On Thu, Jun 10, 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
Take some responsibility.
How does a person with a DSL line at home take responsibilty if he's away
for a month? Is he supposed to hire someone?
The same way I did it when I went on holiday.
I turned off the DSL router.
Adrian
--
It all depends upon what the agreement between the customer and the ISP
says. It's no unreasonable for the ISP to 'insure' the customer against
risks he isn't able to mitigate which the ISP is, even if that means
shutting off his service.
True, to some extent, but...
If someone
I saw a few hackers (in sniffers, computers and personally), but I never saw
anyone doing some hack without the reasons.
Usually, if you do not see a reason, it is _your_ misunderstanding.
Of course, reason can be as simple as _I have MS_ or as complicated as _here
is my girlfriend, and if this
Has anyone done any concrete testing on how well a 7206VXR with an
NPE-300 can handle BGP MD5? The box in question has about 25 sessions
and is pushing 150Mbps, with a 75% cpu load. I'm curious to know if it's
the MD5 taking all the CPU.
Thanks,
Ben
More likely, the software actually leaks like a sieve, and NEITHER group
has even scratched the surface..
How many leaks did the OpenBSD team find when they proactively audited
their entire codebase for the first time a few years ago? This would
be an indication of just how leaky an O/S might
This report has been generated at Fri Jun 11 21:43:32 2004 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table
Ben,
My first question would be how big is your prefix list per BGP session?
What is really going to task this router with 25 sessions is the BGP
Scanner and BGP Router processes. To my knowledge MD5 is just for
authenticating the session. I could be wrong.
Tony Newell
Technical Lead
RTSG-BB
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Why do I have to get two and three copies of each of these?
Because you havn't set a Reply-To header? Eg with the list as
address?
I'm on the list folks, if you send it to the list I'll get it. I
don't need a copy to the list and Cc:'s until
Paul Jakma wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Why do I have to get two and three copies of each of these?
Because you havn't set a Reply-To header? Eg with the list as address?
I'm on the list folks, if you send it to the list I'll get it. I
don't need a copy to the
Andy Dills wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Jeff Shultz wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always responsible.
There you have it folks.
Change
reply-to: headers are bad. the replier can be sending to the
list when they intended to reply privately. hence, many of us
have our MTAs strip them before we even get the mail.
again, procmail is your friend
# prevent dupes
#
:0 Wh: msgid.lock
| formail -D 65536 msgid.cache
Private addressing/non routing of the netblock is only of limited use.
I assume here the block is in the IGP.. the more customers/networks you serve
the more chance of an attack coming from within.
Steve
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
Do you have any (even minimal) need to
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:50:26 CDT, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. said:
Where is RFC 2821 is this requirement, by the way? RFC 2822
says it is optional but seems to be less than useful in the
context here.
2821 is about the SMTP side of things. By the time the MTA is handed
a list of RCPT TO's,
Paul Jakma wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Really? My responsibility to make sure you control your outbound
mail. Got it.
You really think everyone on this list should remember the preference of
every other poster as to whether they do or do not want a direct copy?
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
reply-to: headers are bad.
Oh, on that I agree.
There are draft RFCs to specify these things better, eg seperating
the concept of 'Reply-to' into one policy for list related replies
and another for personal, mutt supports these drafts already[1], but
there
sh proc cpu should be able to tell you where the load is..
i have a 7206, about 130 bgp sessions (445000 paths) .. not much cpu being used,
BGP scanner is the larges with a 5% 1min average
Steve
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Ben Buxton wrote:
Has anyone done any concrete testing on how well a
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Really? My responsibility to make sure you control your outbound
mail. Got it.
You really think everyone on this list should remember the preference
of every other poster as to whether they do or do not want a direct
copy? Maybe we could
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Or the document a little out-dated and replaced. But not your
responsibility huh?
822 might have been superceded, yes, however no newer standards track
RFC has made Reply-to obsolete. My point was that Reply-to isnt
something new, it's
At 7:07 PM -0700 2004-06-10, David Schwartz wrote:
Most of the people on this list see things from the ISP's
perspective.
However, step back a bit and see it from the user's perspective. Do you
expect to pay for phone calls you didn't make or do you expect
the person
whose
My last on the topic--maybe even the list.
I take the responsibilty for a number of things, depending on
the topic of the discussion.
In the case of email conversations, particularly email
converations on mailing lists, I think there are
responsibilites on the author to:
Delete all the baggage
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 12 Jun, 2004
I suspect most of us who are failing to feel Mr. Sheldon's pain on this
just fail to understand the burden that's been placed on him by this
problem.
As an occasional poster to this and other lists, I sometimes get a few
duplicate replies, which, being sent directly to me, end up in my regular
a quick duplicate elimination in procmail is something like:
:0 Whc: msgid.lock
| formail -D 16384 msgid.cache
:0 a:
/dev/null
for me it's a substantial lifestyle improvement.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Steve Gibbard wrote:
I suspect most of us who are failing to feel Mr. Sheldon's pain on this
Alexei Roudnev wrote:
Of course, reason can be as simple as _I have MS_ or as
complicated as _here is my girlfriend, and if this system
went down, she will be released earlier_ -:) /most common
reason was, yep, _getting IRC control_).
Or just because I can do it. I call these lame excuses,
On Jun 11, 2004, at 8:21 AM, Newell, Tony wrote:
My first question would be how big is your prefix list per BGP session?
What is really going to task this router with 25 sessions is the BGP
Scanner and BGP Router processes. To my knowledge MD5 is just for
authenticating the session. I could be
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
But I'm big on responsibility and I understand that I am pretty
close to alone here on that.
You're big on responsibility...just as long as the end users aren't held
responsible for their networks, right?
Which network do you run again?
* Patrick W.Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-11 20:54]:
On Jun 11, 2004, at 8:21 AM, Newell, Tony wrote:
My first question would be how big is your prefix list per BGP session?
What is really going to task this router with 25 sessions is the BGP
Scanner and BGP Router processes. To my
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:52:40 PDT, Steve Gibbard said:
As an occasional poster to this and other lists, I sometimes get a few
duplicate replies, which, being sent directly to me, end up in my regular
mailbox instead of my NANOG folder, and thus require me to actively delete
or sort through
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
world China in particular.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing
tables unless they are registered with the host and or
providers as to their legitimate use
Henry Linneweh wrote:
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
world China in particular.
Thank you.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing
tables unless they are registered with the host and or
providers as to
Henry Linneweh wrote:
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
world China in particular.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing
tables unless they are registered with the host and or
providers as to their
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing tables
your wish is the internet's comman. ports are no longer
in routing tables.
Randy Bush wrote:
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing tables
your wish is the internet's comman. ports are no longer
in routing tables.
Thank you
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
[unattributed wrote:]
Remember - every single 0-day that surfaces was something the black hats
found first.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri 11 Jun 2004, 12:29 CEST]:
And 0-day exploits are only the ones that the blackhats are willing to
talk about. If they keep quiet about an exploit and only use
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
world China in particular.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing
tables unless they are registered with the host and or
This thread is quite amusing and interesting at the same time. If I read
the original post right, Mr. Mike Bierstock was informed that he was
generating an unusual amount of traffic, traffic he would have to pay for.
He got the bill and had to deal with the consequences. What is wrong with
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Andy Dills wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
world China in particular.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing
tables
Coupled with a Flux Capacitor for the ultimate in message delivery :)
- Original Message -
From: Scott Stursa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: Even you can be hacked
Ah. A tunneling implementation.
You'll need a cold fusion
Now you are just getting silly, we know Flux Capacitors don't work on
earth.
Mike Walter
-Original Message-
From: Matthew McGehrin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:00 PM
To: nanog
Subject: was: Even you can be hacked
Coupled with a Flux Capacitor for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/11/04 3:02:42 PM
Now you are just getting silly, we know Flux Capacitors don't work on
earth.
Sure they do, at least the ones made since 1985. I believe I remember a
DeLorean that used one.
John
--
Hmm, so your on earth?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Mike Walter
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:03 PM
To: nanog
Subject: RE: Even you can be hacked
Now you are just getting silly, we know Flux Capacitors don't work on
earth.
Mike Walter
the bottom line
o if you want the internet to continue to innovate, then
the end-to-end model is critical. it means that it
takes only X colluding end-poits to deploy an new
application which might be the next killer ap which
drives your business. remember, email was not part
Title: [OT] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked)
Paul Jamka [PJ] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. [LFSJ] wrote:
LFSJ I'm on the list folks, if you send it to the list I'll get it. I don't need a copy to the list and Cc:'s until the end of time.
PJ Then set a
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
:Did your computer have a power switch? Did you turn it off? Or did you
:continue to let it run up the bill? Yes, even the complete computer
:novice can stop a computer room. Turn off your computer. If you don't
:know how to fix it, take it to a
That is true, but only if they are placed in DeLorean because they
filled with drugs.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Even you can be hacked
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/11/04
We'll agree to disagree on the majority of your post and your interpretation
of the facts... However, this tidbit attracted my attention...
Maybe the only bandwidth simile that could be appropriate
would be to a car in the 1950's, one which was unsafe at
any speed.
Yes... I have long felt that
But wouldn't an interocitor with electron sorter option give you much more
reliable packet delivery...
Scott C. McGrath
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Fisher, Shawn wrote:
Hmm, so your on earth?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Of course, except in this case, the phone company can't
easily tell the
legitimate calls from the illegitimate ones and block only the
illegitimate ones. Every analogy will break down, so don't expect to be
able to convince people with analogies that seem so obviously right to
This thread is quite amusing and interesting at the same time. If I read
the original post right, Mr. Mike Bierstock was informed that he was
generating an unusual amount of traffic, traffic he would have to
pay for.
He got the bill and had to deal with the consequences. What is wrong with
Henry,
from the email address I'm assuming youre not trolling and are therefore
missing a few facts,
IP!=IPX, that is.. ports arent in the routing table
It is not the ports below that cause the security issues, it is the applications
which are using them, you need to either fix the apps or
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Scott McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But wouldn't an interocitor with electron sorter option give you much more
reliable packet delivery...
that works fine until someone reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
richard
--
Richard Welty
** Reply to message from Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri,
11 Jun 2004 18:33:00 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Scott McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But wouldn't an interocitor with electron sorter option give you much more
reliable packet delivery...
that
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Randy Bush writes:
the bottom line
o if you want the internet to continue to innovate, then
the end-to-end model is critical.
What Randy said. (And all the rest of the post that I deleted to
save a bit of bandwidth.)
--Steve Bellovin,
Richard Welty wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Scott McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But wouldn't an interocitor with electron sorter option give you much more
reliable packet delivery...
that works fine until someone reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
And for heaven's
--On 11 June 2004 14:18 -0700 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the bottom line
o if you want the internet to continue to innovate, then
the end-to-end model is critical. it means that it
If there is a lesson here, seems to me it's that those innovative protocols
should be designed such
I can agree with that and Randy pointed out when these
idea's were created and writen, security was not part
of the overall plan because there were trusted parties
on either end of the spectrum.
I think that my intent was noble and I am glad I
started a controversy, because this is an issue
yes, we're gonna hack desperately for a decade to make up
for asecure (innocent of, as contrasted with devoid of,
security) application protocols and implementations. it'll
take half that time for the ivtf and the vendors to realize
how deeply complexity is our enemy. and until then we'll
hack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is to inform you that the IANA has allocated the following
three (3) IPv6 /23 blocks to RIPE NCC, ARIN, and APNIC
respectively:
2001:4000::/23RIPE NCC Jun 04
2001:4200::/23ARIN Jun 04
2001:4400::/23
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
generated by a worm. The ISP had an obligation to stop this traffic with
filters or customer disconnection. They may or may not have complied with
their obligation. Either way, it's hard to see why the customer should pay
for traffic the ISP did not
we americans do not readily accept responsibility for our
[in]actions. we sue for being hit by a baseball while
attending a game. we sue for spilling hot coffee on
ourselves. we sue when we walki into open trenches and
manholes. and we self-righteously torture, commit war
crimes, and murder,
If your child borrows your credit card, and makes lots of unathorized
charges, you may not have to pay more than $50; but the bank can go after
your son or daughter for the money. Most parents end up paying, even if
they didn't authorize their children to use the credit card.
So the credit
Scalable bandwidth is not new and is charged for, what
is the issue about that?
If the network is compromised and it is on the client
end, that is what business insurance is for, so that
everyone gets their's (payments, otherwise other types
of arrangements need to be made, according to the
attending a game. we sue for spilling hot coffee on
ourselves.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
Interesting reading on that whole woman sues for spilling hot coffee on
herself story. Sometimes there's a LOT more to the tale. :)
This will be my last post on this issue.
In this case:
1) Almost certainly the traffic was due to a worm.
2) Almost certainly the ISP knew (or strongly suspected) the traffic was
due to a worm.
3) Quite likely, the ISP never carried most of the traffic
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
while i am no fan of macdonalds, and a good case is made for
their negligence, perhaps you should follow the advice at the
bottom of that web page
The most important message this case has for you, the
consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger
Randy Bush wrote:
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
while i am no fan of macdonalds, and a good case is made for
their negligence, perhaps you should follow the advice at the
bottom of that web page
The most important message this case has for you, the
consumer, is to be aware of the
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
So why does everyone think the ISP is almost certainly entitled to be paid?
Is it because they're ISPs? Is it because it's easy to blame someone else?
I notice that Webmaster's license agreement includes this clause:
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
This will be my last post on this issue.
In this case:
1) Almost certainly the traffic was due to a worm.
2) Almost certainly the ISP knew (or strongly suspected) the traffic was
due to a worm.
3) Quite
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; consult yours before relying on advice from
any layperson, including me.
Thus spake Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Should the ISP have shut the customer off? Probably. I certainly would
have. Are there ISPs that don't? You bet... Some because they are afraid
Why does Webmaster put the entire risk on the customer, including warning
that the security mechanism has inherent limitations? Shouldn't Webmaster
be responsible if their customer suffer a loss whatsover the cause, even
if it wasn't due to any negligence on the part of Webmaster?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Donelan) writes:
...
Why do so many people ignore their ISP when told about problems with
their computer? My computer can't be infected, I have a firewall.
in any other industry, you (the isp) would do a simple risk analysis
and start treating the cause rather than
alas. on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0405/msg00057.html
72 matches
Mail list logo
