March 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Trends in network operator security
by Sean Donelan 30 Dec '03

30 Dec '03

Its 2003 and everyone is making their predictions. What trends are network operators seeing for Internet security? Old favorites Buffer overflows Distributed Denial of Service Poor passwords (cisco/sanfran) Poorly coded systems Blame the user for not protecting poorly coded systems Trends Attack the network (why? because we can) Proxy relay hiding (its not just for SMTP anymore) Combo Bot/Trojan/Worms Embedded software "upgrades" Any other trends network operators are seeing?

2 2

AT&T NYC
by Bryan Heitman 03 Sep '03

03 Sep '03

Anyone seeing any problems with ATT in new york? Best regards, Bryan Heitman Interland, Inc.

10 11

Using Policy Routing to stop DoS attacks
by Christian Liendo 12 May '03

12 May '03

Looking for advice. I am sorry if this was discussed before, but I cannot seem to find this. I want to use source routing as a way to stop a DoS rather than use access-lists. In other words, lets say I know the source IP (range of IPs) of an attack and they do not change. If the destination stays the same I can easily null route the destination, but what if the destination constantly changes. So I have to work based on the source IP. Depending on the router and the code, if I implement an access-list then the CPU utilization shoots through the roof. What I would like to try and do is use source routing to route that traffic to null. I figured it would be easier on the router than an access-list. Has anyone else tried this successfully on ciscos and junipers? Is it easier on the CPU than access-lists? Is there a link I cannot find on cisco or google? Thanks Christian Liendo

8 12

Contact with Clue at XO?
by Eric Whitehill 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

Sorry to populate the list with traffic like this... Extended IP access list 120 deny ip 216.156.98.0 0.0.0.255 any (31607418 matches) permit ip any any (43284187 matches) (this is under 2 hours) Which is a very, very bad thing. Can someone from XO, please contact me about this? 15:33:51 pfe R ge-0/0/0.0 ICMP 216.156.98.x 206.xx.xx.xx 15:33:51 pfe R ge-0/0/0.0 UDP 216.156.98.x 206.xx.xx.xx Apparently emails to their abuse dept with contact info and such do not generate responses. Thanks! -Eric

2 2

NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
by Jack Bates 02 Apr '03

02 Apr '03

todd glassey wrote: > Actually I proposed that NANOG also consider several > splinter lists. Including one concerned with the Legal > Issues with operating network services, and since there are > jail terms being talked about I suggest that these are now > sub-organizations who's time as come. > I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal aspects are relevant to NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is excess in their mailbox and deters them from the technical aspects of networking. -Jack

7 9

More Gifts for a CTO who has everything ...
by Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine 01 Apr '03

01 Apr '03

This week's puzzle ... What is symmetry? The mail relay for a defunct ISP with some 20k users has between 100k and 200k instances of sendmail journaled per day. At any point in time, there are about 1k entries in the host's proctable, 80% are the MTA, and a few connections/sec to port 25, with default MTA rules for open-relays, blacklists, etc. The host is an E250, running Solaris 2.6, with historically problematic roll-your-own-RAID. The load average is nearly zero. iostat and vmstat show nominal load, only 700 users are actually "getting mail", and with a multi-day delay observed anectdotally. ... Asymetric dns (forward and reverse paths with differing SOAs), plus rate limiting at the access router for all forward maps, can result in serious disfunction. Fixing the CTO's dns brought the proctable count down to sub-100. For what it is worth, this is the most horked machine I've ever seen. I decided not to try and explain this one. >From the post to nanog of the 25th, "Gifts for a CTO who has everything ..." (nmap 10.0.0.0/8 has side effects) "Does life get any better than this" Best humor reply: Setup peering with a new provider that PROXY ARPs all your destinations. Second place (tie): LART the sucker, and the perenial foam bat. Best psychology reply: ... find a high-intensity clueino source? But clueinos interact very weakly with that sort of matter... The CTO's actual reply was "Do we have load that high? Were we being attacked by some script kiddies?? Very, very weak interaction. Cheers, Eric

1 1

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
by Kuhtz, Christian 01 Apr '03

01 Apr '03

> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen@sprunk.org] [..] > Common carrier status exists for this very reason. Unfortunately, it > probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS, since > filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- see > the smut suit against AOL a few years ago. Come on, don't go lumping DoS and smut into the same basket. You can't be possibly serious about considering the two to be equals. In other words, you reasoning is quite flawed the way I see it, and blocking DoS is indeed legitimate and legally supportable. Excesses are rarely protected by any legal statutes. Thanks, Christian ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers."

5 9

Curing the BIND pain
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 01 Apr '03

01 Apr '03

Let's assume that BIND has a way to know when it is dangerously out of date. The mechanism used would be up to ISC and I'll admit that it would probably involve some sort of DNS records in an ISC-run domain because that's the only way that has a high likelihood of working given the number of firewalls and caching nameservers that may be between a given BIND box and ISC. Seems to me that ISC has always maintained that there are two version numbers, one 4.x and one 8.x, that are always the oldest ones you can run and still be secure against known exploits. So the info stored in the ISC DNS server really doesn't need to be more than those two version numbers. OK, now assume that we have a BIND server which has detected that it is out of date and at risk of attack. What should it do? Well, first of all, what would a human being do if if realised that it was at risk of attack and they had no means of contacting their friends or the police. A child might cry out and an adult might yell for help in case someone was near enough to hear. BIND is in a similar situation. It doesn't know if there is anyone looking after it but it is hurting, so let's make it cry out. I suggest that an appropriate technique would be for the BIND server to originate traffic on it's local subnet that would look suspicious and possibly trigger intrusion alarms. Send out some packets to the broadcast address. Do some portscanning of all addresses on the subnet. Find any open port 80 and retrieve a URL containing BIND/server/at/10.7.7.1/has/security/vulnerability, find any open port 25 and send email to postmaster containing the same message, etc. Not enough traffic to be a DoS but enough to show up in various logs in case someone is looking at some of them. Even then, this is still a string and sealing wax solution. It's situations like this that demonstrate just how primitive our supposedly high technology really is. --Michael Dillon

4 3

Re: [RE: State Super-DMCA Too True]
by Joshua Smith 31 Mar '03

31 Mar '03

"todd glassey" <todd.glassey(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > [cut] > > If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail > too? > > THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - not really, did the us postal service get in trouble for delivering anthrax laden letters? no. if someone at the post office bypassed the postal inspectors to 'hand deliver' those letters, then that person will be in trouble, not the entire office. > > No. > If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to > jail too? > > DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU. > operator - "what city and state please" you - mumble mumble mumble operator - "here is the number, thank you for using $telco" i suppose there is a slight chance here, provided that same operator connected all of your repeated calls and then listened and knew you were being obscene, but kept connecting you anyway. > No. > > BUT IF YOUR AGENT OPENS THE PACKAGE TO INSURE THAT IT HAD A > CORRECT ADDRESS ON IT AND FINDS IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND - > THEN ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE? - BETTER YET - IF THEY OPENED THE > PACKAGE TO INSPECT THE DELIVERY ADDRESS AND THEN REFUSED TO > APPLY ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PACKAGES PAYLOAD OR OTHER ADDRESS > DATA BEYOND THAT OF A LOCAL DELIVERY ADDRESS, MY TAKE IS > THAT THIS IS WHY THERE WILL BE SO MANY ADMIN'S IN JAIL IN > THE COMING YEAR OR TWO - WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY MAY > OUT-NUMBER THE DRUNK DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS SOON. > if my 'agent' takes delivery of the 'package', that is essentially the same as if i signed for the package. if they don't know what is in it, and don't look, then they will probably not be charged with anything harsher than ignorance - if they look and participate, then yes, they will get in trouble too. > ANYWAY - THE OPENING OF THE MAIL TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING > DELIVER IT OBLIGATES YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY AND ALL THE > DATA REPRESENTED IN THE HEADER IS REAL AS WELL. IF YOU PARSE > THE RFC822 DATA TO PROCESS IT THEM PROCESS IT. THAT'S THE > POINT AND THAT THIS IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER THESE LAWS - ITS > JUST THAT TO DATE THE TIER-2/3 ISP'S HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN > THREATENED WITH JAIL FOR NOT GOING THE WHOLE ROUTE... > since when did a tier 2/3 carrier become the 'nanny' for naughty customers? just because they don't move quite as much data as a 'tier 1' means that they have the extra time and resources to read all of my mail to ensure that i am not doing anything naughty... > Common carrier status exists for this very reason. > > I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISP'S ARE BY DEFINITION NOT COMMON > CARRIERS. ONLY THE TIER-1 PROVIDERS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS > CC'S UNDER INTERNET DEFINITIONS, AND ANYONE THAT OPERATES > MORE THAN ONE TIER-1 SERVICE, AS IN A TIER-2 OR TIER-3 > OPERATION TOO, HAS A LARGER ISSUE THAT ALL OF THEIR > INFRASTRUCTURE LIKELY HAS TO COMPLY - > so what is a tier 1/2/3/4 carrier again? if these laws do not define each one explicitly, then the definition is arbitrary. if said definitions are published as operational requirements, then you might have a case... > Unfortunately, it > probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam > and DoS, since > filtering on content inherently violates common carrier > protection -- > > NO - QUITE THE OPPOSITE - ACTUALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT FOR > ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH YOU ARE THE ORIGINATING OR TERMINATION > ENTITY, THAT "THE DATA REPRESENTED IN ANYTHING YOU PROCESS > MUST BE RELIABLE AND TRUE". THAT MEANS IF YOU ACCEPT EMAIL > FROM SOMEWHERE AND PROFFER IT ONWARD TO YOUR CLIENT'S, AND > YOU DON'T BOTHER TO FILTER AND PROOF IT - THAT YOU STAND A > GOOD CHANCE TO "GET YOUR PEE-PEE WHACKED BY THE BAILIFF" - > TO QUOTE FROM CHEECH AND CHONG. > so i must now proof-read my customer's emails? i didn't realize that i was a secretary too (guess i should be charging more) - should i charge to spell-check by the word, sentence, or email? > see > the smut suit against AOL a few years ago. > > I KNOW - I WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN ONE OF THEM. I ALSO AM > THE INDUSTRY LIAISON TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S > INFORMATION SECURITY COMMITTEE, BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY SO > IGNORE THIS IF YOU WANT. > yep, this is smut... ;-) > S > > Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert > Einstein > CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He > throws the > K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen > Hawking > "Walk with me through the Universe, And along the way see how all of us are Connected. Feast the eyes of your Soul, On the Love that abounds. In all places at once, seemingly endless, Like your own existence." - Stephen Hawking -

2 1

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
by todd glassey 31 Mar '03

31 Mar '03

Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that these laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing these there will be some arrests. Now beyond that I don't know, but I am sure that being a co-conspirator to any number of illegal acts by facilitating them through what is set as the standard of "operational negligence", i.e. that what is generally expected of you, is still prosecutable. And when the first round of Network Admin's go to jail for being complicit in these frauds, the tunes regarding "hey you cant do this to us" will all vanish as your individual lawyers tell you to shut-up before contempt citations cost you more jail time. I wish this was different or that the general class of Admin's wasn't willing to fight this out - but after a few people wind up in jail, the general tune will change - I assure you. My one embedded comment in caps below "TSG -->" Todd Glassey -----Original Message----- From: Michael Loftis [mailto:mloftis@wgops.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:04 AM To: todd glassey; Robert A. Hayden; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True Yah but that's all akin to asking hte telephone company to make a log of each and every phone conversation above and beyond billing records. Unless you get billed per-piece of e-mail, or per HTTP connection an ISP should have to nor need ot keep a log of that data and be legally compelled to divulge any of that. TSG --> EXCEPT THAT THEY BECOME A PARTNER TO THE DECEPTION BY THEIR FACILITIES CONTINUING TO FACILITATE THE FRAUD. LOOK - IT MAY NOT BE RIGHT - BUT IT IS WHAT'S COMING - SO DO YOU WANT TO BE READY FOR IT OR SLAMMED BY IT? TAKE YOUR PICK. TSG --> THE WORST PART IS IF SOMEONE IN ANOTHER STATE SENDS THIS ILLEGAL DATA GRAM TO YOU AND YOU FORWARD IT, YOU TECHNICALLY BECOME A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN WHAT CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS "INTERSTATE FRAUD BY WIRE" AND THAT BRINGS THE FBI INTO IT POST HASTE. Just my $.02 TSG --> JUST MY $2. TSG --> Todd --On Monday, March 31, 2003 9:50 AM -0800 todd glassey <todd.glassey(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > How about this - The issue is really one of the commission > of fraud and preventing it. So is NAT really an issue? I > think not. I think it may be part of the legislation but > that is because that the writers didn't have our input... > > So if you as an ISP have a good operating process model and > you log and sort your log data. What is the difference > between a log that shows a bunch of stuff moving to a DHCP > lease that was assigned to "xxx-yyyy" at "zz:zz" time on > "dd-mm-yyyy" day. And that this lease was issued to account > "blah" - then you have the most evidence that is available > over a TCP connection anyway. And its as good as the > testimony of the logs regarding that there was only one > address at the end of that pipe serviced. > > What I am saying is that any legislation preventing NAT is > ludicrous and in fact counter productive. What it needs to > be is legislation regarding how well ISP's have to audit > what their customers do. That's it. Nothing more. > > Look - what is the difference between the log data shown in > a scenario where I don't use NAT but instead use Microsoft's > Internet Sharing Feature in the Win2000 Servers? the answer > is simple. Poof NAT gateway. And so now it is illegal to use > a facility already distributed in every copy of MS Server > deployed in these states.... > > Look what this law-shtick is all about is the mandating that > ISP's know what their customers are doing data wise, on > their wires (the ISP's) and that's it. > > Todd Glassey > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On > Behalf Of > Robert A. Hayden > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:34 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True > > > > Can't NAT-like devices be just as viable as a security > device as well? > Is the ISP willing to take responsiblity for security > breaches on my home > network because they banned my firewall? From a > political/public-perception standpoint, treat those ISPs > that are > complaining about NAT as being soft on security and > encouraging hacking. > In todays paranoid political climate, there might even be > some milage > here. > > I have Charter pipeline in Madison, WI, and they've been > very open about > people using NAT devices to the point that they are > recommended in some > cases as security devices as well as being sold by Charter's > professional-services group as inexpensive firewalls. About > six months > ago I got a 1-page flier from Charter offering a 4-port > Linksys and an > on-site installation. > > Since a "NAT device" could include virtually any operating > system and any > PC with two or more ethernet ports, it might be better to > push the > "firewall" aspects of them rather than try to defend or > justify the > MANY-to-1 routing aspects of NAT. > >

4 5