[31511] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: netscan.org update
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Tue Sep 26 16:46:51 2000
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:44:15 -0700
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000926134415.U32511@haybaler.sackheads.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009261602540.14016-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>; from nanog@EnterZone.Net on Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 04:19:03PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 04:19:03PM -0400, John Fraizer wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, John Payne wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 01:13:35AM -0400, John Fraizer wrote:
> > > The problem is that while some operators may not have been aware of their
> > > problem, if they are not aware of the problem at-large, they are, IMHO,
> > > not worthy of announcing to the global internet at large and as such,
> > > we should not be listening to their announcements.
> >
> > So you wouldn't mind if people started scanning your network for other
> > problems, say... rootable boxes? Without being able to break into remote
> > boxes, kiddies wouldn't be able to launch smurf attacks of sizes to worry
> > about.
> >
>
> random and not-so-random scans against our network are met with quite a
> few suprises for the scanner. It's NOT an exercise that I recommend. As
> a matter of fact, it's quite a BAD idea.
So why are you advocating scanning for smurf amps?
> Beyond that, your assumption is completely in error about the kiddies
> needing rooted boxes to launch successful and quite large SMURF
> attacks. DSL and cable modems make it quite easy for them to do so.
Oh... well... not having experience with cable or dsl, I had assumed that
cable and dsl were source filtered. My bad
--
John Payne http://www.sackheads.org/jpayne/ john@sackheads.org
http://www.sackheads.org/uce/ Fax: +44 870 0547954
To send me mail, use the address in the From: header
