[3323] in bugtraq
Re: Reachable addresses on the net (was SYN floods)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Oliver Xymoron)
Tue Sep 3 12:04:14 1996
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:05:54 -0500
Reply-To: Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@waste.org>
From: Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@waste.org>
X-To: Todd Vierling <tv@pobox.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list BUGTRAQ <BUGTRAQ@netspace.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.95.960903090225.4347C-100000@like.duh.ml.org>
On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
>
> : As you can see, the address space is still quite sparse (less than 1 out
> : of every 200 addresses is reachable in my test), with most being inside
> : the 127 net.
>
> Think about the 127 net for a while. Most systems have a route
> '127.0.0.0/255.0.0.0' pointing at the local host, right? Where does
> 127.0.0.1 go?
Yep, I'm well aware that 127 is the loopback net (though I'm sure a dozen
more people will point it out to me before the end of the day :).. I was
just looking at the probability that a random 32 bit (the simplest
possible way to generate a spoofing address) address would be reachable.
By my measure, the most straightforward method of generating addresses
should prove quite effective. If I filter out addresses on nets 0, 10,
127, 192.168, and 248-255, I get about .113%. This was not intended to be
an accurate measure of the number of real sites, just how many addresses
were "reachable."
--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
