huawei
Mark Seiden
mis at seiden.com
Fri Jun 14 00:53:34 UTC 2013
On Jun 13, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
> On 06/13/2013 05:28 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Certainly everything you said is correct and at the same time is not useful
>> for the kinds traffic interception that's been implied. 20 packets of
>> random traffic capture is extraordinarily unlikely to contain anything of
>> interest and eve if you do happen to get a juicy fragment your chances of
>> getting more ate virtually nil. An effective system must either capture
>> and transmit large numbers of packets or have a command and control system
>> in order to target smaller captures against a shifting list of addresses.
>> Either of those things are very detectable. I've spent a significant
>> amount of time looking at botnet traffic which has the same kind of
>> requirements.
>>
>
> I think you're having a failure of imagination that anything less than
> a massive amount of information sent back to the attacker could be
> useful. I think there are lots and lots of things that could be extremely
> useful that would only require a simple message with "got here" back to the
> attacker if the "got here" condition was sufficiently interesting. Spying doesn't
> have the same motivations as typical botnets for illicit commerce.
>
> Mike
>
and even botnets for illicit commerce may only be interested something that
is small and may not change very often so will not need regular exflitration...
e.g. on a server,
the current password of a user who can sudo
or a few private keys
More information about the NANOG
mailing list