Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dice 2939 days ago
>Usually

If only...

BCP 38[0] is nowhere near usual. Lots of networks, including some very problematic big ones (cough Hurricane Electric cough), do not implement it as a matter of course. The AWS Route53 hijack last month which resulted in downtime for a number of sites plus a six figure coin theft[1] could have been prevented by adequate filtering.

0: https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38

1: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/suspi...

2 comments

Could one argue for tort/negligence against the ISP who should have filtered, but didn't, if one's coins were stolen through that? Or even possibly the same, but in criminal court?
I doubt it, since the argument you're suggesting is that the ISP didn't take the best possible care, whereas the standard for negligence is, I believe (IANAL), reasonable care.

They may also not even have a duty of care in the first place, as to the truth of any metadata they're passing on. As a sibling comment pointed out, it's not as if there are laws for this.

Just as with the discussion about hackable routers yesterday, there are no laws for this.
Uhm, BCP38 is about forwarding, not the BGP control plane