"Defensive" BGP hijacking?

Mel Beckman mel at beckman.org
Mon Sep 12 16:09:16 UTC 2016


Once we let providers cross the line from legal to illegal actions, we're no better than the crooks, and the Internet will descend into lawless chaos. BackConnect's illicit action undoubtedly injured innocent parties, so it's not self defense, any more than shooting wildly into a crowd to stop an attacker would be self defense. 

This thoughtless action requires a response from the community, and an apology from BackConnect. 

If we can't police ourselves, someone we don't like will do it for us. 

 -mel beckman

> On Sep 12, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Ryan, Spencer <sryan at arbor.net> wrote:
> 
> I'm in the "never acceptable" camp. Filtering routes/peers? Sure. Disconnecting one of your own customers to stop an attack originating from them? Sure. Hijacking an AS you have no permission to control? No.
> 
> 
> Obviously my views and not of my employer.
> 
> Spencer Ryan | Senior Systems Administrator | sryan at arbor.net<mailto:sryan at arbor.net>
> Arbor Networks
> +1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
> www.arbornetworks.com<http://www.arbornetworks.com/>
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> on behalf of Blake Hudson <blake at ispn.net>
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 11:24:03 AM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?
> 
> 
> Hugo Slabbert wrote on 9/11/2016 3:54 PM:
>> Hopefully this is operational enough, though obviously leaning more towards the policy side of things:
>> 
>> What does nanog think about a DDoS scrubber hijacking a network "for defensive purposes"?
>> 
>> http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/alleged-vdos-proprietors-arrested-in-israel/
>> 
>> "For about six hours, we were seeing attacks of more than 200 Gbps hitting us,” Townsend explained. “What we were doing was for defensive purposes. We were simply trying to get them to stop and to gather as much information as possible about the botnet they were using and report that to the proper authorities.”
>> 
> 
> 
> https://bgpstream.com/event/54711
> 
> My suggestion is that BackConnect/Bryant Townsend should have their ASN
> revoked for fraudulently announcing another organization's address
> space. They are not law enforcement, they did not have a warrant or
> judicial oversight, they were not in immediate mortal peril, etc, etc.


More information about the NANOG mailing list