[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Proposed additional text, section 5, following line 345

[Joe St Sauver <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lines 343-345 on page 16 of the draft read:

   'This difficulty appears to be responsible for the persistent 
   disagreement within the WG concerning the extent to which
   "fast flux" is or is not a culpable element of "malicious
   behavior" (which itself remains a poorly-defined term).'

I propose adding the following text immediately after line 345:

   "Some in the working group would point to the way in which
   fast flux nodes are created as prima-facie evidence of 
   fast flux techniques constituting malicious behavior. Recall 
   that fast flux nodes are created by compromising hosts with 
   malicious software installed without the knowledge or consent 
   of the system's operator/owner.

   "With respect to malicious behaviors enabled by fast flux,
   one non-subjective definition of 'malicious behavior' would
   be, 'Activities which are illegal under the laws or 
   regulations of a country having jurisdiction over the 
   the activity in question.' For example, in the United States,
   malicious activities enabled by fastflux might include, among 
   other things:

   -- Cyber intrusions/unauthorized access to computers and networks
   -- Phishing (forgery and social engineering attacks meant to 
      induce users to reveal sensitive financial credentials)
   -- Carding (trading and misuse of credit card numbers and other 
      financial credentials)
   -- Distribution of viruses or other malware
   -- Distribution of child pornography
   -- Distribution of narcotics or other scheduled controlled 
      substances without a valid prescription
   -- Distribution of knockoff/counterfeit versions of trademarked
      or copyrighted property such as watches, purses, computer 
      software, movies or music"

Regards,

Joe

Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own