Thank you Jan. That is my opinion also

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 15:47, Jan Henkins <jan@henkins.za.net> wrote:
Hello Keith,

Well done for being persistent. However, nobody has the right to scan in
this fashion without letting at least the owner of the address-space
know what is about to take place. It is trivial to find out who is
responsible for a particular address range (whois), and then to find out
whom is the abuse contact there. An intrusive scan like this, whilst
maybe not quite a full-blown DoS, comes quite close being debilitating.
Let's face it, it doesn't take much to make a VPS use up all it's
allocated RAM to try and cope with a large incoming load.

If I were in your shoes I would continue giving them all heck for doing
this, and get a full explanation what they were about. They should not
get away with this without at least a few token bruises. Heavy-handed
"white hat" activity does not mean it's good, in my opinion they acted
no better than script-kiddies.




On 15/04/2019 09:10, Keith Williams wrote:
> SUCCESS
>
> I have just received an email from research-abuse mailbox at Stanford
> University to say they have removed my IP from their database. At
> last! Shame they didn't think to add a little sorry for inconvenience.
> But victory!
>
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 07:09, Keith Williams
> <keithwilliamsnp@gmail.com <mailto:keithwilliamsnp@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Sorry for delay in replying, I have been away in the big city for
>     a couple of days, now back to face the world once more
>
>     On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 17:13, admins
>     <admins@sheffieldhackspace.org.uk
>     <mailto:admins@sheffieldhackspace.org.uk>> wrote:
>
>         A lawsuit is a blunt and very expensive tool.
>
>         Use something pointy and sharp that can slip between the ribs.
>         Like
>         social media.
>
>         Large institutions are sensitive about their image, many
>         monitor social
>         media and their social media accounts. tweet about the irony
>         you have
>         observed together with a precise statement of the facts, their
>         lack of
>         response to the correct official channel for complaints, the
>         ongoing
>         nature of this and reference their social media account (so their
>         followers all of them get the message too) and link their
>         security course.
>
>         This should get you a response.
>
>
>         Kirbs
>
>
>         On 10/04/2019 08:38, Max B via users wrote:
>         > Now what would it take to get them to notice you and fix the
>         problem and compensate you?
>         >
>         > A lawsuit.
>         >
>         > How does this differ from a robber who is trespassing on
>         your property and looking to see whether any of your doors is
>         ajar?
>         >
>         > If one of your machines is located in the US, you have locus
>         standi in that jurisdiction to pursue the trustees of Stanford.
>         >
>         > Is that jurisdiction California?
>         >
>         > Can bitfolk map the address range to which your machines
>         respond to a US server farm located in Palo Alto or Menlo Park?
>         >
>         > It need only be for a month or a week, although damages
>         would follow length of exposure to the hazard.
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > --------------------------------------------
>         > En date de : Mer 10.4.19, Keith Williams
>         <keithwilliamsnp@gmail.com <mailto:keithwilliamsnp@gmail.com>>
>         a écrit :
>         >
>         >  Objet: Re: [bitfolk] I know I should not take it personally
>         but ...
>         >  À: "BitFolk Users" <users@lists.bitfolk.com
>         <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>>
>         >  Date: Mercredi 10 avril 2019, 1h50
>         >
>         >  It still
>         >  continues, but at a reduced rate. Still no response to my
>         >  email to the abuse mailbox. They have advertised a seminar
>         >  on cybersecurity which is going on round about now. That is
>         >  ironic.
>         >
>         >  On Wed, 10 Apr
>         >  2019 at 00:44, Keith Williams <keithwilliamsnp@gmail.com
>         <mailto:keithwilliamsnp@gmail.com>>
>         >  wrote:
>         >  I was
>         >  just going to say it had stopped, LOL, a 15 minute break,
>         >  then a burst, then a few minutes break. Seems to be slowing
>         >  down but another is giving port 80 a hammering. Because I
>         >  give these blackholes different names I can see the new
>         >  contender is one of the content spammers. Oh well it's
>         >  past midnight here so I will let them get on with their
>         >  games
>         >
>         >  On Tue, 9 Apr 2019
>         >  at 23:03, admins <admins@sheffieldhackspace.org.uk
>         <mailto:admins@sheffieldhackspace.org.uk>>
>         >  wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >      Sounds sensible to me.
>         >      I also blanket ban anyone having a go at SSH simply
>         >  as whilst it
>         >        may start there, it never ends there.
>         >      Sounds like a retarded infestation to me. Most bots
>         >  are not that
>         >        clever in and of themselves, once you have had a
>         >  rummage through
>         >        their code. There have been some clever tricks put
>         >  into coding
>         >        them though.
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >      kirbs
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >      On
>         >  09/04/2019 15:50, Keith Williams
>         >        wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >        Every packet that arrives from them is
>         >  sent to a
>         >          chain by the firewall which logs them and then drops
>         >  them. The
>         >          log records the port they were blocked on.
>         >  That's how I found
>         >          the 7777. I had no idea what it was. I picked them
>         >  up first
>         >          because they hit on 22. that got them put in the
>         >  set. Others in
>         >          the set made a couple of attempts then disappeared.
>         >  There is one
>         >          oyher persistent pest, a well known comment spammer
>         >  that keeps
>         >          coming back and having a go for a while then
>         >  disappearing, then
>         >          just the usual rubbish
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >          On
>         >  Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 22:27,
>         >            Dom Latter <bitfolk-users@latter.org
>         <mailto:bitfolk-users@latter.org>>
>         >            wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >            On 09/04/2019 10:59, Keith Williams wrote:
>         >
>         >            >
>         >
>         >            > On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 17:38, Dom Latter
>         >  <bitfolk-users@latter.org <mailto:bitfolk-users@latter.org>
>         >
>         >
>         >            > <mailto:bitfolk-users@latter.org
>         <mailto:bitfolk-users@latter.org>>>
>         >            wrote:
>         >
>         >            >
>         >
>         >            >     On 09/04/2019 04:44, Keith Williams
>         >  wrote:
>         >
>         >            >      > for at least 24 hours now. They
>         >  go for ports
>         >            22.23.53, 80, 443
>         >
>         >            >     and 7777.
>         >
>         >            >      > That last one is particularly
>         >  nasty.
>         >
>         >            >
>         >
>         >            >     They're (probably) looking for a
>         >  backdoor opened up
>         >            by Windows malware.
>         >
>         >            >
>         >
>         >            >     Why would that concern you?
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >             > It does concern me for a number of
>         >  reasons.
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >            I was particularly referencing 7777 (hence the
>         >  quoted
>         >            context).  You've
>         >
>         >            not got anything on that port, and even if you
>         >  did, it
>         >            wouldn't be
>         >
>         >            compatible.
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >            I don't think I'd even notice an attempt
>         >  to connect to 7777.
>         >
>         >            Because a connection is not made...
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         >
>         >            users mailing list
>         >
>         > users@lists.bitfolk.com <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
>         >
>         > https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         >  users mailing list
>         > users@lists.bitfolk.com <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
>         > https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >  _______________________________________________
>         >
>         >  users mailing list85.119.82.114
>         >
>         > users@lists.bitfolk.com <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
>         >
>         > https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>         >
>         >
>         >  _______________________________________________
>         >  users mailing list
>         > users@lists.bitfolk.com <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
>         > https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>         >
>         >  -----La pièce jointe associée suit-----
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > users mailing list
>         > users@lists.bitfolk.com <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
>         > https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>         --
>         admins@sheffieldhackspace.org.uk
>         <mailto:admins@sheffieldhackspace.org.uk>
>         www.sheffieldhackspace.org.uk
>         <http://www.sheffieldhackspace.org.uk>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         users mailing list
>         users@lists.bitfolk.com <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
>         https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@lists.bitfolk.com
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users


--

Regards,
Jan Henkins


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.bitfolk.com
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users