Huge smurf attack

Jeremiah Kristal jeremiah at fs.IConNet.NET
Mon Jan 11 15:11:48 UTC 1999

On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Phil Howard wrote:

> Brandon Ross wrote:
> >
> I find it slightly interesting that some private addresses were in the
> list.  There were some addresses in 10/8, 172.16/12, and 192.168/16.
> Thus the source of the attack must have had some addresses in these
> private network ranges reachable somehow, either internally in the
> network the attacker(s) originate, or routes leaking onto the internet.
> If the former, that would mean they had the capacity from that internal
> network to carry the forged echo requests as well as those private
> sourced echo replies.

I find it even more interesting how often I see showing up
in smurf logs.  Is there some equipment that defaults to this network,
some manual that uses this as an example, or is there a specific LAN that
gets hit on every major smurf attack?  If it's really one network, you
would think we could find and provide clue to the operator(s).


More information about the NANOG mailing list