Well, in light of all the gloom I would like to say that I had a good experience with exodus/doubleclick, my network was recently the victim of a smurf attack, one of the amps was doubleclick.net, I contacted exodus about it and they (within an hour) put me into contact with doubleclick.net who had someone call me, I was able to walk the person on the phone through fixing the problem, and they are no longer a smurf amp. It's nice to have a few good experiences.. FYI, I am not a customer of Exodus in any way. Matthew S. Hallacy XtraTyme Technologies Systems/Network Administrator On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
Well, let's take a better example, smurf amps.
I have some personal horror stories about running around in circles getting tier1s to turn off their smurf amps originating from their own routers or customers. Eg tier1 router was a smurf amp, it was smurfing, it could be easily verified to smurf, but they would not disable the smurf amp because it would have a "negative impact" on their customers. The fact it was being actively used as a smurf amp didnt seem to matter to them.
This was in fact a case of "just flip a switch and turn off the attack".
I'm sure others on this list have their share of horror stories as well.
The hoops the public had to jump through the past couple years to get tier1s to turn off their smurf amps is mind boggling. And there are tier1s who are *still* actively running smurf amps in their cores.
I'm actually suprised noone has filed lawsuits over this. Or maybe someone did and I missed it.
-Dan