[AusNOG] census issues tonight

[Robert Hudson]

I'm not saying that it has been hacked/compromised/etc.  I'm saying we
don't know that it hasn't been.

That's the thing about hacking.  It isn't always visible.  Any claim that
data is OK, or hasn't been compromised, or manipulated or stolen, or even
deleted, are not easily provable, if at all in some cases.  The best claim
that can be made is "To our knowledge, the data is OK".

Unfortunately, the people who would currently be making that claim have
strong, recent evidence of other claims that they've made being patently
false.  At best, we have some serious incompetence involved.  If they're
actively lying about things now (and there's mounting evidence that they
may be doing so), then you can add "completely untrustworthy" to the list
of accusations that can fairly be leveled at them.

And then, once they've proven they can't be trusted, how can we possibly
trust their claims that the data is all OK, when the only evidence we have
to that point is their own comments?

On 10 August 2016 at 10:54, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:

>
> In message <CAOu9xNLxFoiLeK_pe5p=WoBLkq29rEUOJEFmmsknV2MBUwfhPA at mail.
> gmail.com>, Robert Hudson writes:
> > Why is it safe to say that the stored data is OK? What evidence do we
> have
> > to support that belief?
>
> What evidence do you have that it is compromised?  We have a reported
> DoS attack.  The public does understand the difference between a
> data breach and a denial of service attack.
>
> Submitting via paper doesn't make the data safer and it introduces
> transcription errors.  The ABS still needs to protect the data
> regardless of the submission method.
>
> Mark
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20160810/9619a536/attachment.html>