, most of our network config is automated, if a customer wants to announce a new prefix, it is automatically accepted. Even GRE tunnel deployments are 90% automated nowadays.
If a provider comes to you and say we want transit btw we offer 100% bullet proof rdp, everything allowed, fastflux, do you rationalize providing them service in the same way you do here?
No. And nobody is going to approach an ISP like this.
The only question that came up in the past if we care about Spamhaus reports.
Our answer is: No, because Spamhaus reports are nonsense in 50% of all cases. Spamhaus also lists IPs from other downstreams without any proof.
Well exactly, so if all it takes is a quick Google to find this out, would you provide them service?
It's not illegal to advertise with the term "bulletproof". It might be an ethical thing but as long as there is no unusual or heavy abuse: Why not?
We terminated CrazyRDP so I think this is enough proof that we do care.
I think it very well might be illegal to advertise ”everything allowed” as that’s basically saying ”commit crimes, we don’t care”
emgh forbids free speaks 👎
>
I don't think it'll be illegal, but when you get door knocks/visits it might be hard to talk your way out of 'hey i didnt think people would host/do ....'.
People offering 'bulletproof' and people looking for 'bulletproof' know exactly what that entails. The door knockers/kickers know that too.
Francisco
Like I won’t blame a store for selling knifes used for stabbing people
But when the store says ”here’s knife, oh and btw we allow you to do anything with them” then yeah I think that’s somewhat wrong
Optibounce does not ignore abuse reports.
According to you, we should terminate Optibounce but then we would also need to terminate any kind of Tor node since Tor also allows anybody to be anonymous and commit crimes.
Completely agree.
I wonder if there’s ever been a criminal case of a hosting company basically advertisting that they’re okay with hosting illegal shit and if that’s ever been enough in itself for a conviction.
Where does Tor advertise ”everything allowed”?
Being able to do everything != advertising that you can as a way to profit off of crime
I think there is significant difference between hosting malware and visiting website (what bank doesn't ban Tor IPs?) using Tor.
Not accusing any of your customer of actually hosting malware, but advertising as "everything allowed" means they are fine with hosting malware too.
Tor screams CRIME and we had a lot of inquiries from law enforcement regarding Tor nodes.
It might not be exactly the same but Tor advertises:
"Protect yourself against tracking, surveillance, and censorship."
Doesn't sound "hack the CIA" to me.
This does sound like "hack the CIA".