[27389] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Now this upsets me, irregardless of the reason
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Tue Feb 15 07:38:29 2000
Date: 15 Feb 2000 04:36:34 -0800
Message-ID: <20000215123634.14657.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: linneweh@concentric.net
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 14 February 2000, "Henry R. Linneweh" wrote:
> http://www.techserver.com/noframes/story/0,2294,500168253-500214982-501008574-0,00.html
>
> Banks warned of impending Web attacks days before they occurred
They have been a number of warnings issued by a several different groups
in the weeks, months before the most recent wave received wide press
attention. From the article, the banks didn't seem to have much better
information than most of the other groups who were tracking things.
CERT/CC and NIPC issued warnings, and at least three providers were
already pro-actively scanning their networks looking for the signature
of compromised hosts.
Heck, if you review the NANOG archives, you might even find a message from
me which could be read as a warning Yahoo! would be attacked on GlobalCenter's
network. Did I have any "inside" information, no. But I do know about the
weaknesses of the Internet, and what is likely to attract a lot of public
attention and media coverage. But doing a threat analysis is very different
from having specific information about a future attack.
