Here's the latest group of smurf-able networks. Note some cool, high-connectivity networks are on here, like Bay Networks. At least one was still active on mae-west, if you can believe it.
[ ... ] Is there any good reason I shouldn't ask my upstream network providers to filter all packets coming in to our network with one of these source addresses? And is there any good reason this wouldn't very effectively prevent us from being a Smurf target? Thanks for any thoughts/info, ------Scott.
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Scott Gifford wrote:
Here's the latest group of smurf-able networks. Note some cool, high-connectivity networks are on here, like Bay Networks. At least one was still active on mae-west, if you can believe it.
[ ... ]
Is there any good reason I shouldn't ask my upstream network providers to filter all packets coming in to our network with one of these source addresses? And is there any good reason this wouldn't very effectively prevent us from being a Smurf target?
Thanks for any thoughts/info,
------Scott.
Cuz some of them may have been fixed by now. Hank
Hi all,
Here's the latest group of smurf-able networks. Note some cool, high-connectivity networks are on here, like Bay Networks. At least one was still active on mae-west, if you can believe it.
[ ... ]
Is there any good reason I shouldn't ask my upstream network providers to filter all packets coming in to our network with one of these source addresses? And is there any good reason this wouldn't very effectively prevent us from being a Smurf target?
Cuz some of them may have been fixed by now.
I'm agree, one of that networks -at least- is now protected [132.248.0.0] so you don't need to filter packets coming from the nets on the list. Greetings, ______________________________________________________________ Ing. Alejandro Perea M Email: alex@noc.unam.mx Network Operation Center http://www.noc.unam.mx R e d U N A M NOC-mail : noc@unam.mx Tel: (+52 5) 622 85 09 Fax: (+52 5) 622 85 71 ______________________________________________________________
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Ing. Alejandro Perea Mejia wrote:
Is there any good reason I shouldn't ask my upstream network providers to filter all packets coming in to our network with one of these source addresses? And is there any good reason this wouldn't very effectively prevent us from being a Smurf target?
Cuz some of them may have been fixed by now.
I'm agree, one of that networks -at least- is now protected [132.248.0.0] so you don't need to filter packets coming from the nets on the list.
So what we need is an RBL for smurf amplifier networks. That would seriously encourage these sites to block broadcast pings and would automatically removed fixed sites from everyone's filters. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
On Wed, Mar 11, 1998 at 02:40:36PM -0600, Ing. Alejandro Perea Mejia wrote:
prevent us from being a Smurf target?
Cuz some of them may have been fixed by now.
I'm agree, one of that networks -at least- is now protected [132.248.0.0] so you don't need to filter packets coming from the nets on the list. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Um, I believe you mispelt "my network". Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
participants (5)
-
Hank Nussbacher -
Ing. Alejandro Perea Mejia -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jon Lewis -
Scott Gifford