Do/Will the people taking this seriously block all of AOL's networks? as well as other US ISPs (Pacbell,........)? If not, why?
> Luke Butcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] RE: Ahhh, the perks of >managing government networksDate: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:57:50 -0000 > >Erwin Geirnaert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] spouted thusly: >> Subject: RE: Ahhh, the perks of managing government networks >> >> blacklisting a whole class C address isn't the solution! >> I mean, I am part of the 195.0.0.0 address-range. If everybody starts >adding this access-list to their >> border-routers it is over with my internet connectivity and a lot of >complaints will follow from my >> neighbours and I am not from Poland > >Maybe it's my day for nitpicking. But surely 195.0.0.0 Would be a Class A? >(excepting the traditional >definition of Class a 1.0.0.0 - 127.0.0.0 Class B being 128.0.0.0, etc. This >is the reason I don't refer >to classes, merely submasks or bits) > >On a more serious note. I did work for a company that blacklisted a 7 bit >mask (Asia Pacific IP already noted) amongst others. This was due to a lot >of the problems coming from those networks. As it was an e-commerce >operation (hence my new job:) that never delivered outside the UK, this was >a very legitimate ban. And yes we did debate the whole "my granny in China >could buy something online and get it delivered to me in the UK" debate, but >the benefits outweighed the losses. > >The original emails were intended as jokes, well mine was at least. >There probably are many places with blanket bans on IP ranges, and I'm sure >they also have good reasons. Like most people I'm sure 195.0.0.0 wouldn't be >banned as it spans many places (all in Europe though). > >While it's more efficient to lose some valid traffic, but ban a lot of crap >traffic a lot of people will take these steps. What needs to be done is >improve the signal to noise ratio in your corner of the address space. And >China, Korea, Poland, Russia, etc. could do with a lot of cleaning. Brazil >seems to be making inroads into the top ten list of favoured havens of >script kiddies, and their compromised boxen. > >This is not a political view, this is fact based upon documented evidence of >scans and hack attempts, seen here at my current employment, and previous >places of employment. (As well as some personal tinkering) > >Regards, >Luke Butcher >Em: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >E-mail Disclaimer > > >Nabarro Nathanson > >Principal office: > >Lacon House, Theobalds Road >London WC1X 8RW >Tel: +44 (0)20 7524 6000 Fax: +44(0)20 7524 6524 > >NOTICE > >This message contains confidential (and potentially legally privileged) information >solely for its intended recipients and others may not distribute, copy or use it. If >you have received this communication in error please tell us either by return e-mail >or at the numbers above and delete it, and any copies of it. > >The contents of this e-mail are subject to the firms Terms of Business copies of >which are available on our website. > >We have taken steps to ensure that this message (and any attachments or hyperlinks >contained within it) are free from computer viruses and the like. However, in >accordance with good computing practice the recipient is responsible for ensuring >that it is actually virus free before opening it. > >Regulated by the Law Society. A list of partners is available at the address above or >on our website, http://www.nabarro.com > ><< msg2.html >> ------------------------------------------------------------ WWW.COM - Where the Web Begins! http://www.www.com _______________________________________________ Firewalls mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
