DMCA notice and deactivation

    • Neu

    Hi,

    We received an abuse notice yesterday PAST working hours via netcup to content on our server that was already removed BEFORE the abuse notice was forwarded to us by netcup.

    And since it was past working hours, we didn't have time to respond to the abuse notice within 24 hours.

    Now, our server got deactivated even though the content was already removed, and for some weird reason they have this policy where the server can now only be unblocked by requesting a maintenance window.


    And guess what? A maintenance window can only be requested during business hours, on business days. So you do have time to forward an abusive notice outside of business hours, and also have time to deactivate my server outside of business hours, but don't have the time to review my case and unsuspend the server outside of business hours?

    How does that make sense? My business will now be offline until Monday and I'm going to lose a lot of money in this...

    • Neu
    Zitat von abdxl

    checking the legitimacy of these DMCA notices

    You mentioned that the

    Zitat von abdxl

    content was already removed

    That doesn't sound like a completely illegitimate DMCA notice. Netcup assumes liability if they don't take infringing content offline. By accepting the terms and conditions, you agree to indemnify Netcup for costs that result from violations. That could easily become more expensive than a short outage. I hope you can see that, as damaging and irritating the incident is to you, Netcup chose the least risky path for them and for you. This "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to handling DMCA notices was already a major concern when the DMCA was enacted almost 30 years ago. If high availability is a requirement to you, consider diluting the risk by having at least one failover host (normally invisible to protect it from falling victim to the same "attack") in a different location.

    • Neu
    Zitat von NaN

    You mentioned that the

    That doesn't sound like a completely illegitimate DMCA notice. Netcup assumes liability if they don't take infringing content offline. By accepting the terms and conditions, you agree to indemnify Netcup for costs that result from violations. That could easily become more expensive than a short outage. I hope you can see that, as damaging and irritating the incident is to you, Netcup chose the least risky path for them and for you. This "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to handling DMCA notices was already a major concern when the DMCA was enacted almost 30 years ago. If high availability is a requirement to you, consider diluting the risk by having at least one failover host (normally invisible to protect it from falling victim to the same "attack") in a different location.

    You completely missed the point of my post. You focused too much on one comment, when the main point of the post was how netcup forwards and processes dmca requests outside of business hours, and suspends servers outside of business hours and business days, but they don't reply to our responses outside of business hours and days.

    And also how they suspended the server without even checking if the content was actually removed or not, which it was.

    • Neu

    Netcup does offer support outside of normal business hours. See "Emergency Support" at the bottom of this page. The emergency support is billed extra though, if the issue is caused by something in your responsibility. Netcup promises to be lenient, but I would not expect that dealing with a DMCA conflict beyond the legally required takedown action is something that Netcup wants to deal with for free outside of office hours.

    Zitat von abdxl

    And also how they suspended the server without even checking if the content was actually removed or not, which it was.

    That's a fundamental issue with the DMCA and the liability risks it imposes on hosters, and has been for the better part of 30 years. It's not going to change just because it affects you now.

    • Neu
    Zitat von NaN

    That's a fundamental issue with the DMCA and the liability risks it imposes on hosters, and has been for the better part of 30 years. It's not going to change just because it affects you now.

    This is simply not true, the red H first manually checks if the content was removed or not, and only if after the 2nd request the content is still not removed, they suspend the server temporarily.

    Not only that, but they force it into the rescue system, so you have time outside of business hours to remove the content in case it's still there.

    Oh and on top of that, they respond 24/7, not just during business hours. Because that's the normal thing to do in a hosting business. These are crucial services that are expected to be running 24/7.

    So your logic is not only flawed, it's completely false. It has nothing to do with DMCA and fundamentals.

    • Neu

    The fundamental issue is that not taking content offline creates a liability issue. Different hosters deal with this liability risk in different ways. It appears there are others who deal with DMCA notices more to your liking. The higher prices may be worth it to you, but that's a matter of preference.

    Anyway, how often do you get DMCA takedown notices and are they all for infringing content after you've already removed it? Are you aware that serving copyright infringing content before, after or without a DMCA takedown notice is also a terms and conditions violation?

    • Neu
    Zitat von friend_of_root

    It is an unfortunate workflow that I am also weary of, but it is mostly the same with other hosts.
    How do you loose money within these 2 days?

    Our clients host with us, on these servers. Their ecommerce is down, which costs them money, and naturally, after the multiple downtimes that Netcup has had the past month, they're very likely to leave us after this incident.

    Other hosts would at least have 24/7 support for this, and not 9-5 and only 5 days a week. Like seriously, don't send forward us a DMCA notice outside of your business hours if you won't be able to even be there when we respond to it.

    • Neu
    Zitat von abdxl

    Our clients host with us, on these servers. Their ecommerce is down, which costs them money, and naturally, after the multiple downtimes that Netcup has had the past month, they're very likely to leave us after this incident

    I understand, well if you were the devops you could use cloud load balancers in front. But that is not always the option.

    Unfortunate truth is that your reaction time over the weekend was too weak to be able to deal with those notices. You have to be much more responsive when you get a notice.

    Also it is likely that the problem that got that content on your page is still there and will be exploited again.

    • Neu
    Zitat von ASS

    Jooo, et ess a kreitz...

    Aber Unbestreitbar ist auch, dass es weitaus kundenfreundlichere Lösungen gäbe...

    Interessant wäre eine Lösung unter Verwendung der neuen Firewall:
    Bei einem Problem den Server isolieren und nur auf die eine hinterlegte Adminowner IP und eine Netcup IP locken.
    Der Adminowner kann dann sofort das System bereinigen, keine Anfrage notwendig, kein Rettungssystem.
    Es können dann keine Emails rausgehen, ein Script eines Hackers verliert die Verbindung für Remotezugriff.
    Die Freischaltung könnte dann automatisiert erfolgen via KI Check über die Netcup IP, ob die Inhalte da sind und natürlich was die Maßnahmen und der Report des Kunden war.
    Bei wiederholtem Auftreten innerhalb eines Zeitraumes wird dann nur mehr manuell freigeschalten.
    Dies würde den Supportaufwand Minimieren und auch den Stress und die Downtime.

    z.B. kann man ja Inhalte bei einer Sperrung nicht auf einen anderen Server übersiedeln.
    Man hat keinen Zugriff. Rettungssystem kriegt man nur eine begrenzte Zeit (ich glaube 2 Stunden).
    Und der Upload Download ist gedrosselt. Snapshots gehen nicht mehr.
    Das ist natürlich extrem blöd.

    Man kann natürlich den KI Check hier auchweglassen und nur manuell arbeiten. Ich glaube einfach, dass es ohne Sperren gehen kann.

    • Neu
    Zitat von ASS

    Man muss aber auch einen absichtichen Missbrauch mit absichern...

    Immer vom Betreiber als Opfer auszugehn, ist zu kurz gedacht...

    Da hast du recht, es muss wirklich so aufgezogen sein, um dies zu berücksichtigen.

    In meiner Vorstellung wäre ein nicht für den Kunden veränderbares Firewallsetting, welches Rein und Raus komplett schließt, bis auf eine IP (plus die von Netcup für den Test) hier trotzdem eine Lösung.

    Wenn nur die Owner IP möglich ist, kann er auch nicht mehr mit der Umwelt agieren. Er könnte nur Mining machen, aber das ist ja ein anderer Fall.
    Der Grund des Abuses ist Netcup ja meist beim Sperren bekannt: DMCA, Spam Content, Mailspam, gehackte Wordpressseiten. Mining würde anders auffallen.

    • Neu

    Im vorliegenden Fall geht es wahrscheinlich:
    - um Shops mit Produkten (Fake-...), die Markenrechte verletzen
    - gehackte Websoftware, eg. woocommerce auf wordpress wäre so ein Kandidat
    - oder um Kommentarspam mit solchen Inhalten.

    Die erste Option wäre zwar absichtlicher oder geduldeter Missbrauch, aber es würde durch eine Sperre mit IP-Lock gut zu handeln sein.
    Die anderen Optionen sind Hacks, an denen man besser früher als später arbeiten darf, um diese zu fixen/umzuziehen, um wieder online zu kommen.

    • Neu

    To the OP.. We also do not like the way this is handled right now. It can become a trap if you have important projects on the server.
    What cannot be changed is that they have to get the server offline in specific cases. However, there is room for improvement.