[68276] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Source address validation (was Re: UUNet Offer New Protection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Sun Mar 7 15:48:53 2004
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 20:48:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403071959530.15621-100000@server2.tcw.telecomplete.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> > actually, it would. universal uRPF would stop some attacks, and it would
> > remove a "plan B" option for some attack-flowcharts. i would *much* rather
> > play defense without facing this latent weapon available to the offense.
>
> I'm agreeing here, okay (yet anoter) example.. smurf attacks. These seem to be
> non-existent these days so shall we stop disabling 'ip directed-broadcast' on
> our routers?
smurf attacks are far from 'non-existent' today, however they are not as
popular as in 1999-2000-2001. In fact netscan.org still shows almost 9k
networks that are 'broken'.
