- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Packet Kiddies Invade NANOG
by albertpublic＠hushmail.com 14 Mar '04

14 Mar '04

Greg, Let me spell it out crystal clear so you can understand. Are you, or are you not, the Gregory Taylor referenced in the URL's I sent below? Albert P. (signing his real name so Susan won't remove him from the list) >maturity in its purest form. > >---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >From: <albertpublic(a)hushmail.com> >Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:17:42 -0800 > >> >>I've noticed a number of shining stars in the network engineering >industry >>have graced us >>with their presence and infinite wisdom in the past few days, including >>Gregory Taylor. I >>can't help but wonder if this is the same who launched multi-gigabit >>DDoS attacks against >>IRC servers and major ISP's recently: >> >>http://www.geocities.com/osek_owned/ >>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=osek >> >>Coincidence? You decide. Better yet, call his mother at 1-253- >475-1227, >> and let her know >>you don't approve of his hacking activities. If enough of us put >the >>pressure on, it's possible >>he'll be grounded, and his computer priviledges will be revoked. > It's >>happened before, it can >>happen again. >> >>For those of you wondering, "Xpert Web Builders" (XWB.COM) is bogus. >> They don't operate a >>network, they're a sole proprietorship tech support and web dev >group, >> run by some clue- >>challenged kids who don't even have the cashflow needed to invest >in >>a post-paid cellular >>phone. >> >>Then there's Andrew Kirch, aka "trelane", who just published a >fascinating >>(albeit highly >>technically inaccurate, and bearing little or no basis in reality) >> >>whitepaper on the "script kiddie culture": >> >>http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/02/28/0130209.shtml >> >>Only problem is, he hangs out on EFNet in #sigdie, a channel known >in >>security circles as a >>place where large-scale DDoS attacks, usually involving 1000's >of >>drone nets or otherwise compromised machines, are coordinated. > Takes >>one to know one, I >>guess. The fun doesn't stop there: he's publicly admitted to helping >> >>packet IRC servers before! >> >>I'm still working on building a rap sheet on Kirch's friend, Brian >Bruns, >> and their "Summit >>Open Source Development Group" (which, by all accounts, is a >>legitimate-looking front for their not-so-legitimate activities). > If >>anyone has any info, mail >>me privately, and I'll summarize. >> >> >> >>Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get >>FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 >> >>Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger >>https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434 >> >>Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program: >> >>https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427 >> > > Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434 Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program: https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427

1 0

Security: Cisco time?
by John Obi 14 Mar '04

14 Mar '04

Hello, I think cisco woke up now, http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/5/36156.html You NSPs are the worst enemy for the internet security, do you know why? You are allowing your customers to abuse, and ignore the abuse emails, but that doesn't matter since they pay for the bw. Good example, hinet is the spolied kid of Sprint, UUNet, and AT&T, is the worst infected ISP. I don't buy innocent users joke, everyone connected the net is responsible and shouldn't be a problem on it. I think it's the right time to make something for abuseive NSP/ISPs like spews. ahbl.org is good idea. PS: I know most of you, were ignoring the DDoS till it's too late now, soon we will see the internet goes down, and not trust worthy. Thanks, -J --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster.

2 1

RE: who offers cheap (personal) 1U colo?
by netadm 14 Mar '04

14 Mar '04

I don't think you find ANY significant provider that does not have network blocks listed in block lists. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Snyder [mailto:rsnyder@toontown.erial.nj.us] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:51 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: who offers cheap (personal) 1U colo? netadm wrote: >http://www.serverpronto.com > > > Given the thread was started for people who want to get a server for mail clear of blocklists, why would I want to use a provider on a number of blocklists per http://www.openrbl.org/, including a SBL/ROKSO listing? Bob

1 0

RE: who offers cheap (personal) 1U colo?
by netadm 14 Mar '04

14 Mar '04

http://www.serverpronto.com -----Original Message----- From: Todd Vierling [mailto:tv@duh.org] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:56 AM To: Simon Lockhart Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: who offers cheap (personal) 1U colo? On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Simon Lockhart wrote: : If someone can point me to Virtual Solaris Machine, then I'd willingly offer : that as a service (the colo I help run as a "hobby" is Sun only). : : The reason people are doing it on Linux is that it's available. (And, in the : case of LVM, free) mmm, NetBSD. Runs on all of x86, amd64, and sparc64 hardware, and runs Linux and Solaris binaries (for the appropriate processor type). RAIDframe is free and included in the base system too. 8-) -- -- Todd Vierling <tv(a)duh.org> <tv(a)pobox.com>

2 1

Re: who offers cheap (personal) 1U colo?
by George William Herbert 14 Mar '04

14 Mar '04

There are other good reasons to colo a server rather than have it at home: 1) Colo facility easier to get generator and *real* UPS lifetime for at affordable rates. 2) Colo facility upstream networking not subject to the whims of increasingly incompetent broadband providers. 3) Colo facility can have redundant networking a lot cheaper than home users (and simpler... trying to get BGP fed up a DSL link of any budget, to have truly redundant networking at home, isn't possible that I know of, and is increasingly difficult with full budget T-1s unless you know someone). And last but not least: 4) Proper quality servers make more noise than I want in my office at home. I have been paying order of $200/month for reasonably high end home internet since the days when that was Netcom and a 14.4k dialup modem and a Class C, though I now get much more bandwidth. Due to service level declines I have been looking into redundant connectivity. But the options suck. Precisely as Paul points out, me taking my Sun V100 and sticking it in someone else's rack, were it $50/month, would be an *excellent* solution for me on all levels. I do not know that there are several racks full of people like me, even in the SF Bay area, but I would be willing to bet that the answer is yes. -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

2 1

Re: who offers cheap (personal) 1U colo?
by Paul Vixie 14 Mar '04

14 Mar '04

> I pay $36/mo for my aDSL. $50 _more_ sounds a lot. rest assured, some of the mail i've received in response to this has even lower price points. several have described service businesses which amount to virtual linux or shell/imap/smarthost but i havn't decided whether to include all of those categories in my results. > ... it's the geeky thing to do, what does it change in the big scheme ...? it's a vision thing. i like the idea of responsible 1U-owners extending their digital footprint to all parts of the globe. most domestic residences don't have UPS, backup generator, or high speed IP with static global addresses. and there is no reason to try to solve that problem given the way-more-efficient 1U colo model. $50/month at 40U rentable is $2000/rack/month if it's full. after paying for 60A of power and 50Mbits/sec of transit and whatever the rack rents for, the provider's gross margin will be between 25% and 50%, out of which they have to pay salaries. as a standalone business this makes no sense, but at scale or as part of another business, $50/month @1U is just about right.

9 9

Re: Packet Kiddies Invade NANOG
by Gregory Taylor 14 Mar '04

14 Mar '04

maturity in its purest form. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: <albertpublic(a)hushmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:17:42 -0800 > >I've noticed a number of shining stars in the network engineering industry >have graced us >with their presence and infinite wisdom in the past few days, including >Gregory Taylor. I >can't help but wonder if this is the same who launched multi-gigabit >DDoS attacks against >IRC servers and major ISP's recently: > >http://www.geocities.com/osek_owned/ >http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=osek > >Coincidence? You decide. Better yet, call his mother at 1-253-475-1227, > and let her know >you don't approve of his hacking activities. If enough of us put the >pressure on, it's possible >he'll be grounded, and his computer priviledges will be revoked. It's >happened before, it can >happen again. > >For those of you wondering, "Xpert Web Builders" (XWB.COM) is bogus. > They don't operate a >network, they're a sole proprietorship tech support and web dev group, > run by some clue- >challenged kids who don't even have the cashflow needed to invest in >a post-paid cellular >phone. > >Then there's Andrew Kirch, aka "trelane", who just published a fascinating >(albeit highly >technically inaccurate, and bearing little or no basis in reality) >whitepaper on the "script kiddie culture": > >http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/02/28/0130209.shtml > >Only problem is, he hangs out on EFNet in #sigdie, a channel known in >security circles as a >place where large-scale DDoS attacks, usually involving 1000's of >drone nets or otherwise compromised machines, are coordinated. Takes >one to know one, I >guess. The fun doesn't stop there: he's publicly admitted to helping > >packet IRC servers before! > >I'm still working on building a rap sheet on Kirch's friend, Brian Bruns, > and their "Summit >Open Source Development Group" (which, by all accounts, is a >legitimate-looking front for their not-so-legitimate activities). If >anyone has any info, mail >me privately, and I'll summarize. > > > >Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get >FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 > >Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger >https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434 > >Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program: >https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427 >

1 0

Re: who offers cheap (personal) 1U colo?
by Paul Vixie 14 Mar '04

14 Mar '04

> On the other hand, if the person doesn't have a UPS at home, what good is > when their SMTP server in a colo is still chugging? :) as a matter of courtesy, it's good to let mail be delivered rather than sitting in other people's retry queues. especially secondary-mx retry queues.

1 0

Packet Kiddies Invade NANOG
by albertpublic＠hushmail.com 14 Mar '04

14 Mar '04

I've noticed a number of shining stars in the network engineering industry have graced us with their presence and infinite wisdom in the past few days, including Gregory Taylor. I can't help but wonder if this is the same who launched multi-gigabit DDoS attacks against IRC servers and major ISP's recently: http://www.geocities.com/osek_owned/ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=osek Coincidence? You decide. Better yet, call his mother at 1-253-475-1227, and let her know you don't approve of his hacking activities. If enough of us put the pressure on, it's possible he'll be grounded, and his computer priviledges will be revoked. It's happened before, it can happen again. For those of you wondering, "Xpert Web Builders" (XWB.COM) is bogus. They don't operate a network, they're a sole proprietorship tech support and web dev group, run by some clue- challenged kids who don't even have the cashflow needed to invest in a post-paid cellular phone. Then there's Andrew Kirch, aka "trelane", who just published a fascinating (albeit highly technically inaccurate, and bearing little or no basis in reality) whitepaper on the "script kiddie culture": http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/02/28/0130209.shtml Only problem is, he hangs out on EFNet in #sigdie, a channel known in security circles as a place where large-scale DDoS attacks, usually involving 1000's of drone nets or otherwise compromised machines, are coordinated. Takes one to know one, I guess. The fun doesn't stop there: he's publicly admitted to helping packet IRC servers before! I'm still working on building a rap sheet on Kirch's friend, Brian Bruns, and their "Summit Open Source Development Group" (which, by all accounts, is a legitimate-looking front for their not-so-legitimate activities). If anyone has any info, mail me privately, and I'll summarize. Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434 Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program: https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427

1 0

Re: Enterprise Multihoming
by John Neiberger 13 Mar '04

13 Mar '04

>>> "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve(a)telecomplete.co.uk> 3/12/04 9:06:38 AM >>> >I dont agree that connecting to two+ upstreams makes you better. In my >experience end networks have a couple of orders of magnitude more downtime than >a PoP in any reasonably large ISP. Ie the percentage theoretical improvement is >small. > >In addition you seriously increase the complexity of your system, chances are >you're using the cheapest kit you could find (or at least cheaper and smaller >than what I would use).. its not great at BGP and may fall over when you get a >minor DoS attack, you probably generate flaps quite a bit from adhoc changes and >if you're announcing a /24 then thats going to get you dampened quickly.. so you >actually create a new weakest link. Also most of the corporates I've dealt with >take defaults rather than full tables.. so if the provider does have an issue >you still forward the traffic, theres no failover of outbound routing. > >Even if you spend (waste) the money on some decent gear, you're on your own and >when a problem occurs the ISPs are going to be less helpful to you (not by >choice, I mean they dont have control of your network any more.. there knowledge >of whats causing problems is limited to the bit that they provide to you), so >chances are your problems may be more serious and take longer to diagnose and >fix. The above arguments are rather similar to the ones I heard on the other discussion list I mentioned, and they were somewhat compelling. > >IMHO avoid multihoming. You will know when you are big enough and you *need* to >do it, if you're not sure or you only want to do it cause you heard everyone >else is and its real cool then I suggest you dont. In our case, we already are multihoming and I'm considering moving away from that to a simpler solution. It's been my assertion that we didn't need to multihome in the beginning. The decision was made at a level higher than me. However, now that we have it I'm trying to determine the pros and cons related to moving to a single provider. Thanks, John --

3 2