Kevin Day wrote:
The attacks we see now are... well orchestrated. 10-50,000 proxy
servers all making login attempts at once, rather slowly. 10-50 login
attempts per second, each from a different proxy. Still slow enough
per IP that it doesn't hit our threshold for how many bad logins per
IP
Hi all,
This might be quite a stupid question. But my management is looking at
moving the filters from the edge to the core, so as to reduce adminstration
of apply filters on all our edge routers, and minimizing the possibility of
non-synchronized filters at the edge.
Does anyone has any advise
I would tend to keep the filters on the edge, for obvious reasons. Your
management would probably agree with this the first time you get attacked
coming from each of your edge routers with nothing to protect it from
happening.
You could always make a script (PERL) to go out and make the
On the subject of host security issues and spam, try doing a search of the
Usenet archive for 'Net Access Corporation spam'. You get 328 results.
And those are just the spams which people have traced to NAC, never mind the
millions of untraced ones
From: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ken emery wrote:
I'm not sure what needs to be done, but the security as now
implemented
is not even close to enough IMHO. Networkwise (to bring this back on
topic) I'm not sure there is really much that can be done.
Don't forget the desperate need for user *and* staff education. I have now
--On Monday, July 28, 2003 12:16 AM -0700 Mike Lyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would tend to keep the filters on the edge, for obvious reasons. Your
management would probably agree with this the first time you get attacked
coming from each of your edge routers with nothing to protect it from
Hi all,
Apologise for the wrong word used. I was actually referring to border,
instead of edge. Its more of the acl on our border interfaces facing
transit/peering providers.
regards,
Cheeyong
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Peter John Hill wrote:
: --On Monday, July 28, 2003 12:16 AM -0700 Mike Lyon
Backhoes, natch... All you need is a camo uniform, M-16, and spool for rapid network
deployment:
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/navigation/brugg/brugg5.html
Repairing cables places your life at risk:
http://colofinder.net/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album17id=izd_011a
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Backhoes, natch... All you need is a camo uniform, M-16, and spool for rapid
network deployment:
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/navigation/brugg/brugg5.html
I believe thats an FN-FAL rifle, not a M-16... I wonder if telcom's could
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Backhoes, natch... All you need is a camo uniform, M-16, and spool for rapid
network deployment:
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/navigation/brugg/brugg5.html
I believe thats an FN-FAL
Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe thats an FN-FAL rifle, not a M-16... I wonder if telcom's could
employ these folks to watch over their fiber lines to keep the backhoes
away?
It's a SIG SG550, not an FAL or an M16.
---Rob
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe thats an FN-FAL rifle, not a M-16... I wonder if telcom's could
employ these folks to watch over their fiber lines to keep the backhoes
away?
It's a SIG SG550, not an FAL or an
Which, ironically coincided with the time WorldCom bought UUNet.
duck
-Original Message-
From: Christopher L. Morrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:05 PM
To: Robert E. Seastrom
Cc: Eric Kuhnke; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: a new labor intensive layer 1
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 08:56:01AM +, Peter Gray wrote:
On the subject of host security issues and spam, try doing a search of the
Usenet archive for 'Net Access Corporation spam'. You get 328 results.
And those are just the spams which people have traced to NAC, never mind
the
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Temkin, David wrote:
Which, ironically coincided with the time WorldCom bought UUNet.
did I say 'looking at guns' or 'looking down the barrel of guns' ?
duck
-Original Message-
From: Christopher L. Morrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28,
Thus spake Sean Donelan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Just be careful about flying too close to the US Presidential motercade.
A pipeline spotter aircraft pilot (i.e. backhoe spotter for pipelines) was
intercepted by the US Air Force and questioned for several hours by the
Secret Service when his
Can somoene from Adelphia please contact me off-list.
Thanks
--
Tom Sands
Chief Network Engineer
Rackspace Managed Hosting
(210)892-4000
Kevin Day wrote:
I run one of the larger adult websites, that has a reputation for
being very difficult to acquire passwords for.
One of the more interesting passive ways to manage a site like this is
to do something similar to what Streamload does (or did, I haven't tried
it lately).
I
Well over a year ago someone on Nanog asked me why I didn't give away
back issues. I said I planned to give them away at the Creative
Commons web site. I sent a bunch to them on a CD rom but as far as
I know nothing happened.
OK - The wait is over and more than 10 years of back issues are
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Eric Anderson wrote:
When has the president NOT been within 30 miles of something related
to the petroleum industry? cough Seriously, though, I can't see
any reason why wouldn't get close to them from time to time; it's not
as though pipelines explode with 30-mile blast
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Sean Donelan wrote:
But the President's movements creates its own vulnerabilities for the rest
of the critical infrastructures nearby. If you know the President will be
in the area (the FAA posts advance notice to airman)...
First of all it creates vulnerabilities for
As Vadim said, it's about display of power.
However, I'm not worried about terrorists attacking infrastructure
under the cover of Presidential No-Fly Zones;
I'm more worried about backhoe drivers named Bubba
who didn't call the Call Before You Dig number
and weren't noticed by cable route
I really hope that no major fiber routes travel through Crawford, TX...
...but a quick search on Google shows that when George W. Bush became
president they built fiber services to the ranch...
Superior-Essex claims that one of its customers is the United States
Secret Service in Crawford, TX
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
I'm more worried about backhoe drivers named Bubba
who didn't call the Call Before You Dig number
and weren't noticed by cable route overflights
because they were grounded while Bush gets his hair cut.
I have multiple
24 matches
Mail list logo
