usefor-usepro-02 December 2004
[< Prev]
[TOC] [ Next >]
8.2.1. Denial of Service
The proper functioning of individual newsgroups can be disrupted by
the massive posting of "noise" articles, by the repeated posting of
identical or near identical articles, by posting followups unrelated
to their precursors, or which quote their precursors in full with the
addition of minimal extra material (especially if this process is
iterated), and by crossposting to, or setting followups to, totally
unrelated newsgroups.
Many have argued that "spam", massively multiposted (and to a lesser
extent massively crossposted) articles, usually for advertising
purposes, also constitutes a DoS attack in its own regard. This may
be so.
Such articles intended to deny service, or other articles of an
inflammatory nature, may also have their From or Reply-To addresses
set to valid but incorrect email addresses, thus causing large
volumes of email to descend on the true owners of those addresses.
Similar effects could be caused by any email header which could cause
every reading agent receiving it to take some externally visible
action. For example, the Disposition-Notification-To-header defined
in [RFC 2298] could cause huge numbers of acknowledgements to be
emailed to an unsuspecting third party (for which reason [RFC 2298]
declares that that header SHOULD NOT be used in Netnews).
It is a violation of this standard for a poster to use as his address
a mailbox which he is not entitled to use. Even addresses with an
invalid local-part but a valid domain can cause disruption to the
administrators of such domains. Posters who wish to remain anonymous
or to prevent automated harvesting of their addresses, but who do not
care to take the additional precautions of using more sophisticated
anonymity measures, should avoid that violation by the use of
addresses ending in the ".invalid" top-level-domain (see 7.5).
A malicious poster may also prevent his article being seen at a
particular site by preloading that site into the Path-header (a-
5.6.1) and may thus prevent the true owner of a forged From or
Reply-To address from ever seeing it.
A malicious complainer may submit a modified copy of an article (e.g.
with an altered Injection-Info-header) to the administrator of an
injecting agent in an attempt to discredit the author of that article
and even to have his posting privileges removed. Administrators
should therefore obtain a genuine copy of the article from their own
serving agent before taking such precipitate action.
Administrative agencies with responsibility for establishing policies
in particular hierarchies can and should set bounds upon the
behaviour that is considered acceptable within those hierarchies (for
example by promulgating charters for individual newsgroups, and other
codes of conduct).
Whilst this standard places an onus upon injecting agents to bear
responsibility for the misdemeanours of their posters (which includes
non-adherence to established policies of the relevant hierarchies as
provided in section 7.2), and to provide assistance to the rest of
the network by making proper use of the Injection-Info- (a-6.19) and
Complaints-To- (a-6.20) headers, it makes no provision for
enforcement, which may in consequence be patchy. Nevertheless,
injecting sites which persistently fail to honour their
responsibilities or to comply with generally accepted standards of
behaviour are likely to find themselves blacklisted, with their
articles refused propagation and even subject to cancellation, and
other relaying sites would be well advised to withdraw peering
arrangements from them.
[< Prev]
[TOC] [ Next >]
#Diff to first older
--- ../usefor-usepro-01/Denial_of_Service.out September 2004
+++ ../usefor-usepro-02/Denial_of_Service.out December 2004
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
or to prevent automated harvesting of their addresses, but who do not
care to take the additional precautions of using more sophisticated
anonymity measures, should avoid that violation by the use of
- addresses ending in the ".invalid" top-level-domain (see a-5.2).
+ addresses ending in the ".invalid" top-level-domain (see 7.5).
A malicious poster may also prevent his article being seen at a
particular site by preloading that site into the Path-header (a-
@@ -51,8 +51,6 @@
behaviour that is considered acceptable within those hierarchies (for
example by promulgating charters for individual newsgroups, and other
codes of conduct).
-
-
Whilst this standard places an onus upon injecting agents to bear
responsibility for the misdemeanours of their posters (which includes