Re: More smurf networks. FIX YOUR ROUTERS.
While you IRC people are out checking for SMURF amplifier networks, perhaps you should check your own: [root@eth0-core0]:~ # ping 132.249.66.0 PING 132.249.66.0 (132.249.66.0): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 132.249.66.6: icmp_seq=0 ttl=245 time=83.0 ms 64 bytes from 132.249.66.159: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=84.3 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.148: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=84.8 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.109: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=85.3 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.30.7: icmp_seq=0 ttl=245 time=85.8 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.154: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=86.3 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.62: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=87.0 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.208: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=87.4 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.140: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=89.6 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.146: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=90.1 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.45: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=90.6 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.124: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=91.1 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.229: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=91.6 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.166: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=92.1 ms (DUP!) --- 132.249.66.0 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, +13 duplicates, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 83.0/87.7/92.1 ms [root@eth0-core0]:~ # ping 132.249.66.255 PING 132.249.66.255 (132.249.66.255): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 132.249.66.159: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=85.0 ms 64 bytes from 132.249.66.148: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=86.1 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.109: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=87.0 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.30.7: icmp_seq=0 ttl=245 time=87.5 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.154: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=88.0 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.6: icmp_seq=0 ttl=245 time=88.5 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.62: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=88.9 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.140: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=89.5 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.146: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=91.3 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.208: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=91.8 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.45: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=92.4 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.229: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=92.9 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.124: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=93.4 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.166: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=93.9 ms (DUP!) --- 132.249.66.255 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, +13 duplicates, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 85.0/89.7/93.9 ms ------- John Fraizer (root) | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:root@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...
On Sun, Jun 07, 1998 at 04:37:59PM -0400, John Fraizer put this into my mailbox:
While you IRC people are out checking for SMURF amplifier networks, perhaps you should check your own:
[root@eth0-core0]:~ # ping 132.249.66.0 PING 132.249.66.0 (132.249.66.0): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 132.249.66.6: icmp_seq=0 ttl=245 time=83.0 ms 64 bytes from 132.249.66.159: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=84.3 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 132.249.66.148: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=84.8 ms (DUP!)
How interesting; I thought those were fixed. I'll get right on it. In further news, if you specifically go out and test someone's network, how about sending them private e-mail? It's only polite, you know. I had 300 networks to notify; you had one. Significantly easier. -dalvenjah -- Dalvenjah FoxFire (aka Sven Nielsen) "You knew the job was dangerous when Founder, the DALnet IRC Network you took it, Fred!" - Super Chicken e-mail: dalvenjah@dal.net WWW: http://www.dal.net/~dalvenjah/ whois: SN90 Try DALnet! http://www.dal.net/
participants (2)
-
Dalvenjah FoxFire
-
John Fraizer