SMURF amplifier block list
Jay R. Ashworth
jra at scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
Mon Apr 20 00:39:41 UTC 1998
On Sat, Apr 18, 1998 at 12:39:29PM -0500, Dan Boehlke wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Alex P. Rudnev wrote:
> > Why don't use the filter
> > deny icmp any 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 echo-request
> > on the incoming lines? It just block 99.999% of this smurf amplifiers;
> > and I hardly think someone eve sence this restriction for the real PING
> > tests.
> What about people who didn't subnet their class B on the eight bit
> boundry, but made larger subnets instead? What about the class B that
> doesn't appear to be subnetted at all? What about supernetted class C
> networks? A trailing .255 can be a valid host.
Yes, Dan, but any potential smurf-_amplifier_ who might need to do this
_knows_ this about _their own network_, and can adjust accordingly.
Jay R. Ashworth jra at baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby,
Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
More information about the NANOG