Dear Daniel, Sorry that I have mislead you to the Hookup. As you might know already, Hookup went backrupt a few months ago. And all what they had is NOW break into a few company's. I believe this might give you "real" start. According to nslookup, "hookup.net" is currently upated by hookup.net nameserver = ns1.nbc.netcom.ca hookup.net nameserver = ns2.nbc.netcom.ca So, I lookup whois data base for netcom.ca. I got [No name] (NS18559-HST) Hostname: NS1.NBC.NETCOM.CA Address: 207.181.89.2 System: ? running ? Coordinator: Bignell, Graham (BG54-ORG) netcom@THE.ENTIRE.NET 416 341 5776 Fax- - - 416 341 5725 Record last updated on 21-Jan-97. Database last updated on 8-Feb-98 04:14:24 EDT. So, I think this might be a good start. I should have looked further before informed you. regards, tatsuya ------------------------------------------------ = = = = = = 電話 03-3239-0607 fax 03-3239-2609 business network telecom http://www.giganet.net On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Daniel Reed wrote:

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Tatsuya Kawasaki wrote: ) On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Craig A. Huegen wrote: ) > On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Tatsuya Kawasaki wrote: ) > mskucher is no longer with hookup; and, in fact, hookup has filed for ) > bankruptcy, last I heard. ) Daniel, ) if you need information about upper provider or the letter ) mskucher sent, please let me know. I think he also CC to nanog, too. Welp, I've waited until now, and just tried again:

root@narnia:~# ping -c2 165.154.1.255 PING 165.154.1.255 (165.154.1.255): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 165.154.125.53: icmp_seq=0 ttl=243 time=365.8 ms 64 bytes from 165.154.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=459.9 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 165.154.1.7: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=462.0 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 127.0.0.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=463.8 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 165.154.1.66: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=466.9 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 165.154.1.57: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=496.9 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 165.154.1.4: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=506.9 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 165.154.1.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=537.0 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 165.154.1.26: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=556.9 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 165.154.1.21: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=576.7 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 165.154.1.26: icmp_seq=1 ttl=242 time=288.5 ms

--- 165.154.1.255 ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, +10 duplicates, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 288.5/477.3/576.7 ms root@narnia:~#

I originally contacted registry@hookup.net (as per the output from whois 165.154), but it appears they haven't fixed the problem. I'm unsure where to go from here (should I contact Netcom, do you think?), but there was only two networks listed in that smurf.c derivative that were susceptable to being used in a smurf attack anyway, so I'm not really sure it's entirely worthwhile persuing those two contacts.

-- Daniel Reed <n@narnia.n.ml.org> (3CE060DD) System administrator of narnia.n.ml.org (narnia.mhv.net [199.0.0.118]) recursive (adj.) - See recursive.