Patrick, it would appear that you are insulting me by your choice of quotes but from content one would assume you agree with me. Perhaps next time quote the idiot that said attacks BCP38 would stop don't happen any more? (top posted because the thread is already confused) On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:05 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
Count you which way? You seem to agree with me. Everyone should be doing both, not discounting BCP38 because they aren't seeing an attack right now.
No one sees attacks that BCP38 would stop?
Wow, I thought things like the Kaminsky bug were big news. I guess all that was for nothing?
(Yes, I am being sarcastic. Anyone who thinks attacks which BCP 38 would stop are not happening in the wild is .. I believe the phrase used was "confused and misinformed".)
-- TTFN, patrick
On Sep 4, 2008, at 9:50 AM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
Count me in.
There is no reason to limit our defenses to the one thing that we think is important at one instance in time... attackers change and adapt and multimodal defense is simply good policy.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, James Jun wrote:
Indeed... In today's internet, protecting your own box (cp- policer/control plane filtering) is far more important IMO than implementing BCP38 when much of attack traffic comes from legitimate IP sources anyway (see botnets).
I'm sorry, but nonsense statements such as these burn the blood. Sure, yes, protecting yourself is so much more important than protecting anyone else.
Anyone else want to stand up and join the "I am an asshole" club?
-- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
-- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
-- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness