[tor-relays] Intrusion Prevention System Software - Snort or Suricata

[pa011]

Me too Markus -could fill a folder with that tax issue :-((
Costing a lot of time to answer and restrict the IPs

Plus my ISP moaning with good reason: "It's not just about you, but you're giving a bad reputation to one /21 and one /22 subnet. That's ~ 3000 IPs which are potentionaly endagered to be marked as source of malicious content / blacklisted / whatever ... so you see, this is quite critical for us."

Am 04.10.2016 um 17:48 schrieb Markus Koch:
> same shit here:
> 
> Dear User,
> We are contacting you because of unusual activity coming from your IP
> address towards the IT infrastructure of the European Commission.
> In specific, since 03/10/2016, IP addresses 95.85.45.159 &
> 104.236.225.19 of Digital Ocean, located in the Netherlands (NL) and
> the USA respectively, have submitted a significantly large number of
> invalid VAT number requests as compared to the total number of
> requests (89,59% & 89,96% respectively) towards VAT numbers from a
> multiple of EU member States (MS) through the VIES on the Web service
> (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/). For more information on
> Invalid VAT number requests please refer to FAQ, questions 7, 11, 12,
> 13 and 20 of the VIES on the WEB site
> (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/faq.html).
> The scope of our team is to monitor on a daily basis the performance
> of the VIES-on-the-Web (VoW) service in order to ensure its
> performance in accordance with the standards agreed upon between EU's
> Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD) and the
> EU Member States.
> Our objective is to secure constant and uninterrupted availability and
> flow of traffic (requests for VAT validation) at all times.
> Under this framework, our team intervenes whenever there is out of the
> ordinary, unusual and potentially suspicious use of the system that
> violates the rules of use as they are stated in the Specific
> disclaimer for this service, which is available at the VoW site
> (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/disclaimer.html).
> Consequently, in order to allow flawless use of the service, we were
> obliged to block the access to VIES on the Web for the IP address
> 88.198.110.130.
> Following our action, we would like to know if you are aware of this
> situation. Furthermore, your cooperation and contribution is necessary
> in order to determine the reason for this occurrence.
> Please inform us if this behaviour is normal and if such, how often it
> should occur; we would then take action to unblock the traffic coming
> from the corresponding IP address assuming you will agree to follow a
> set ITSM VIES/Web Team
> "ITSM2 is a contracted support partner for the IT Service Management
> of the European Commission.
> This e-mail is a reply to your message sent to the
> TAXUD-VIESWEB at ec.europa.eu<mailto:TAXUD-VIESWEB at ec.europa.eu> e-mail.
> Answers provided by the contactor are on behalf and according to
> policy guidelines of DG TAXUD, but not binding for the European
> Commission."
> 
> I am so done with it, I added
> 
> ExitPolicy reject 147.67.136.103 # TAX SPAM
> ExitPolicy reject 147.67.136.21  # TAX SPAM
> ExitPolicy reject 147.67.119.103  # TAX SPAM
> ExitPolicy reject 147.67.119.3  # TAX SPAM
> ExitPolicy reject 147.67.136.3  # TAX SPAM
> ExitPolicy reject 147.67.119.21  # TAX SPAM
> 
> Thats going on for months now and by all means, this is not free speech ...
> 
> Markus.
> 
> 
> 
> 2016-10-04 17:42 GMT+02:00 pa011 <pa011 at web.de>:
>> Am 04.10.2016 um 16:48 schrieb krishna e bera:
>>> On 04/10/16 08:48 AM, pa011 wrote:
>>>> One of my main ISP is going mad with the number of abuses he gets from my Exits (currently most on port 80).
>>>> He asks me to install "Intrusion Prevention System Software" or shutting down the servers.
>>>
>>> You can first ask him for a copy of the complaints in order to
>>> understand what sort of alleged abuses are taking place.  Are the
>>> complaints about spam or scraping or web server exploits or something else?
>>
>> I do get a copy of every complaint - they are unfortunately:
>>
>> - Http browser intrucion  - /var/log/apache2/other_vhosts_access.log:soldierx.com:80 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx - - [30/Sep/2016:11:14:34 -0400] "HEAD / HTTP/1.0" 302 192 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nl; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201Firefox/2.0.0.12"
>>
>> - invalid VAT number requests
>>
>> -recorded connection attempt(s) from your hosts to our honeypots
>>
>> - Issue: Source has attempted the following botnet activity: Semalt Referrer    Spam Tor Exit Bot
>>
>> - botnet drone|Description: Ramnit botnet victim connection to sinkhole details,
>>
>> - attackers used the method/service: *imap*
>>
>>> You can change your exit policy to reduce likelihood of complaints:
>>> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tips-running-exit-node
>>
>> I know, but I hardly like to block port 80
>>
>>>> As far as I understand implementing such a software is not going together with Tor - am I right?
>>>
>>> If your exit nodes tamper with traffic in any way they will be labelled
>>> as Bad Exit. (Tor tries to be net neutral.)
>>> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/badRelays
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tor-relays mailing list
>>> tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
>>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tor-relays mailing list
>> tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>