August 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

disa
by hostmaster 14 Aug '02

14 Aug '02

I need somebody from DISA, NETBLK-STDN3, to contact me off list. thx Bertil Fortrie hostmaster(a)nso.org

1 0

Re: AS path fugliness?
by Michael Lewinski 13 Aug '02

13 Aug '02

It's back, same source as last time: Aug 13 14:06:07 Insufficient chunk pools for aspath, requested size 268 Aug 13 14:06:11 Insufficient chunk pools for aspath, requested size 268 Aug 13 14:07:29 Insufficient chunk pools for aspath, requested size 270 Aug 13 14:09:44 Insufficient chunk pools for aspath, requested size 270 Aug 13 14:09:52 Insufficient chunk pools for aspath, requested size 268 *> 205.139.72.0 208.172.167.21 100 0 3561 23037 {80,1239,1785,2379,2711,4181,4323,4513,4546,5006,5676,5778,6181,6253,6347, 6395,6453,6467,6571,6580,6993,7132,7381,7431,7633,7795,10346,10625,10674,10726, 10851,10877,10910,10937,10957,11101,11134,11169,11235,11589,11657,11853,12082, 12156,12163,12179,12180,12261,13371,13443,13488,13568,13576,13578,13641,13790, 13815,13882,13904,13919,14021,14289,14359,14381,14412,14452,14549,14564,14625, 14677,14685,14787,14793,14929,14990,15062,15215,16477,16504,16640,16707,16759, 16782,16852,17033,17060,17064,17142,17304,18548,18586,18618,18886,19024,19541, 20303,20316,20333,20357,20457,20458,21536,22184,22191,22242,22299,22319,22389, 22728,22912,23087,23181,23195,23269,23306,23365,23453,23502,23547,25639,25707, 25905,25943,26004} ? *> 205.139.73.0 208.172.167.21 100 0 3561 23037 {80,1239,1785,2379,2711,4181,4323,4513,4546,5006,5676,5778,6181,6253,6347, 6395,6453,6467,6571,6580,6993,7132,7381,7431,7633,7795,10346,10625,10674,10726, 10851,10877,10910,10937,10957,11101,11134,11169,11235,11589,11657,11853,12082, 12156,12163,12179,12180,12261,13371,13443,13488,13568,13576,13578,13641,13790, 13815,13882,13904,13919,14021,14289,14359,14381,14412,14452,14549,14564,14625, 14677,14685,14787,14793,14929,14990,15062,15215,16477,16504,16640,16707,16759, 16782,16852,17033,17060,17064,17142,17304,18548,18586,18618,18886,19024,19541, 20303,20316,20333,20357,20457,20458,21536,22184,22191,22242,22299,22319,22389, 22728,22912,23087,23181,23195,23269,23306,23365,23453,23502,23547,25639,25707, 25905,25943,26004} ? (plus a bunch of others for the same AS) FYI, after the Jul 03 incident I received this response from C&W: > Thank you for notifying us of the problem. We have put a filter in place > and I believe we have been in touch with our customer. > > Best Regards, > Cable & Wireless US-IPGSOC Mike

1 0

Re: Routing Protocol Security
by Danny McPherson 13 Aug '02

13 Aug '02

I know of several incidents where invalid routing announcements were maliciously employed in order to cause reachability problems to the destination prefix network. It still bugs me that router vendors don't provide the capability to support inter-provider filters (read: 10s or 100s of thousands of instances). But heck, some providers still don't even filter routing announcements for customer prefixes explicitly. This is a HUGE vulnerability. Likewise, employing the same set of inter-provider filters at the data plane as ingress source filters would suppress the bulk of these cheesy spoofed-source address attacks. This is another HUGE vulnerability (providing a solution in hardware is a bit more difficult -- though not impossible!). But heck, some providers still don't employ customer ingress filtering. Of course, then the vulnerability would be the registries, and subsequent components therein. The again, at least the former was done many moons ago, though wasn't real successful given the network, 24 hour turnarounds, etc.. However, things like BGP Route Refresh and the like could alleviate most of the offshoots of the time. Now, back to the router vendor support issue, if that's what you were soliciting input on...? -danny

1 0

Palm OS SNMP client... need some input
by Brian Smith 13 Aug '02

13 Aug '02

I'm working on ideas for an SNMP client for Palm OS. So far, I can't find any that exist, and there's been at least one request made out there for such a thing. The basic idea would be to have a database with IPs, names, descriptions and community names for different SNMP agents you want to work with. You'd define the list, then select an agent and do things with it. I'm also looking at doing a trap monitor type of function. While I'm thinking through the design, I'm coming up with some questions that I need to ask potential users. I figured this would be the best place to look. If you reply, please do it directly to me so as not to clutter the list. Thanks. Here they are... How useful would you consider such a thing? Would it be worthwhile to implement SNMP versions 1 & 2, or just the latter? If both, then how/where/if to switch between the two? Would it be sufficient to only support the standard, RFC-defined MIB, or should there be the ability to handle custom MIBs? The problem with the latter is mainly in presentation. It would be simple enough to do a simple text-based UI for setting and querying values (a la snmpget/put), but personally I'd consider that a bit raw. To do anything better would require more work to either enable a dynamic UI or creating custom forms and code in a plugin-style system. Any other comments or suggestions? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Smith // avalon73 at arthurian dot nu // http://www.arthurian.nu/ Software Developer // Gamer // Webmaster // System Administrator If man did not exist, God's job would be easier.

1 0

Re: Microslosh vision of the future
by blitz 13 Aug '02

13 Aug '02

I just hope the anti-trust people are looking into this....i can't see a bigger case for them to spring into action... At 18:43 8/11/02 -0700, you wrote: >Microsoft already duped the software consumers into buying into fully >proprietary software. Given the prevalent time horizon of average IT >manager's thinking I fully expect Microsoft to get that stuff deployed >before the poor saps start realizing they're being ripped. After that >Microsoft will leverage their market power to exclude any competition. >Exactly like they did it before on numerous occasions. > >Their PR budget is bigger than GDP of some nations. They're ruthless and >show remarkable lack of respect to the notions of fairness or common good. >Be afraid. > >--vadim

4 3

Microslosh vision of the future
by blitz 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

> > >> >>So read about Palladianism, and tell me the different between Palladium >>and Server 2000........ >> >>Windows Palladium, the end of privacy as we know it. >> >>This taken from various sources encluding UHA and deviantart, the >>register and slashdot., Disturbing news.. >> >>Earlier this week, Microsoft outlined their plans for their next >>generation of operating systems, codenamed Longhorn/Palladium. Among the >>features touted was the "secure networking" functions that OS would offer. >> >>Firstly: >>Microsoft plans to implement Palladium DRM (digital rights management) in >>a hardware chip, initially implanted on the mobo, but later on embedded >>in the CPU, and employing hardwired encryption throughout. The purpose of >>this is to flag every file on the computer with a digital signature >>telling a remote server what it is. If it's an unauthorized file, the >>remote server will tell your computer not to let you execute it. >> >>This is basically an attempt to stop the trading of mp3's and/or warez. >> >>Secondly: >>Before an application can run, it too must have a digital signature >>remotely verified by another server. If the program binary doesn't match >>with any of the authenticated binaries, your computer won't run it. This, >>again, is meant to stop your computer running "unauthorized" software - >>which might be warez, or it might just be a nifty freeware program that >>the authors can't afford to have certified. Microsoft will be able to >>control exactly what your computer can and can't run. >> >>Thirdly: >>As most of you know, Microsoft employ a strategy of making their software >>deliberately obsolete - they make it forward compatible, but not backward >>compatible. With the laws of the DMCA, it will soon be illegal to try to >>make a software product that is compatible with another programs file >>types (for example, take the many office applications there are for Linux >>which have had some success in translating their arcane file formats). >>This has the effect of killing any competition in the water - since >>you're not allowed to make your new product compatible with any of the >>others, no-one will use it. And eventually people will give up using any >>of the others instead, since no-one else can read their documents. So the >>entire world will be left with one choice only for software - Microsoft. >> >>Fourthly (I don't know if that's a word, but it should be): >>Palladium will effectively ban free software, not just free stuff for >>Windows platforms, but free stuff for Linux, Mac, in fact every OS that >>runs on a Palladium enabled motherboard/processor. Why? >>In order to get the program to run on a palladium platform, you will need >>to pay to have your binary certified as "safe" by Microsoft's software >>authentification branch. And who in their right mind is going to pay for >>a piece of software they spent hours working on? It just wouldn't be worth it. >> >>It gets worse when it comes to open source projects, such as Linux and >>BSD. Those of you who know about these things will know that open source >>projects are created by freelance coders all over the world who create >>programs in their spare time and then give them to the rest of the world >>for free. Many of them also release the source code for free too, so that >>if you wish you can alter the program (such as to fix bugs, add features etc). >>Now, it would be bad enough if the owner has to pay a certification fee. >>But EVERY CHANGE that is made to the source code will require a new, >>separate certificate to be created. Those of you who use Linux will know >>that so many things get updated so quickly, that this just isn't >>practical, and would cost the open source development people millions of >>dollars. This is money they just don't have, and Microsoft knows it. >> >>Fifthly: >>The "secure network". This is the real clincher for Palladium. At first, >>they're going to make it so that it is possible to turn Palladium off at >>the hardware level. But it is created in such a way so that, if you try >>to connect to a Palladium web server, you won't be allowed to. Palladium >>machines will only be able to talk to other Palladium machines, and >>non-Palladium machines won't be able to talk to any Palladium machines. >>Hence, if Palladium reaches critical mass, there will be thousands of >>people the world over who won't be able to access the internet or even >>work on a network with Palladium machines, so by extension they will be >>forced to "upgrade" to Palladium machines. >> >>Sixthly: >>At first I thought: what the hell, this is only going to apply to x86 >>architecture (namely Athlon and Pentium chips, since it's only AMD and >>Intel who are involved at the moment). So, I could try another hardware >>architecture: such as the Mac/PPC, or the Sun Sparc, or an ARM, or any >>other kind of processor. >>But then I realside that even if I did, I wouldn't be able to access the >>"Palladium network" which could encompass the entire internet if this >>concept goes far enough. So all you Mac users would be effectively locked >>out; you too would have adopt a Palladium machine if you wanted your >>computer to actually do anything. >> >>Seventhly: >>Palladium will enable all your documents to be controlled remotely. No, >>this is not a joke. If Microsoft find you are using an outdated version >>of Office, all they need to do is send a message to your computer and it >>will no longer let you read any of your documents that were created with >>that application. >>Even more sinister is that if Microsoft take offence at any of the >>documents on your machine (this could be porn, it could be a simple >>document containing DeCSS information or anti-Palladium information) then >>they can delete or alter it not just from your PC but from every other >>Palladium PC on the network. >>This has a remarkable similarity to the "Ministry of Truth" in George >>Orwell's "1984" where the government continually faked information, both >>new and old, the entire country over to make themsleves appear "correct" >>all the time. >> >> >>If Palladium ever becomes widespread enough, the internet as we know it >>today will be dead. Instead of being controlled by us, it will be >>controlled by Microsoft, and you will have no choice to do exactly what >>they say. >> >>Hence why I want to tell as many people about this atrocious idea before >>it become spopular, and M$ administer their miraculous spin to it to make >>it sound like the best thing since sliced bread. >> >> >>Darn, I forgot to post the links explaining about it. I'll also put up a >>few emails from some mailing lists me and my friends are members of. >> >>Initial outline of Palladium [link] >> >>Analysis on how Palladium is solely designed to protect IT businesses >>such as Microsoft [link] >> >>The Palladium FAQ [link] >> >>How Palladium has the potential to eradicate Linux [link] >> >>====================================== >> >>The following is an excerpt from an email by "Lucky Green" one of the >>worlds most renowned cryptography hackers: >> >>[Minor plug: I am scheduled to give a talk on TCPA at this year's DEF CON >>security conference. I promise it will be an interesting talk. [link] ] >> >>Below are two more additional TCPA plays that I am in a position to mention: >> >>1) Permanently lock out competitors from your file formats. >> >>- From Steven Levy's article: >>"A more interesting possibility is that Palladium could help introduce >>DRM to business and just plain people. It's a funny thing," says Bill >>Gates. "We came at this thinking about music, but then we realized that >>e-mail and documents were far more interesting domains." >> >>Here it is why it is a more interesting possibility to Microsoft for >>Palladium to help introduce DRM to business and "just plain people" than >>to solely utilize DRM to prevent copying of digital entertainment content: >> >>It is true that Microsoft, Intel, and other key TCPA members consider DRM >>an enabler of the PC as the hub of the future home entertainment network. >>As Ross pointed out, by adding DRM to the platform, Microsoft >>and Intel, are able to grow the market for the platform. >> >>However, this alone does little to enhance Microsoft's already sizable >>existing core business. As Bill Gates stated, Microsoft plans to wrap >>their entire set of file formats with DRM. How does this help Microsoft's >>core business? Very simple: enabling DRM for MS Word >>documents makes it illegal under the DMCA to create competing software >>that can read or otherwise process the application's file format without >>the application vendor's permission. >> >>Future maintainers of open source office suites will be faced with a very >>simple choice: don't enable the software to read Microsoft's file formats >>or go to jail. Anyone who doubts that such a thing could happen >>is encouraged to familiarize themselves with the case of Dmitry Skylarov, >>who was arrested after last year's DEF CON conference for creating >>software that permitted processing of a DRM- wrapped document >>file format. >> >>Permanently locking out competition is a feature that of course does not >>just appeal to Microsoft alone. A great many dominant application vendors >>are looking forward to locking out their competition. The beauty of this >>play is that the application vendors themselves never need to make that >>call to the FBI themselves and incur the resultant backlash from the >>public that Adobe experienced in the Skylarov case. The content >>providers or some of those utilizing the ubiquitously supported DRM >>features will eagerly make that call instead. >> >>In one fell swoop, application vendors, such as Microsoft and many >>others, create a situation in which the full force of the U.S. judicial >>system can be brought to bear on anyone attempting to compete with a >>dominant application vendor. This is one of the several ways in which >>TCPA enables stifling competition. >> >>The above is one of the near to medium objectives the TCPA helps meet. >>[The short-term core application objective is of course to ensure payment >>for any and all copies of your application out there]. Below is a mid to >>long term objective: >> >>2) Lock documents to application licensing >> >>As the Levy article mentions, Palladium will permit the creation of >>documents with a given lifetime. This feature by necessity requires a >>secure clock, not just at the desktop of the creator of the document, but >>also on the desktops of all parties that might in the future read >>such documents. Since PC's do not ship with secure clocks that the owner >>of the PC is unable to alter and since the TCPA's specs do not mandate >>such an expensive hardware solution, any implementation of limited >>lifetime documents must by necessity obtain the time elsewhere. The >>obvious source for secure time is a TPM authenticated time server that >>distributes the time over the Internet. >> >>In other words, Palladium and other TCPA-based applications will require >>at least occasional Internet access to operate. It is during such >>mandatory Internet access that licensing-related information will be >>pushed to the desktop. One such set of information would be blacklists of >>widely-distributed pirated copies of application software (you don't need >>TCPA for this feature if the user downloads and installs periodic >>software updates, but the user may choose to live with >>application bugs that are fixed in the update rather than see her unpaid >>software disabled). >> >>With TCPA and DRM on all documents, the application vendor's powers >>increase vastly: the application vendor can now not just invalidate >>copies of applications for failure to pay ongoing licensing fees, but can >>invalidate all documents that were ever created with the help of >>this application. Regardless how widely the documents may have been >>distributed or on who's computer the documents may reside at present. >> >>Furthermore, this feature enables world-wide remote invalidation of a >>document file for reasons other than failure to pay ongoing licensing >>fees to the application vendor. To give just one example, documents can >>be remotely invalidated pursuant to a court order, as might be given if >>the author of the document were to distribute DeCSS v3 or Scientology >>scriptures in the future DRM protected format. All that is required to >>perform such an administrative invalidation of a document is either a >>sample copy of the document from which one can obtain its globally unique >>ID, the serial number of the application that created the document, or >>the public key of the person who licensed the application. (Other ways to >>exist but are omitted in the interest of brevity).

9 11

Re: FBI.GOV forgot to pay their DNS bill?
by blitz 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

This is hilarious.....reminds me of a similar prob they had at FCC. At 18:26 8/12/02 -0400, you wrote: >I guess the FBI/NIPC can't put out an alert about this one. > >Notice the absence of any domain servers > > > whois -h whois.nic.gov fbi.gov >% DOTGOV WHOIS Server ready >Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI-DOM) >Information Resources Division Washington, DC 20535 >Domain Name: FBI.GOV >Status: Active >Domain servers in listed order: >Technical POC, Administrative POC: >Sanders, Shereada L. (SLS1) >(202) 324-9430 (FAX)(202) 324-6720 >SSANDERS.ICSU(a)FBI.GOV > > > > dig @a.root-servers.net fbi.gov any > >; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> @a.root-servers.net fbi.gov any >; (1 server found) >;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch >;; got answer: >;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 4 >;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 >;; QUERY SECTION: >;; fbi.gov, type = ANY, class = IN > >;; AUTHORITY SECTION: >gov. 1D IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. >REGISTRAR.NIC.gov. ( > 2002081201 ; serial > 1H ; refresh > 15M ; retry > 1W ; expiry > 1D ) ; minimum > > >;; Total query time: 15 msec >;; FROM: clifden to SERVER: a.root-servers.net 198.41.0.4 >;; WHEN: Mon Aug 12 18:24:40 2002 >;; MSG SIZE sent: 25 rcvd: 93

1 0

RE: FBI.GOV forgot to pay their DNS bill?
by Karyn Ulriksen 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

Damn that Homeland Security! They've gone too far this time! 8\ -----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 3:26 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: FBI.GOV forgot to pay their DNS bill? I guess the FBI/NIPC can't put out an alert about this one. Notice the absence of any domain servers > whois -h whois.nic.gov fbi.gov % DOTGOV WHOIS Server ready Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI-DOM) Information Resources Division Washington, DC 20535 Domain Name: FBI.GOV Status: Active Domain servers in listed order: Technical POC, Administrative POC: Sanders, Shereada L. (SLS1) (202) 324-9430 (FAX)(202) 324-6720 SSANDERS.ICSU(a)FBI.GOV > dig @a.root-servers.net fbi.gov any ; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> @a.root-servers.net fbi.gov any ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 4 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; fbi.gov, type = ANY, class = IN ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: gov. 1D IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. REGISTRAR.NIC.gov. ( 2002081201 ; serial 1H ; refresh 15M ; retry 1W ; expiry 1D ) ; minimum ;; Total query time: 15 msec ;; FROM: clifden to SERVER: a.root-servers.net 198.41.0.4 ;; WHEN: Mon Aug 12 18:24:40 2002 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 25 rcvd: 93

2 1

FBI.GOV forgot to pay their DNS bill?
by Sean Donelan 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

I guess the FBI/NIPC can't put out an alert about this one. Notice the absence of any domain servers > whois -h whois.nic.gov fbi.gov % DOTGOV WHOIS Server ready Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI-DOM) Information Resources Division Washington, DC 20535 Domain Name: FBI.GOV Status: Active Domain servers in listed order: Technical POC, Administrative POC: Sanders, Shereada L. (SLS1) (202) 324-9430 (FAX)(202) 324-6720 SSANDERS.ICSU(a)FBI.GOV > dig @a.root-servers.net fbi.gov any ; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> @a.root-servers.net fbi.gov any ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 4 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; fbi.gov, type = ANY, class = IN ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: gov. 1D IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. REGISTRAR.NIC.gov. ( 2002081201 ; serial 1H ; refresh 15M ; retry 1W ; expiry 1D ) ; minimum ;; Total query time: 15 msec ;; FROM: clifden to SERVER: a.root-servers.net 198.41.0.4 ;; WHEN: Mon Aug 12 18:24:40 2002 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 25 rcvd: 93

1 0

apologies to the list
by William Warren 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

turns out netscape does not honor domain specific htm/text settings as i ahve been informned many times that html is sitll appearing...i have switched clients to OE for nanog in plain text...:) William Warren May God Bless you and everything you touch. My "foundation" verse: Isiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

1 0