[163894] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: This is a coordinated hacking. (Was Re: Need help in flushing DNS)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ryan - Lists)
Thu Jun 20 17:53:24 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAAycvn1n8_BOxR7oxbD1VrsWaJKfrgDW3HPMKnQhFYO_heYbQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryan - Lists <rlambert.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:51:17 -0400
To: RijilV <rijilv@riji.lv>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I don't think he was saying that at all. Just stating that from a pure numbe=
rs standpoint 50k/140mil is a small percentage.
OTOH, I agree to your point - Network Solutions definitely downplayed this i=
n their release. Curiously so.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:42 PM, RijilV <rijilv@riji.lv> wrote:
> On 20 June 2013 14:28, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>=20
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:08:18 -0700, Jeff Shultz said:
>>=20
>>> "small number of Network Solutions customers"
>>>=20
>>> They must be staffed with physicists, astronomers, or economists.... I
>>> don't know anyone else that would consider "nearly fifty thousand" (from=
>>> a previous post by Phil Fagan) to be a small number.
>>=20
>> It's relatively small when you consider there's something like 140M .com'=
s
> So it's okay to screw over "nearly fifty thousand" customer domains becaus=
e
> there are 140M .com's? When talking about inadvertently effecting that
> many folks I don't think it is appropriate to trivialize the customer
> impact by calling it small when you're talking about a handful of large
> websites that aren't somehow magically shared over those 140M .coms. Also=
> it is untrue to limit it to only "the websites" given how many other thing=
s
> folks are likely to be using DNS for...
>=20
> .r'
