[Dxspider-support] Some information

[Iain Philipps]

What Keith says is the way forwards.

Dirk has produced an appropriate mechanism for flagging / dealing with unverified spots. It *SHOULD* be responsibility of every sysop to verify those spot(ters) before passing the traffic forwards.

Yeah – it’s not a banking application that requires high security – but just imagine if Google (other providers are available) decided to allow unverified users to send Emails. (YES! I know there are people there  making fake accounts … most like just the same as there are here. But that’s a different issue.

What I don’t get is the reluctance of (some) SysOps (regardless of software platform they’re running on) to deal with this in a responsible way.

I’m done now.



 


73 de WR3D

 

From: Dxspider-support <dxspider-support-bounces at tobit.co.uk> On Behalf Of Keith, G6NHU via Dxspider-support
Sent: 22 February 2025 08:52
To: iz2lsc.andrea at gmail.com; The DXSpider Support list <dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk>
Cc: Keith, G6NHU <g6nhu at me.com>
Subject: Re: [Dxspider-support] Some information

 

This needs to be fixed by the nodes that are not reporting their users, it’s network evolution to maintain security and we need to stop pandering to sysops who won’t update or who are using software that doesn’t properly protect the network.

73 Keith G6NHU

On 22 Feb 2025 at 08:44 +0000, IZ2LSC via Dxspider-support <dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk <mailto:dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk> >, wrote:



I collected the % of unverified spots received by my node in 24 hrs during a normal "peaceful" working day.

This is the result.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wSCPqdDAu4wF0_syKZkzArgCDZ-gxBFK/view?usp=sharing

 

So if we really decide to drop unverified spots (that most of the time are real spots, not fake or forged) we are going to drop a lot of spots.

I can understand this as a countermeasure during an attack.....but not during normal operations.

Just a consideration about the side effects.

 

73

Andrea, iz2lsc

 




-->

 

 

On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 8:07 PM Kin via Dxspider-support <dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk <mailto:dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk> > wrote:

Hi,

I have been analysing how a CC Cluster node behaves with pc9x supposedly
enabled, to see the suspect filtering.

The only thing that seems to work correctly is PC92K, which only reports the
node itself.
The PC92A does not show all user connections and none from a partner.
The PC92D does not show all user disconnections.
The PC92C is not generated.
I don't understand the point of generating some PC92s and not all of them.
I think it would be better not to generate any if you can't generate them
all. This would avoid ambiguities in the network.

It is clear that with incomplete information, a CC Cluster will be greatly
affected by filtering. But the vast majority (if not all - 1) do not use
PC92 like ARC, DXNet and AK1A, all their users' spots will be flagged as
suspicious.

Have a nice weekend.

Kin EA3CV



_______________________________________________
Dxspider-support mailing list
Dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk <mailto:Dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk> 
https://mailman.tobit.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dxspider-support

_______________________________________________
Dxspider-support mailing list
Dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk <mailto:Dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk> 
https://mailman.tobit.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dxspider-support

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.tobit.co.uk/pipermail/dxspider-support/attachments/20250222/a4612d9c/attachment.htm>