[127835] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: On another security note... (of sorts)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Fri Jul 16 03:50:00 2010
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:49:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <12382.1279217019@localhost>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:46:24 EDT, "J. Oquendo" said:
>> RFP anyone.. Botnet Mitigation for Networks surely collectively it would
>> and CAN work.
>
> A nice idea, but consider if a more automated tool/system was created to
> behead a botnet (50,000 null0 routes to blackhole all the nodes? Or accept
> collateral damage? etc). Now consider that jujutsu is designed around using
> the opponent's energy against him.
>
> How can this possibly go wrong? :)
Damned if they do, Damned if they don't.
It seems like every 4-6 weeks people alternate between ISPs are bad
because they don't try to prevent X, Y or Z; and then 4-6 weeks later
ISPs are bad because they tried to prevent A, B or C. It doesn't matter
what A, B, C or X, Y, Z are; it must be the ISPs fault.
Everyone agrees that ISPs are bad, they just disagree about what ISPs
are supposed to do about whatever.
And so it goes...
