October 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

More news coverage
by Howard C. Berkowitz 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

Associated Press at http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2003/10/08/experts_descr… I am talking with the reporter, Ted Bridis. Associated Press reporters are under about as tough a deadline as TV, so it's a good fast first pass.

6 6

RE: Verisign on Process
by Howard C. Berkowitz 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

At 5:23 PM -0700 10/8/03, David Schwartz wrote: > > Is it possibly time to suggest that perhaps ICANN should >> call for formal separation of regiSTRAR functions from >> regiSTRY functions, and stipulate that stewards of record >> for regiSTRY functions not participate in regiSTRAR roles? > > Already done -- read the contact between ICANN and VeriSign. > >> Certainly it's been shown to be very difficult to resist >> the temptation to extend editorial control over what entries >> get placed into the DNS records as a regiSTRY if you also >> happen to be able to increase the profits from your regiSTRAR >> role. > > Sure, but you could also do it to increase the profits from >your registry >role, which seems to have been the intent of SiteFinder. > >> If the functions are stipulated to be kept separate, > > They are. > >> then we have a much better opportunity to engage a system of >> checks and balances, to self-limit potential future abuses >> like this. > > How would that stop a registry from, for example, adding a >wildcard record >that goes to pages sold to the highest bidder? Registry functions are >supposed to be wholly ministerial. VeriSign doesn't get that and ICANN is >going to have to force them to -- probably more than once. > > DS

1 0

Finding clue at comcast.net
by Howard C. Berkowitz 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

I'm rapidly beginning to believe this is equivalent to finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. When my broadband alternative is Verizon and it's looking better, this is scary. Sometime today, their SMTP server started bouncing messages with more than 3 addressees. When I called customer support, I was told "we only handle troubleshooting, not mail service." The operator "guessed" they might be doing software updates on the mail service, had no information, and said there was no person to which it could be escalated. She insisted that I call my local cable office to find out when the "server repair" would be completed, because "they schedule all repairs." Is this a bad dream?

1 0

DoS Attacks
by Brian Bruns 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

Oh boy, what a fun night this was. After a 4 or so hours downtime, my servers are back up and running. Heres the gorey details. At about 7pm EST, we began having unusual issues with our network, the router, and several machines on the network. For the first part of the attack, we were held down for a good 30-60 minutes. Took us a while to figure out which one of our machines was being targeted. Turns out to be our NAT firewall box. We tried several things to drop the attack, but it still kept coming in strong (mind you, we don't have very much bandwidth, but we can usually ride out DoS attacks pretty well - this was an exception) Then suddenly, out of the blue it dropped. Outside connectivity was restored and things were back to normal. 20 minutes later, the relentless attack began again. This time, we were ready and waiting with tcpdump and several other handcrafted tools we use for this type of thing. The attack was coming from a single source machine, unspoofed (ballsy if you ask me), 128.186.11.215. Packets were UDP, random from 2100-2299 source and 2400-2699 dest. So, now for the fun part. Being offsite, I wasn't the one to place the calls, but my admin on site started with FSU's abuse desk. No help whatsoever. Claimed that because the abuse desk was gone, they had no authority to deal with the problem. Frustrated, annoyed, and pissed off, he tried again, and got hung up on twice. Nice people eh? Our next call was a bit later (at this point, we were very unhappy and ready to start raising hell with anyone we could find) - this time, to their upstream Qwest. After dealing with the operator, they finally sent him to one of the NOCs. Unfortunately, they sent him to the wrong NOC and not the Qwest MD NOC. Luckily, we got someone with a clue - a nice guy by the name of Richard Stein who tried to help us, but found that the other NOC was unresponsive and couldn't do anything himself to solve the problem. After hanging up with Qwest, we got a call back from FSU. After a good 20 minutes or so of talking with the net admin from FSU, things were finally set in motion. After another good 10 minutes or so, connectivity was restored and everything was back to normal. According to my guy, they yanked the whole subnet at FSU. Problem solved. So here I am, asking if anyone here has any advice on dealing with these issues in the future? Its painfully apparent noone takes these situations seriously enough. What should we do when we are put in a position like this? Just sit back and hope it goes away itself? Also, any ideas on how to deal with these attacks on lower bandwidth connections? Right now, 2mbit.com / sosdg.org is sitting on a 1.5/256 business DSL line. I really can't afford to be buying T1s or T3s just to hold up to attacks like this. As always, thanks. -------------------------- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group Open Solutions For A Closed World / Anti-Spam Resources http://www.2mbit.com ICQ: 8077511

10 11

Re: Verisign on Process
by Howard C. Berkowitz 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

At 2:51 PM -0400 10/8/03, Dean Anderson wrote: >On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >> >VeriSign's vice president for its registry service. Citing concerns >> >of proprietary information and competitive advantage, he added that >> >he didn't think he could guarantee any advance notice of similar >> >changes in the future. >> >> >> Gomes' position truly bothers me if a registry, given that it meets >> the formal definition of a technical monopoly, is planning around >> competitive advantage. > >This is incorrect. Verisign is not a monopoly. There are many registrars >of .net and .com domain names which compete with Verisign. > > --Dean It is not a monopoly in its regiSTRAR function. It is a monopoly as regiSTRY of .net and .com. It couldn't have inserted the wildcards if it wasn't. Having control of the TLD servers makes you a monopoly for that TLD.

2 1

Old Lorain Rectifier Manual availability?
by Marius Strom 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

Does anyone know where to find old Lorain Rectifier manuals (Specifically model #A50F50)? Google (groups and www) turns up nothing. (A PDF would be nice, but I don't have my fingers crossed) -- /-------------------------------------------------> Marius Strom | Always carry a short length of fibre-optic cable. Professional Geek | If you get lost, then you can drop it on the System/Network Admin | ground, wait 10 minutes, and ask the backhoe http://www.marius.org/ | operator how to get back to civilization. \-------------| Alan Frame |---------------------->

2 1

Re: News coverage, Verisign etc.
by John Neiberger 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

>>>> "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(a)research.att.com> 10/8/03 1:54:12 PM >>> >>In these days of corporate malfeasance scandal coverage, you'd think that >>Verisign's tactics would have whetted the appetite of some bright >>investigative reporter for one of the major publications. > >For all that I'm critical of wildcards in TLDs -- I spoke at the >meeting yesterday, and my slides are on my Web page -- I don't think >there are any issues of malfeasance. No one has been looting >Verisign's coffers, they're not cooking the books, etc. I see three >issues: is this technically wise, did Verisign have the right to do >this under their current contract with ICANN, and should they have such >a right. I don't see anything resembling dishonesty. The dishonesty came later in the form of press releases and 'commentary' by Mark McLaughlin. Well, perhaps dishonesty is too harsh a term. Let's be kind and say they are being disingenuous instead. John --

1 0

Verisign on Process
by Howard C. Berkowitz 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

Both here and in private mail, people have been talking about Verisign's view of the process. Unfortunately, I was only able to attend the afternoon part of yesterday's ICANN ISSC committee meeting. But Declan McCullough was there, and picked up an interesting quote from Verisign: >By Declan McCullagh >Staff Writer, CNET News.com >http://news.com.com/2100-1038-5088128.html > >Legal and policy questions were not on the agenda, and VeriSign >representatives repeatedly objected when the discussion veered in >that direction. > >"Are we going to focus on security and stability, or usability?" >asked VeriSign's Ben Turner, saying the committee's mandate was too >narrow to include broader questions about Site Finder. > >Stephen Crocker, one of the Internet's original architects and the >ICANN committee's chairman, asked VeriSign why the wild card was >introduced without giving network operators any warning. "I know for >a fact that VeriSign has no problem finding its way to those >(technical discussion) forums," Crocker said, referring to the >company's ongoing participation in them. > >"I don't want to go beyond the agenda," replied Chuck Gomes, >VeriSign's vice president for its registry service. Citing concerns >of proprietary information and competitive advantage, he added that >he didn't think he could guarantee any advance notice of similar >changes in the future. Gomes' position truly bothers me if a registry, given that it meets the formal definition of a technical monopoly, is planning around competitive advantage. Other speakers pointed out that the functionality of Sitefinder could be implemented at the edge, not breaking the end-to-end assumption and still allowing innovation. Internet Explorer, for example, has such functionality. MS and VS. Reminds me of some recent wars where observers were sad that only one side could lose. :-)

3 2

Re: Sitefinder fan - this guy needs a clue.
by Robert Boyle 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

At 02:06 PM 10/8/2003, you wrote: > > Let's hope we can append "not for long" if they keep this stuff up. :) > >The great thing about the web is a newspaper can bury its mistakes without >having to admit it in the "Corrections" page. > >ZD.NET has modified the article the originally posted. ZD.NET added the >biography and changed the byline in the last hour or so. > >The original article did not identify Mark McLaughlin nor include his >biography. Correct! If it had, I never would have posted. :) R Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one." - Francis Jeffrey

1 0

Sitefinder fan - this guy needs a clue.
by Robert Boyle 08 Oct '03

08 Oct '03

Wow. This guy is completely delusional. http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5087746.html I have been up for 24 hours working on a router upgrade and a simultaneous DS3 problem so I'm in no frame of mind to respond. Perhaps one of the more eloquent (and less tired) folks here can politely beat this guy with a clue stick. -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one." - Francis Jeffrey

8 8