Smurf attack on AS9126
Neil J. McRae
neil at COLT.NET
Fri May 14 09:32:33 UTC 1999
On Fri, 14 May 1999 11:17:05 +0200 (MET DST)
Jens Schweikhardt <schweikh at noc.dfn.de> wrote:
> A little less detail would have been appropriate, IMHO.
In something like this less detail means that nobody does anything,
sad but true. I used nanog as it seems to be the only way to talk
to alot of ISPs easily and seemed relevant to the theme of that
mailing list. If you have a problem with the archiving of lists
I'm sure we can donate you a disk drive and 3 lines of perl
to filter out long email messages. If you don't want to recieve
this type of message, then unsubscribe is your friend, there
will always be people attacking networks and we will always have
to work together on issues like this. No I don't like it either
but its the way it is. I actually intended to write a script to get
the AS path of the offending packets and post that also so I
guess in the end you got your wish and I did post a little less detail.
I'll put up a url next time but doing that impacts on the response
that one gets to this type of message.
More information about the NANOG