RE: Cisco vulnerability and dangerous filtering techniques
How many thousands of "polls" do you think a looking glass can handle simultaneously? I am all for the doomsday scenarios, but lets make them a little bit less sci-fi, shall we? How about "it would create valid looking OSPF packets with garbage in them?" or "create valid looking STP packets"
It was just a suggestion. I don't think it's plausible on a wide scale, but only a few queries would be needed to get an overview of the topology. Originally I was thinking traceroutes. It's not going to be exact, but it's going to glean enough information to cause more damage than without that info. If you were doing some sort of p2p, each host would simply need to perform many random traceroutes and correlate their data. The devices that appeared most often in that data would obviously be backbone routers, and the attack would start with those and work to the least frequent (with specific emphasis on the hops that were seen from the local trojan/worm/etc). Like I said, it's not going to be perfect, but it is better than blindly spewing out evil packets. Jay
-- On Tuesday, July 22, 2003 16:55 -0500 -- "Austad, Jay" <JAustad@temgweb.com> supposedly wrote:
Like I said, it's not going to be perfect, but it is better than blindly spewing out evil packets.
Let's all hope they keep to "blindly spewing out evil packets". -- TTFN, patrick
Like I said, it's not going to be perfect, but it is better than blindly spewing out evil packets.
Between me and you, ospf packets or bad stp packets are a lot more dangerous than the whack a cisco router. Just try it. Alex
Another argument for OSPF authentication it seems. However we are still out of luck in the STP announcements unless you configure all the neat little *guard features (bpdu,root etc) from Cisco et al. On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 12:34 PM, alex@yuriev.com wrote:
Like I said, it's not going to be perfect, but it is better than blindly spewing out evil packets.
Between me and you, ospf packets or bad stp packets are a lot more dangerous than the whack a cisco router. Just try it.
Alex
participants (4)
-
alex@yuriev.com
-
Austad, Jay
-
Patrick W. Gilmore
-
Scott McGrath