On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Mike Hammett wrote:
So the preferred alternative is to simply do nothing at all? That seems fair.
Not at all. But it is your network and only you know what the suggested approaches others have already run through are best for your environment. But if you haven't yet done so, help the rest of us and deploy BCP38 too. :-)
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> To: "Brandon Ross" <bross@pobox.com> Cc: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>, "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 3:05:14 PM Subject: Re: DDOS solution recommendation
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Mike Hammett wrote:
I know that UDP can be spoofed, but it's not likely that the SSH, mail, etc. login attempts, web page hits, etc. would be spoofed as they'd have to know the response to be of any good.
Okay, so I'm curious. Are you saying that you do not automatically block attackers until you can confirm a 3-way TCP handshake has been completed, and therefore you aren't blocking sources that were spoofed? If so, how are you protecting yourself against SYN attacks? If not, then you've made it quite easy for attackers to deny any source they want.
this all seems like a fabulous conversation we're watching, but really .. if someone wants to block large swaths of the intertubes on their systems it's totally up to them, right? They can choose to not be functional all they want, as near as I can tell... and arguing with someone with this mentality isn't productive, especially after several (10+? folk) have tried to show and tell some experience that would lead to more cautious approaches.
If mike wants less packets, that's all cool... I'm not sure it's actually solving anything, but sure, go right ahead, have fun.
-chris
wfms