filtering whitehouse.gov?

Sat Jul 21 23:29:51 UTC 2001

On 22-Jul-2001, Andreas Plesner Jacobsen - Tiscali wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 03:43:48PM -0700, Jon O . wrote:
> 
> > > A couple of days ago I mentioned here that I have nullrouted the IP which
> > > whitehouse.gov resolves to. After that I received some mail in private
> > > mentioning not only the fact that I filtered the wrong IP (that's fixt
> > > now) but also the dangers of posting about such a thing here. "Hey, he
> > > nullroutes them, let's do it too!".
> > > 
> > I understand your need to do something like this, but you are 
> > essentially causing the worm to fulfill it's goal and
> > censoring your customers. I worried that many people would do this. 
> 
> No, since it is known that the provider hosting www1 and
> www2.whitehouse.gov has already blackholed www1, and www.whitehouse.gov
> only resolves to www2 now.
> And then there's the big difference between operational stability and
> poltical stability, of which operational is the primary concern to me at
> least.

Yes, because your fix is for this worm and luckily it only attacks www1. 
The next one might not be so benign and blackholing routes is not the 
answer. Also, it makes it harder to ID infected hosts so you can fix them.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20010721/aee6c226/attachment.sig>