smurf... still?

Sun Feb 8 23:08:32 UTC 1998

Dear Daniel,

Sorry that I have mislead you to the Hookup.

As you might know already, Hookup went backrupt a few months ago.
And all what they had is NOW break into a few company's.

I believe this might give you "real" start.

According to nslookup, "hookup.net" is currently upated by
hookup.net      nameserver = ns1.nbc.netcom.ca
hookup.net      nameserver = ns2.nbc.netcom.ca

So, I lookup whois data base for netcom.ca.
I got
[No name] (NS18559-HST)

   Hostname: NS1.NBC.NETCOM.CA
   Address: 207.181.89.2
   System: ? running ?

   Coordinator:
      Bignell, Graham  (BG54-ORG)  netcom at THE.ENTIRE.NET
      416 341 5776
Fax- - - 416 341 5725

   Record last updated on 21-Jan-97.
   Database last updated on 8-Feb-98 04:14:24 EDT.

So, I think this might be a good start.

I should have looked further before informed you.

regards,

tatsuya

------------------------------------------------

= = = = = =
電話 03-3239-0607 fax 03-3239-2609
business network telecom
http://www.giganet.net

On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Daniel Reed wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Tatsuya Kawasaki wrote:
> ) On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Craig A. Huegen wrote:
> ) > On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Tatsuya Kawasaki wrote:
> ) > mskucher is no longer with hookup; and, in fact, hookup has filed for
> ) > bankruptcy, last I heard.
> ) Daniel,
> ) if you need information about upper provider or the letter
> ) mskucher sent, please let me know.  I think he also  CC to nanog, too.
> Welp, I've waited until now, and just tried again:
> 
> root at narnia:~# ping -c2 165.154.1.255
> PING 165.154.1.255 (165.154.1.255): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 165.154.125.53: icmp_seq=0 ttl=243 time=365.8 ms
> 64 bytes from 165.154.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=459.9 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 165.154.1.7: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=462.0 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 127.0.0.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=463.8 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 165.154.1.66: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=466.9 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 165.154.1.57: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=496.9 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 165.154.1.4: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=506.9 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 165.154.1.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=537.0 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 165.154.1.26: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=556.9 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 165.154.1.21: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=576.7 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 165.154.1.26: icmp_seq=1 ttl=242 time=288.5 ms
> 
> --- 165.154.1.255 ping statistics ---
> 2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, +10 duplicates, 0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max = 288.5/477.3/576.7 ms
> root at narnia:~#
> 
> I originally contacted registry at hookup.net (as per the output from whois
> 165.154), but it appears they haven't fixed the problem. I'm unsure where
> to go from here (should I contact Netcom, do you think?), but there was
> only two networks listed in that smurf.c derivative that were susceptable
> to being used in a smurf attack anyway, so I'm not really sure it's
> entirely worthwhile persuing those two contacts.
> 
> --
> Daniel Reed <n at narnia.n.ml.org> (3CE060DD)
> System administrator of narnia.n.ml.org (narnia.mhv.net [199.0.0.118])
> recursive (adj.) - See recursive.
> 
> 