BCP38 dismissal

Thu Sep 4 17:05:16 UTC 2008

On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:

> Count you which way?  You seem to agree with me.  Everyone should be  
> doing both, not discounting BCP38 because they aren't seeing an  
> attack right now.

No one sees attacks that BCP38 would stop?

Wow, I thought things like the Kaminsky bug were big news.  I guess  
all that was for nothing?

(Yes, I am being sarcastic.  Anyone who thinks attacks which BCP 38  
would stop are not happening in the wild is .. I believe the phrase  
used was "confused and misinformed".)

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Sep 4, 2008, at 9:50 AM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
>> Count me in.
>>
>> There is no reason to limit our defenses to the one thing that we
>> think is important at one instance in time... attackers change and
>> adapt and multimodal defense is simply good policy.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Jo Rhett  
>> <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, James Jun wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Indeed... In today's internet, protecting your own box (cp- 
>>>> policer/control
>>>> plane filtering) is far more important IMO than implementing  
>>>> BCP38 when
>>>> much
>>>> of attack traffic comes from legitimate IP sources anyway (see  
>>>> botnets).
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but nonsense statements such as these burn the blood.   
>>> Sure, yes,
>>> protecting yourself is so much more important than protecting  
>>> anyone else.
>>>
>>> Anyone else want to stand up and join the "I am an asshole" club?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jo Rhett
>>> Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open  
>>> source and
>>> other randomness
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
> and other randomness
>
>
>