-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Below: On 2/18/2014 11:22 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 18, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
Barry is a well respected security researcher. I'm surprised he posted this.
In his defense, he did it over a year ago (June 11, 2012). Maybe we should ask him about it. I'll do that now....
I'm not surprised in any regard. There are too many names for BCP-38, SAV, SSAC-004, BCP-84, Ingress Filtering, etc..
This is why I am now using the phrase "anti-spoofing" when talking about this in public. It far less cryptic, and I am breaking into bite-sized components that people can actually understand. As engineers & technical people, we need to start using language people can wrap their brains around easily. Remember: We are living in the age of instant gratification and Attention Deficit Disorder. :-) - - ferg
There are many networks that perform this best practice either by "default" through NAT/firewalls or by explicit configuration of the devices.
There are many networks that one will never be able to measure nor audit as well, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to work on tracking back spoofed packets and reporting the attacks, and securing devices.
- Jared
- -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlMDt90ACgkQKJasdVTchbIBrwD/YyUeK4SvS6grQdarKnoJiZXD 2YoTf+lRXpXnkSTPUdUA/3TH8jnXNx6DkOw9nkbVIi6Ek8ehTLUPpDPBe0oELQj4 =Cf2C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----