question about per. hack

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
>
>
>