nanog mail looping.
Forrest W. Christian
forrestc at iMach.com
Sat Aug 24 18:27:56 UTC 1996
It looks like we've got a nanog mail loop going on here. Haven't seen
one of these in quite a while.
In any case, I have included the full headers below, and cc'd the
relevant postmasters at (apparently) netscape and mcom.com
-forrestc at imach.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Return-Path: owner-nanog at merit.edu
Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [126.96.36.199]) by IMgate.iMach.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA20161 for <forrestc at imach.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 21:03:03 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon at localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id WAA25979; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:37:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:37:15 -0400
Received: (from daemon at localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) id WAA25965 for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:37:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from littlewing.mcom.com (h-205-217-255-33.netscape.com [188.8.131.52]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id WAA25960 for <nanog at merit.edu>; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:37:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from root at localhost) by littlewing.mcom.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA11467; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 19:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maleman.mcom.com (maleman.mcom.com [184.108.40.206]) by tera.mcom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA10758 for <mcom.list.nanog at tera.mcom.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:36:06 -0700
Received: from ns.netscape.com (ns.netscape.com.mcom.com [220.127.116.11]) by maleman.mcom.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA05229 for <list-nanog at netscape.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:32:52 -0700
Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [18.104.22.168]) by ns.netscape.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA27127 for <list-nanog at netscape.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon at localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id BAA02728; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 01:26:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 23 Aug 1996 01:25:34 -0400
Received: (from daemon at localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) id BAA02706 for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 01:25:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from gw.quake.net (gw.quake.net [22.214.171.124]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id BAA02701 for <nanog at merit.edu>; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 01:25:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from quest.quake.net (avg at l24.ip.Quake.Net [126.96.36.199]) by gw.quake.net (8.7.4/8.7.4) with ESMTP id WAA02853; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from avg at localhost) by quest.quake.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id WAA02453; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:22:03 -0700
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:22:03 -0700
From: Vadim Antonov <avg at quake.net>
Message-Id: <199608230522.WAA02453 at quest.quake.net>
To: curtis at ans.net, nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: Access to the Internic Blocked
Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu
Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> Not at all. LSRR is a nice tool to mount practically untraceable
> flooding attack (hint -- just forge source address and spread
> intermediate points evenly across the network). Shutting you
> down may be exactly what the attacker wants.
>Oh come on. Like they're not going to get caught stuffing an entire
>T1 with LSRR packets. Face it. You're grabbing at straws.
Ugh. To kill multiple DS-3s you don't even need a full T-1
(you need one LS address for every loop), and you can kill multiple
DS-3s and an IXP to boot, with the single stream of bogons routed
in a loop with many hops. And there's a lot of big name Us with
DS-3 connectivity and no security whatsoever.
Now, throw in randomized first hop and forged source address,
and i'll wish you good luck catching the perpetrator. A careful
attacker would also randomize destinations and make it to look like
regular TCP traffic.
(And did anybody think of IP stacks which reverse the source
routes, just to make things funnier).
>Besides the fact that with your suggestion of traceroute using ICMP
>echo requests they'd just send a T1s worth of ICMP echo requests with
>LSRR and accomplish the same thing.
Ok, with only one intermediate point allowed. _That_ should
take care of all diagnostic needs.
>LSRR is just too useful for diagnosing network problems to shut down
>on a backbone.
I sometimes wonder if the threat of hackers is exaggregated.
They certainly missed a nice opportunity to crash the Internet
with TCP resets on iBGPs. Now nobody cares about the creative
potential of LSRR-anonymized denial of service attacks. They
must be stupid or something.
Should i write a backbone-crasher and post it to USENET just to
make a point about LSRRs? Note that a provider which won't
shut LSRR will be the threat to others...
More information about the NANOG