[129327] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP port blocking practice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Thu Sep 2 22:20:25 2010
In-Reply-To: <FB9CAEF7-5C05-472E-B1DD-6E814380EDD0@umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:50:01 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
To: Zhiyun Qian <zhiyunq@umich.edu>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
BCP38 / RFC2827 were created specifically to address some quite
similar problems. And googling either of those two strings on nanog
will get you a lot of griping and/or reasons as to why these aren't
being more widely adopted :)
--srs
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Zhiyun Qian <zhiyunq@umich.edu> wrote:
> Suresh, thanks for your interest. I see you've had a lot of experience in=
fighting spam, so you must have known this. Yes, I know this spamming tech=
nique has been around for a while. But it's surprising to see that the majo=
rity of the ISPs that we studied are still vulnerable to this attack. =C2=
=A0That probably indicates that it is not as widely known as we would expec=
t. So I thought it would be beneficial to raise the awareness of the proble=
m.
>
> In terms of more results, the paper is the most detailed document we have=
. Otherwise, if you interested in the data that we collected (which ISPs or=
IP ranges are vulnerable to this attack). We can chat offline.
>
> Regards.
> -Zhiyun
