nanog mailing list archives
Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135?
From: Justin Shore <listuser () numbnuts net>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:07:24 -0500 (CDT)
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
The credit cards in our case were legit. They were different numbers, but they were not stolen.
That would make a difference. The credit card companies probably wouldn't care if you told them that the cards were being used by their customer for illegal activity. Stolen, maybe. Anything else they could probably care less about.
They are usuaully fairly responsive when it comes to them loosing money. Secondly after I contacted the local police, state BI, and perhaps the FBI (assuming no luck could be had with any of them)I am in Canada, but I know that it has been stated that the FBI will not investigate computer fraud if damage is under $100,000.
I didn't realize you were in Canada. That makes a difference. The dollar amount with the FBI varies widely. I've heard over $5,000, $25,000, $50,000, now $100,000. I don't think there's a hard set rule. I think it basically boils down to the old fashioned will-it-get-us-good-PR-with-little-or-not-work rule of thumb. :)
I doubt a porn company with international clientele would give a toss about what the local media say.
Local media would have been useful not against the spammers but against the local lw enforcement that refuses to do anything about it. Since however your local law enforncement can't do much about (international borders et al) then the local media wouldn't really care.
Local government has nothing to do with it. It was just some dime a dozen porn company.
Ditto for what I said above. The part about being in Canada changes things considerably from what I was assuming. I must have missed that earlier. Still it's worked in the past in other circumstances so the practice is fairly sound. It just won't work in your case. My only other advice would involve what's suggested in man 8 syslogd under "SECURITY THREATS," option number 5. Best of luck. Justin
Current thread:
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135?, (continued)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? John Kristoff (Sep 21)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Justin Shore (Sep 20)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? jlewis (Sep 20)
- Message not available
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Mike Tancsa (Sep 21)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Justin Shore (Sep 21)
- Message not available
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Mike Tancsa (Sep 23)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Jack Bates (Sep 23)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Mike Tancsa (Sep 23)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Jack Bates (Sep 23)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Mike Tancsa (Sep 23)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Justin Shore (Sep 23)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Owen DeLong (Sep 21)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 21)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Petri Helenius (Sep 21)
- Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? Jack Bates (Sep 19)