> Blocking this and the thousands other IP’s is a silly job. This is a
> answer of a programmer with no experience in a real company.

Nonsense.  Blocking  by IP is standard practice. One preferably blocks
at  the  edge  router or firewall; if not possible, block at the stack
(OS)  level  on  the  host.  Blocking  at  the  application  level and
expecting  an application to perform its own DoS backoff once a socket
has  been  opened  and  handed  up  the  chain is a losing battle. And
waiting to see what POP3 *username* is being attempted is a completely
ignorant  anti-DoS  tactic.  The  fact is that this harvesting method,
when  used against applications with a low max concurrent connections,
is  a  DoS attack. Even on very modern hardware, connection starvation
is completely possible; I have seen it in the wild quite recently as a
result of the same sort of traffic.

Yes,  the application-level measures like 'maximum failed logins' will
work  under  mild load. If you only have a mild load, you don't have a
DoS condition, however, so what's your primary worry? You might have a
lone  abuser  trying  to  get into one *specific* account for targeted
purposes    (espionage    or    social   mischief-making),   and   the
application-level  lockout is a worthy tactic against that scenario...
because,  by definition, such an attack is not happening in bulk. (And
locking  out  a  *specifically targeted* user because someone tried to
compromise their account can give them nice dose of reality.)

You  can quite reasonably complain when a vendor drops support for any
feature  that's  mildly  useful. But to lament the loss of the weakest
possible  DoS  protection -- that is, well within the same application
that  is  being DoSed -- as if it were your only choice is technically
foolish.  Get  an IDS/IPS and script it to hit your router, or even to
update  your  Windows  OS  *stack-level* (IP Security) settings if you
don't  have  access  to  your router or firewall. It's not like failed
POP3  logins  are difficult to detect; they're plain-text exchanges, a
simple signature. If you want your app to go so deep as to consult its
user   database   before  rejecting  an  abusive  connection,  causing
collateral  damage even when it works at all, it's *you* who's missing
the real-world experience of a DoS.

--Sandy



------------------------------------
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

SpamAssassin plugs into Declude!
  http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release/

Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange or IMail mailboxes into IMail Aliases!
  
http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/download/release/
  
http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/ldap2aliases/download/release/

To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/

Reply via email to