CgNAT: Difference between revisions
m Added the source for ISP selling static IPs |
m added page reference for the study |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Law enforcement agencies find it harder to identify criminals behind an IPv4 address used by thousands of people. As a result the agency may have to tap connections of all users sharing that address to identify the criminal. <ref>{{Cite web |last=European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) |date=17 Oct 2017 |title=Are you sharing the same IP address as a criminal? Law enforcement call for the end of Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) to increase accountability online |url=https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/are-you-sharing-same-ip-address-criminal-law-enforcement-call-for-end-of-carrier-grade-nat-cgn-to-increase-accountability-online |website=europol.europa.eu}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Gözükara |first=Furkan |date=8 Nov 2021 |title=Challenges and possible severe legal consequences of application users identification from CNG-Logs |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2666281721002377 |website=sciencedirect.com}}</ref> | Law enforcement agencies find it harder to identify criminals behind an IPv4 address used by thousands of people. As a result the agency may have to tap connections of all users sharing that address to identify the criminal. <ref>{{Cite web |last=European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) |date=17 Oct 2017 |title=Are you sharing the same IP address as a criminal? Law enforcement call for the end of Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) to increase accountability online |url=https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/are-you-sharing-same-ip-address-criminal-law-enforcement-call-for-end-of-carrier-grade-nat-cgn-to-increase-accountability-online |website=europol.europa.eu}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Gözükara |first=Furkan |date=8 Nov 2021 |title=Challenges and possible severe legal consequences of application users identification from CNG-Logs |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2666281721002377 |website=sciencedirect.com}}</ref> | ||
A 2016 survey conducted by the European Cybercrime Centre revealed that 90% of EU Member State cyber divisions regularly encountered errors related to CGNAT technologies during investigations, sometimes forcing them to discontinue cases or employ more resource-intensive approaches. <ref>{{Cite web |last=European Police Office (Europol) |title=IOCTA 2016 INTERNET ORGANISED CRIME THREAT ASSESSMENT |url=https://www.europol.europa.eu/iocta/2016/resources/iocta-2016.pdf |website=europol.europa.eu}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> | A 2016 survey conducted by the European Cybercrime Centre revealed that 90% of EU Member State cyber divisions regularly encountered errors related to CGNAT technologies during investigations, sometimes forcing them to discontinue cases or employ more resource-intensive approaches. <ref>{{Cite web |last=European Police Office (Europol) |first=page 57-58 |title=IOCTA 2016 INTERNET ORGANISED CRIME THREAT ASSESSMENT |url=https://www.europol.europa.eu/iocta/2016/resources/iocta-2016.pdf |website=europol.europa.eu}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> | ||
The process of reverse-tracking from cgNAT logs is fundamentally flawed. In criminal cases where cgNAT logs are used as primary evidence, there exists significant potential for misidentification, as the same public IP address and port combination might be reassigned to different users within a very short time. <ref name=":0" /> | The process of reverse-tracking from cgNAT logs is fundamentally flawed. In criminal cases where cgNAT logs are used as primary evidence, there exists significant potential for misidentification, as the same public IP address and port combination might be reassigned to different users within a very short time. <ref name=":0" /> | ||