http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,10394549^15306^^nbv^,00.html
2004-08-10 (via InfoAnarchy)
"Pipe has applied for a patent for its method of blocking access to
deceptive websites linked to fraudulent emails that direct users to
fake bank websites to capture bank account and password details.
[..]
"Pipe Networks managing director Bevan Slattery said Pipe had been
testing a method of enabling banks, ISPs and law enforcement agencies
to notify Pipe of new phishing emails.
"Pipe could then distribute updated internet routing information to ISPs
via the border gateway protocol, so internet users could not reach the
fraudulent website."
The implications of this are scary. Hijacking of IP space by a private
company, supported by the government?
-- Niels.
We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending on the date they filed, prior art exists well documented.
(blueprints obviously predate running code)
Pete
Niels Bakker wrote:
The implications of this are scary. Hijacking of IP space by
a private company, supported by the government?
Niels,
The UK government have looked at this as a possibility to
use this non-technology as away for the banks to advise
ISP's about false bank logon schemes "phishing sites".
The UK industry lead by the members of the London Internet
Exchange responded with a paper outlining how this non-solution
was fatally flawed and would actually not resolve this problem
at all, and actually give a false sense of security. The UK
government has since agreed with the industry and is working
on other possible solutions, like the banks solving their
own problem with token like technologies etc, rather than let
us poor operators solve their problems for them.
I hope this "non-technology" gets the patent it deserves!
Regards,
Neil.
everyone has gone patent crazy, every time a new concept is developed some
company applies for patent. is this the future or rfcs then?
Steve
Well if it will harm the community, would it be
possible to auto copyright rfc's, so that the authors
of a concept can prevent someone from sipping their
effort off?
Ignorance at the top doesn't mean we can't be like
always leading the way......
-Henry
--- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
wrote:
http://www.linx.net/papers/blocking/Blackhole%20Policy%20Announcement%20Serv
ice%20-%20LINX%20position%20paper%20FINAL.pdf
Is the paper for those who are interested. Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net>
did a lot of the good work on this paper.
Regards,
Neil.
I Wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Just to set the history straight - so it is on the record. RTBH -
Remote Triggered Black Hole filtering reemerged as a key security
reaction tool when two things happened:
1. When Chris Morrow and Brian Gemberling shared their Backscatter
Traceback technique with the world.
http://www.secsup.org/Tracking/
2. When we - Cisco - created uRPF Loose Check to allow for source
based RTBH
(see attached for lots of my links)
My first use of RTBH - what Pipe is saying they invented - was back
in 1991 to stop an attack on a network I was operating. It was a
technique taught to me from someone at JVNCnet. I'm not sure who that
person was - but Steve Johnson - who worked at JVNCnet at that time
and was later my boss confirmed that they were using RTBH every now
and then.
Also note that at least one of the anti-SPAM solutions have used RTBH
for years. MAPS (http://www.mail-abuse.com/) started in 1996.
So it really surprises me that "Pipe has applied for a patent."
SP Security Links.txt (6.8 KB)
this happens today in many countries....
1) france and the 'yahoo nazi site'
2) state of PA (usa) and child porn sites
3) panama and blocking of VOIP traffic
there are quite a few more, and yes, it's not too pretty ;(
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
this happens today in many countries....
1) france and the 'yahoo nazi site'
2) state of PA (usa) and child porn sites
3) panama and blocking of VOIP traffic
there are quite a few more, and yes, it's not too pretty ;(
Prof Jonathan Zittrain and Ben Edelman at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society have documented several such instances at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/ - Ben has presented at at least some netops conferences about this as well.
suresh
Petri Helenius wrote:
We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending on the date they filed, prior art exists well documented.
(blueprints obviously predate running code)
You have to be aware that the Australian Patent System is of declaratory
nature only. Anyone can claim anything in an patent application. There
is no check on the content done by the patent office. Only the general
formal outline of an patent application has to be fulfilled.
If you remember the very old story on Slashdot where some guy in Australia
managed to secure a patent on a "circular transportation device" (a.k.a.
"Wheel") it will explain many things... 
Essentially any Australian Patent is worthless and the owner needs to
establish its validity in court first before infringement stuff starts.
However a patent might come in handy if the owner wants to prevent someone
else from importing a device that "violates" his patent.
We have basically the same situation in Switzerland. Pretty crappy. Although
prior art occurs very fast. Anything known to the public (more than two people
outsite of your company) before the date of filing is considered prior art.
Even patents in flight while you file your patent establish prior art. So
patenting anything that can be found in any mailing list archive, posting
or whatever with a date prior to your filing sinks your patent if you go to
court. (Which is unlike the US system where you have up to twelve month from
disclosing to filing your patent application).
Conclusion: Just ignore any Australian Patent. It needs to be validated by
a court first (which is highly unlikely considering the substantial prior
art).
This sounds far saner than the approach used in US and over here. Patents are examined before they're granting, but still any old crap gets through, and once granted, AIUI, the patents have the presumption of validity and are very hard to knock down.
So at least under the Australian system you recognise that patents arent worth much if only the patent office has examined them, presumably they're not presumed valid on first litigation either? Hence making the crap-flood of patents less of a problem?
Ie, it sounds like au. and ch. are sane, compared to the insane system in some of rest of 1st world, rather than other way around as you claim.
PS: How do the pending trade treaties between US and AU affect things? Will AU get "presumed-valid and very hard to defeat" for the patent cruddage that are granted everywhere else?
regards,
one issue with that might be that the patents are taken out on variations of the
core idea, imho the variations are not new ideas but legally they seem to get
away with it
Steve
Hi!
> We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending on the
> date they filed, prior art exists well documented. (blueprints obviously
> predate running code)
everyone has gone patent crazy, every time a new concept is developed some
company applies for patent. is this the future or rfcs then?
I didnt read the papers, perhaps i should, but as it sounds this is
something for example mail-abuse allready does for years.
http://www.pch.net/documents/tutorials/maps-rbl-bgp-cisco-config-faq.html
http://www.dotcomeon.com/invisible_hand.html
Can anyone point me to some docs of this new project, or does it basicly
do the same thing?
Bye,
Raymond.
ok so then in the copyright let us see if can cover
all variations of the original concept as belonging to
the original author or author's as a test case for
adaption and modificaiton to copyright law. I strongly
believe in the protection of original idea's in
reference to rfc's
-Henry
--- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
wrote:
> We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending on the
> date they filed, prior art exists well documented. (blueprints obviously
> predate running code)
everyone has gone patent crazy, every time a new concept is developed some
company applies for patent. is this the future or rfcs then?
No. This should be the future for patent hijacks:
http://freepatentsonline.com/6293874.html
-Hank
One would have to conclude since it is the behavior of
the present. that it shall not subside anytime soon.
Ir was a wonderful time on the internet when we still
had trust and respect for each other's endeaver, now
we
will have to collaborate to get things done with legal
shields, we can all thank Washington for the mess they
have created and in particular RIAA which has brought
this kind of problem to everyone.
-Henry