question about per. hack
MFS
michael at dook.org
Tue Jul 22 12:31:23 UTC 1997
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, George Herbert wrote:
>
> The damaged party in the denial-of-service attack earlier
> (InterNIC) has, undoubtedly, filed proper reports and can't
> talk about them. These investegations take time, and there's
> no reason for the Feds to work faster right now because the
> faked .per and .nic domains aren't hurting anyone and Eugene
> has stopped knocking legitimate domains down.
>
> MCI and Sprint, however, have dissapointed me. Their security
> contacts are not responding (IMHO) appropriately.
Hmm.. you might want to talk to Alternic's direct upstream (Sprint anyway):
9 sl-osd-1-s1-t1.sprintlink.net (144.228.141.38) 103 ms 103 ms 102 ms
10 sea-nile.seanet.com (199.181.164.99) 134 ms 120 ms 103 ms
11 alternic-sea.seanet.com (204.182.108.54) 112 ms 177 ms 112 ms
12 mx.alternic.net (204.94.42.1) 116 ms 114 ms 115 ms
Knowing Sprint's names assigned to their customers border interfaces, it
APPEARS that seanet is Eugene's upstream.
Michael Stevenson
>
> I have a hard time believing that Eugene still doesn't realize
> how serious this all is. And yet he's playing up press coverage
> of it at his web site, and still posting around lists apparently
> blase about it.
It is nearly unbelievable, isn't it.
>
>
> -george william herbert
> gherbert at crl.com
>
>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list