Sorry about the excessive headers, that's a user error. Silly me! I'll
go to my room and think about what I have done. Sorry!
__
/ony
-------
Friday, December 7, 2012, 9:52:51 AM, Tony wrote:
I think it is an excellent idea Andy!
If the volume is low (as your later post suggests), personally I se no
need to create yet another e-mail list for this. A subject line
starting with a tag like [general security alert] would probably help
people like me. Where the word "general" is the key. If I receive an
e-mail saying [security alert] or such it would require immediate
attention, whilst a general security alert is of a slightly lesser
urgency . But that's just semantics. I'd be happy with whatever
solution you come up with. This kind of info is, just like you write,
quite interesting and enlightening.
Cheers,
__
/ony
-------
Friday, December 7, 2012, 2:19:42 AM, Andy wrote:
> Return-Path:
> <users-bounces+bitfolklist=tony-andersson.com(a)lists.bitfolk.com>
> X-Original-To: BitFolkList(a)tony-andersson.com
> Delivered-To: BitFolkList(a)tony-andersson.com
> Received: by
tony-andersson.com (Postfix, from userid 500)
> id F090B24008; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 02:19:46 +0000 (GMT)
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
>
spamd3.lon.bitfolk.com
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-ASN:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT
> shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
> X-Spam-Report:
> * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a shortcircuited rule
> * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
> Received: from
mail.bitfolk.com (
bitfolk.com [85.119.80.223])
> by
tony-andersson.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDB5524007
> for <BitFolkList(a)tony-andersson.com>om>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 02:19:46 +0000
(GMT)
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=bitfolk.com;
s=alpha;
>
>
h=Sender:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Subject:MIME-Version:Message-ID:To:From:Date;
> bh=vRbIloMoG9gJ141i3a7pQTJwQvEPRJCMNXFddRhCqVw=;
>
>
b=NxPuc0+iwzaEN71o7gWpkatFlLBIa6VbsG3NyqWcaNeYmSPICkTDeE7lSNBNxJTkYf6Qjd5aA7LejgILtndux+t/cLXeYgjQpCIVUBp1/19AkTs9HrWRPAUWF6cDYGv6;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]
helo=bitfolk.com)
> by
mail.bitfolk.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
> (envelope-from
> <users-bounces+bitfolklist=tony-andersson.com(a)lists.bitfolk.com>)
> id 1TgnXW-0001Mr-K4
> for BitFolkList(a)tony-andersson.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 02:19:46 +0000
> Received: from andy by
mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.72)
> (envelope-from <andy(a)bitfolk.com>) id 1TgnXS-0001Lk-6E
> for users(a)lists.bitfolk.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 02:19:42 +0000
> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 02:19:42 +0000
> From: Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com>
> To: users(a)lists.bitfolk.com
> Message-ID: <20121207021942.GT3867(a)bitfolk.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> OpenPGP: id=BF15490B;
url=http://strugglers.net/~andy/pubkey.asc
> X-URL:
http://strugglers.net/wiki/User:Andy
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
> X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on
mail.bitfolk.com at Fri,
> 07 Dec 2012 02:19:42 +0000
> Subject: [bitfolk] Proposal: Security incidents postings
> X-BeenThere: users(a)lists.bitfolk.com
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
> Precedence: list
> List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
> <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
> List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
> List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
> <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1702776325=="
> Sender: users-bounces+bitfolklist=tony-andersson.com(a)lists.bitfolk.com
> Errors-To:
> users-bounces+bitfolklist=tony-andersson.com(a)lists.bitfolk.com
> X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on
mail.bitfolk.com at Fri, 07 Dec 2012 02:19:46
+0000
> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
> X-SA-Exim-Mail-From:
> users-bounces+bitfolklist=tony-andersson.com(a)lists.bitfolk.com
> X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on
mail.bitfolk.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
> Hello,
> From time to time BitFolk customer VPSes
occasionally become subject
> to various kinds of compromise. Frustratingly, the kinds of
> compromise encountered are generally the result of run of the mill,
> completely preventable and unremarkable root causes.
> I would like to find a way to raise awareness of
these very simple
> security concerns amongst the customer base, in order to hopefully
> cut down on how often they happen.
> I was thinking that if customers saw how often
these things happen
> to people very much like themselves then it might help remove some
> of the "yeah I've heard of that but it will never happen to me"
> mindset that we all regrettably can fall into.
> So I was contemplating posting an email thread to
this ("users")
> list every time we become aware of a customer compromise, and I was
> wondering what you thought of that idea.
> It might look something like this:
> Today at around 04:30 we became aware of a
customer VPS
> initiating an abnormal amount of outbound SSH connections (~200
> per second). The VPS's network access was suspended and customer
> contacted.
> It was later determined that a user account on
the VPS had been
> accessed starting 3 days ago, via an SSH dictionary attack. The
> attacker installed another copy of the SSH dictionary attack
> software and set it going. We do not believe that root access
> was obtained.
> The amount of detail would vary because we may
only become aware of
> a compromise when the customer's VPS itself starts perpetrating
> abusive activity, and then we rely on the customer to investigate
> why that is.
> If the customer is unable/unwilling to do this
then we may never
> know why their VPS began misbehaving. We don't examine customer data
> unless given permission to do so, and even then this is often too
> time-consuming to undertake on an unpaid basis. I would consider the
> above an example of the maximum amount of detail we would go into.
> No identifying information regarding the affected
customer would be
> shared. We already share non-identifying information similar to the
> above to peers within the industry to aid deterrence and detection
> of future abuses.
> Would this sort of posting be welcomed or would it
be unwelcome
> noise? If the consensus is that it would be unwelcome noise then I
> may create a new list specifically for it, but I would rather not do
> so as then that is just another list that we have to raise awareness
> of.
> Please also note that those with an extremely low
tolerance for
> email noise may wish to quit this list and instead join the
> "announce" list, as it contains only announcements from BitFolk with
> no customer discussion whatsoever:
> (just 19 threads this year)
> Thoughts?
> Cheers,
> Andy
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users(a)lists.bitfolk.com
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users