swinog

swinog@lists.swinog.ch

3 participants
2941 discussions

Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
by Oliver Bolliger 19 Feb '09

19 Feb '09

this is not the right way to block access to a site as i can setup my own dns or use foreign nameservers but what is the best method? blocking ip traffic to the site can also mean to block legitimate traffic to a shared hosting server!? cheers oliver On Feb 17, 2009, at 4:57 PM, "Xaver Aerni" <<mailto:xaerni@pop.ch>xaerni(a)pop.ch<mailto:xaerni@pop.ch>> wrote: When the ISP block it only by DNS Filtering??? I think to block 1 side is a DNS Filtering the easyest and fastest way. Greetings Xaver ----- Original Message ----- From: Yann Gauteron<mailto:ygauteron@gmail.com> To: <mailto:swinog@swinog.ch> <mailto:swinog@swinog.ch> swinog(a)swinog.ch<mailto:swinog@swinog.ch> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud You're assuming that the biggest ISPs will apply the filtering at the entrance of their network, which is not necesseraly true. They can also decide to filter closer to their access equipments. This would mean that peerings with other ISPs or BGP-tiered enterprises would be unfiltered. Depending where the filtering is applied, professional access could also be prevented to be filtered. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list <mailto:swinog@lists.swinog.ch>swinog(a)lists.swinog.ch<mailto:swinog@lists.swinog.ch> http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list <mailto:swinog@lists.swinog.ch>swinog(a)lists.swinog.ch<mailto:swinog@lists.swinog.ch> <http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog>http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

14 18

position for network engineer at CERN
by Edoardo Martelli 18 Feb '09

18 Feb '09

Hello CERN has an open position for a network engineer: https://ert.cern.ch/browse_www/wd_pds?p_web_site_id=1&p_web_page_id=6946&p_… kind regards Edoardo Martelli

1 0

Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
by roger＠mgz.ch 18 Feb '09

18 Feb '09

my first email with the same content was heldoff bei the ML for an moderator review.. so maybe it will show up a second time. right > As one can read in your PDF on page 1 (in French) and page 3 (in > German), the order is suspended until a decision is made regarding the > appeal from Cyberlink. > which will lead to a new recurse maybe :) > My understanding (IANAL) is that this means there will be a statement > from a judge whether or not this blocking order is legal and whether or > not it has to be carried out by the Swiss ISPs. If the judge in charge fail with his decisssion who is gona to pay what he caused ? Maybe someone ordered allready equipment as he got paniked ... Roger

1 0

Post from Canton de Vaud
by Xaver Aerni 17 Feb '09

17 Feb '09

Hello, Till now we haven't receive any letter. Our Partnernetwork hasn't to receive any letter. It is nice. I think they must wirte to all providers... We have more than 3000 clients together... Greetings X. Aerni _____ Von: swinog-bounces(a)lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch] Im Auftrag von Yann Gauteron Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009 07:22 An: swinog(a)swinog.ch Betreff: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud In this topic, Andreas and Roger you are asking who should pay to implement these measures... I'm sad to tell you that YOU probably will have to pay for that. Despite your hope, I am pretty sure that (if a law making that appliable does exist) nobody except you (and at the end your customers if you increase your service price) will pay for such a blocking system. Even if it can seem unfair, in fact it works like that: - Some cantons voted for banning smoke in public places (restaurants, bars, ...) except in one dedicated and closed aread (called "fumoir" in French). The restaurant managers will pay for the needed changes to become compliant. They will not receive money from the authorities to do so. - In our work activity, we also have legal requirements. As ISPs we have the obligation to keep historical data about IP address allocation for our customers, we have to keep some records about e-mail that are sent from our mail exchange relays, ... Once again, the ISPs financed these modifications / changes / upgrades to comply the law. This is the way it works in Switzerland: Politicians (and/or citizens when a subject is voted by them) decide the laws. Other key players assume the financial charge for it. I am not saying this is a bad idea (I agree with this way to do! (*)), however I consider that the investments should be reasonable and they should have proved their effectiveness. In the present case, this is the main problem: blocking the access to some web content (in addition to the problem of censorship I already expressed in previous posts) is not effective: 1) the simple use of a relay/proxy/anonymizer would permit to defeat this "protection"; 2) if ISPs are concerned with this measure, enterprise would not be permitting to access the offending content from an office workplace! (*) I mentionned above I agree with the way consisting of political deputies (or citizens) making a decision, and involved actors to finance the required changes. Let me explain why. I still believe we are living in a very democratical country where individuals and companies have their own responsabilities and obligations. Everybody must take the needed measures to comply with the law without expecting any compensation. IMHO this has the advantage to make everybody playing an active role in the final decision about a law. Most of the laws follow a consult phase ("phase de consultation" in French); other laws are voted by the citizens. If you're not happy with a project law, you can inform (lobbying with the deputies / advertise the citizens) the decision makers about the problems you will face (inadequate price / effectiveness ratio for instance) but at the same time also announce that this correspond to a form of censorship. At the end, you don't make the decision and you can win or lose. But democracy is more or less respected. If the Authorities would have to finance such a decision (such as the hardware + implementation of a censorship solution), your role would be lowered much more. Your voice would count for peanuts. That Authorities would tell you: Shut up, we decide, we pay, your financial and ethical opinions do not matter. Once again, my questions about the present topic are: - Is there an existing law permitting to mandate ISPs to block access to a given content? If yes, who can decide of such blocking (a canton court or a Swiss court)? - Why was this decision to block access from the ISP taken, instead of making the hosting provider removing the offending content? The first solution is technically known to be uneffective as workarounds exist and can be used by people with only a little technical knowledge or by users having a web access from an enterprise. - Ethically, I consider this way to proceed as a form of censorship: blocking access to a published content match my definition of censorship ("we decide what is good for you" or "we filter for your well-being", take care you prove G. Orwell right). Removing (and not simply restricting access) an offending content is a legal decision that can (and must) be taken, if that content is considered as illegal. This does not shoke me. Even if the result (for the Swiss web users) is the more or less same (it will not have access to that content), the taken action is totally different. In one case, this is filtering for some world citizens, in the second case, this is global removal of the content. An analogy can be made with publishing world: If a book containing offending someone (physical or moral person) content is written, the courts can decide to forbid the publisher to destroy all the books (and possibly if this is too late, to forbid the bookstores to sell it and to return the remaining ones to the publisher). But never the court will say the bookstores to use a black marker to strike through the offending lines or to tear out the offending pages. Last remark: Definition of offending content is out of scope of this e-mail. Just understand that for me an offending content is something that is against the law (for instance: pedophilia content, libellous texts, ...).

1 0

RIPE: LIR Training Course in Zurich
by Steven Glogger 16 Feb '09

16 Feb '09

hi there for those not reading RIPE mails. the next NCC LIR Training Course is in Zurich: Location: Zurich, Switzerland Swissotel Zurich Date: Friday, March 20, 2009 registration as usual over your lirportal login ,-) -steven

1 0

Re: [swinog] Hardware for testlab
by vwatson＠dancendrumarts.com 16 Feb '09

16 Feb '09

Yes, Pascal: What also is good is the electrical smell in the air when all the gear is booted and running! Ahhhhh, nothing like it! And you are right, those 'airplane cockpit' sounds are also nice, especially if you are married jajajaja! Vinnie, the married cisco geek with home lab IN BEDROOM

1 0

Hardware for testlab
by Pascal Mainini 16 Feb '09

16 Feb '09

Hi all i'm looking for some hardware for my private testlab. So in case you got some of the stuff below lurking around somewhere and fear the effort to throw it away, tell me :-) I'm particularly looking for: - 2-3 Cisco switches, basically interface count and type doesn't matter, as long as it can run more or less current IOS-versions - DB60M DTE/DCE-crossover-cables - BRI and/or Fastserial Enhanced PAs for 7200 - Powersupply for Cisco 1600 - Rackmounting-brackets for 2500/2600 series Additionally, i'm always interested in - all kinds of Routers (needn't to be Cisco) - ATM and tokenring equipment Tell me offline if you've got anything, i'd also be able to pay small amounts depending on kind and state of the equipment. Thanks a lot and kindest regards, Pascal

2 2

08 Feb '09

Can anyone provide sample login banners that meet legal requirements in Switzerland? Thank you in advance, ___________________________ Michael Krygier

12 16

following to my illegal service secret stuff
by Zorg 421 07 Feb '09

07 Feb '09

Hello, A following to my service secret stuff: - It does not seem linked much to the vaud state police before may-june 2008. - Between 2002 and 2007, it definitively seems linked to the DDPS / SRS (Strategischer Nachrichtendienst SND), the "agents" close to me being RENATO and GADLU. The goal of all of this mess: Infiltrating the internet community (in this experiment, thru me) and get close to people able to engineer traffic spying device, by using the filtrating proxy and anti-pedocriminality "coverup". The whitebox setup is a perfect setup for illegal spying activities that spying shop are so eager to have under their hands. Don't dream much: they are laws regulating that kind of action, but service secret office people always complain about the hassle to go thru the legal way. With me, their have been pushing way too far, but beware, they may act more sensibly next time. I've added some abstract and conclusion to the website, but it's still in french only. http://helvetic-park.bravehost.com/ Regards.

11 11

Re: [swinog] following to my illegal service secret stuff
by Zorg 421 03 Feb '09

03 Feb '09

Oh, Mr Keller, I feel sincerely sorry.I cannot look myself in the mirror after getting conscious of the pain, the suffering I've put you thru by writing emails you could have ignored and thrashed, on an otherwise fairly idle and rarely interesting mailing list. Really sorry. How may I beg your pardon, Sir? On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:32 PM, André Keller <tuxli(a)tuxli.net> wrote: > > >> BTW, getting more netadmin conscious of the existence of such abuse is >> perfectly on topic, in my opinion. >> > > > Nope it isn't... Stop spamming the list... >

3 2

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

swinog