[101124] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Tue Dec 18 10:54:24 2007
From: "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawg@netzero.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:49:18 GMT
To: morrowc.lists@gmail.com
Cc: smb@cs.columbia.edu, Sean.Siler@microsoft.com, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- -- "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 17, 2007 9:59 PM, Paul Ferguson <fergdawg@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>> And in fact, "threat propagation" in a v6 world may actually
>> be worse than expected, and naivet=E9 may actually contribute to
>> a larger-scale attack, given the statistical possibility of
>> potentially more victims.
>
>
>naivete because folks believe the 'v6 is more secure' propoganda? or
>some other reason?
Yes. :-)
>> Address space size, and proximity, may well be red herrings in
>> this discussion.
>
>can you expand on this some?
Someone else mentioned "self-infliction" in this thread, and that's
spot on.
Over the course of the past year or more, we've seen less & less
"scanning & self-propagating" malware, and more & more self-infliction,
either by being duped via social engineering or just by drive-by
infections/compromises.
As it stands, now -- and unless the pendulum swings the other way --
the whole "...v6 address space is larger, thus it is much harder to
scan and thus propagation of worms is much harder..." train of thought
is completely misguided.
- - ferg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017)
wj8DBQFHZ+v6q1pz9mNUZTMRAviAAKC1z/Q0m1xzFmSkah5WL8xrbD/cEgCfaKgi
xQHKSq8Tx8D5JEv6ObrGVoQ=3D
=3DmdeP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
fergdawg(at)netzero.net
ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
