On 03/31/13 21:50, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> On 2013-03-31, at 9:43 PM, Peter Baldridge <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I can assume that If you are spoofing packets, resetting passwords on cpe
>> and replacing the box would be trivial. So it's questionable how useful
>> this is. It seems like it just adds cost to for customers that can't spoof
>> a packet to save their lives.
> Maybe it's useful for the people who have no idea that their computers are
> infected by bots that spoof packets.
>
>> On Mar 31, 2013 6:37 PM, "Jason Lixfeld" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2013-03-31, at 10:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a program which users can run on an end-site workstation which
>>> would test whether they are being some link which is doing BCP38, or some
>>> related type of source-address ingress filtering?
>>>
>>> I'm hoping for something that could be downloaded by users and run, and
>>> try to forge a few packets to somewhere useful, which could be logged
>>> somehow in conjunction with some unforged packets containing a traceroute,
>>> so we could build up a database of leaky networks.
>>>
>>> On a related topic, while I know GRC Research's Steve Gibson is a bit of
>>> a polarizing personality, he does have a fairly sizable consumer audience,
>>> and might be a great distribution venue for such a thing.
>>>
>>> Or, perhaps, is there someone on here from Ookla?
>>>
>>> Patrick? Could Akamai be persuaded to take an interest in this as a
>>> research project?
>>
>> From my perspective, 99% of end-users probably don't understand (or care)
>> that their provider might be responsible for initiating or precipitating a
>> DDoS attacks, period. Most network operators are probably either too
>> inexperienced to understand or too lazy to care.
>>
>> I believe that most everyone has a CPE of some sort, whether their service
>> is resi or commercial. So, what about shifting the focus to the CPE
>> manufacturers? They bend to technology and/or market pressures by bringing
>> things like NAT, Firewalls, DLNA, UPnP, IPv6 (heh), PPPoE, RFC1483, etc. to
>> their respective products in to satisfy technology limitations or security
>> concerns or whatever. Why can't they help the cause by implementing some
>> sort of RFC'ified BCP38 thing?
>>
An easy target would be anti-virus/trojan/security software
providers that could add a BCP38 check to their software =D
-----
Alain Hebert [email protected]
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
